On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Tom Mornini wrote:
16 port 1G fibre-channel brocades go for around $100. how much are the 16
port cisco gig switches?
Why do you insist on comparing used fiber channel equipment to new Gigabit?
I don't. I'm comparing used/used, as that is what I use. I am comparing
used/server-grade to used/server-grade, not consumer grade.
You can absolutely get 16 port gigabit switches for $100.
http://tinyurl.com/kyrmp
do you really run netgear in production? Find me a used 16 port
server-grade gigE switch from a reputable manufacturer for under $500.
Netgear is not a reputable manufacturer of server-grade equipment.
Same goes for Linksys. I had some rackmount linksys 8-port unmanaged gig
switches ($400/each new) in production about two years ago at one place
I worked; I'm not going to put myself through that again.
Of course, with fiber channel, you need to add in the expense of fiber
channel
HBAs as well, and those are more than gigabit ethernet HBAs as well, and many
modern motherboards have dual and even quad gigabit ports onboard at no extra
cost.
1G 64-bit PCI-X FC HBAs cost me arund $10/each, when bought used and in
quantity (qlogic qla2200)
Additionally, in a used marketplace, the price paid reflects the market's
judgement on the worth of the item in question. If used ethernet switches
did cost more than used fiber channel switches, it's because people found
them worth more.
In a rational market, yes. However, if you have consumers assuming that
'more expensive is automatically better' (and we have many) the market
quickly becomes irrational.
Also, right now used fibre is under priced because new fibre is so
redicioulously overpriced. Few of the "cheap" crowd has gotten a chance
to work on fibre-channel equipment, and the corporate crowd that does
know about fibre-channel isn't interested in the used market.
So you could say that the cost is an educational one, and you would have a
point; FC layer 1 and 2 is quite different from Ethernet layer1 and 2,
and knowlege of ethernet layer 1 and 2 is quite applicable to the
networking realm (where Ethernet will likely be the standard for some
time.)
For me this learning cost is quite a bit lower, as I have alrealdy
invested a lot in learning about the SCSI protocol, and most of that
knowledge carries over to fibre-channel.
I, for one, have no interest in going down the fiber channel road. It had
its place, and still does at the high end for those who can afford it, but
it's pretty clear that an investment in fiber channel is an investment in
the past, IMHO.
You are probably going to need to buy new infrastructure when 10G ethernet
comes out, yes. but the same can be said for 1G ethernet. I can't buy
tomarows product's today. My point is if I buy yesterday's fibre, I beat
today's ethernet, both on price and performance, if the primary costs we
are worried about are equipment costs and not training costs.
The cost is in learning fibre channel vs using existing Ethernet
knowledge; You are going to have to know ethernet either way, and it's
fairly clear that Ethernet is here to stay; wheras fibre may or may not.
For me, equipment is a large part of my operating budget, and my existing
investment in SCSI knowlege makes fibre knowledge fairly easy to obtain,
so fibre makes a lot more sense than Ethernet for storage.
If you are in an environment where training was your biggest expense, or
where you needed to use new parts, the equation is quite different.
"enterprise storage" market is quite irrational.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home