Are storage connectivity standards full of FUD?

Are storage connectivity standards full of FUD?

Summary: The world tends to see Ethernet as the way forward for pretty much every type of connectivity requirement. But is it – especially in the context of storage?

TOPICS: Networking

The world tends to see Ethernet as the way forward for pretty much every type of connectivity requirement. But is it – especially in the context of storage?

This is the debate that once -- but not perhaps so much now -- raged around the idea of Fibre Channel over Ethernet: running FC protocols over the same Ethernet cable as network data. The industry does appear to have accepted that FCoE is the way forward but, for some in the industry, the idea still doesn't make sense.

I'm probably not enough of an expert to call it either way but, during my couple of days at Storage Network World in Frankfurt this week, I've heard some compelling arguments for each position.

Those in favour of the idea of Ethernet everywhere play the familiarity card, citing the success of the technology not just in networking but also in wireless, the wide area network and other places. They also say -- and this is a powerful argument since half the data-carrying cables connect to storage -- that customers are are calling for simplification of the cable plant in their datacentres, which means reducing the number of cables emanating from each rack.

On the other side is the idea that FCoE is essentially SCSI, and that the alterations that Ethernet needs to undergo in order to persuade it to conform to the needs of storage means that, although the cable might be Cat6, what's traversing it isn't Ethernet. And that anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's Ethernet or not in this context.

Behind the naysayers' words is also a belief that one large -- make that very large -- networking vendor dreamed up the idea of FCoE in order to create a bottleneck in the standards committees because its own technology simply wasn't ready at the point that storage vendors were ready to move FC forward.

Far be for me to accuse Cisco (oops) of sandbagging: I'm sure the company is far too honourable to play so underhand a trick. But could it be that this is actually what happened? Is FCoE really the answer to the need for a single cable? And does it matter now anyway?

What do you think?

Topic: Networking

Manek Dubash

About Manek Dubash

Editor, journalist, analyst, presenter and blogger.

As well as blogging and writing news & features here on ZDNet, I work as a cloud analyst with STL Partners, and write for a number of other news and feature sites.

I also provide research and analysis services, video and audio production, white papers, event photography, voiceovers, event moderation, you name it...

Back story
An IT journalist for 25+ years, I worked for Ziff-Davis UK for almost 10 years on PC Magazine, reaching editor-in-chief. Before that, I worked for a number of other business & technology publications and was published in national and international titles.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Are storage connectivity standards full of FUD?

    We heard Micheal Dell recently joke about the great new standard to simplify data centre management - "Ethernet over Ethernet". But beyond that, isn't it about whether you want to do more of your network and traffic management on your servers or in your switches?
    Simon Bisson and Mary Branscombe
  • Are storage connectivity standards full of FUD?

    It could well be about the nexus for traffic management -- but given that no-one is suggesting that FCoE is about to take the data centre by storm since it's not a technology that is prompting rip-and-replace projects, but that, rather, it will take ten years to filter into mainstream operations, I'd guess that no-one wants to take a punt on where those standards and technologies will be in five to ten years' time...
    Manek Dubash