From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: brantleycoile@me.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:45:52 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 14, Issue 63 In-Reply-To: References: <201701161600.v0GG00XA080461@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <20170116164421.GJ6647@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: Beware of SCSI folks who think they can design data network protocols. Brantley coraid.com > On Jan 16, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > > Less than ten years ago I wrote a big rant at people where I worked about fibre channel: all our machines had two entirely different networks attached to them: one built on ethernet which was at that point all Gb on new machines and 10Gb on some (I don't think that 10Gb switches were really available yet though) & where you could stuff a machine with interfaces for the cost of a good meal, and where everything just talked to everything else ... and one built on fibre channel which might have been 2Gb, where an interface cost as much as a car, and where interoperability involved weeks pissing around with firmware in the cards, and sometimes just buying new ones. Fibre channel was just laughably worse than ethernet. > > No one listened, of course, because my political skills are akin to those of a goat, and fibre channel is *storage* which is completely different than networking, somehow. > > Perhaps people still use fibre channel. > >> On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:44, Larry McVoy wrote: >> >> I held up the two cards, disclosed the cost, and said "this ATM card is >> always going to be expensive but the ethernet card is gonna be $10 in >> a year or two. Why? Volume. Every computer has ethernet, it's gonna >> do nothing but get cheaper. And you're gonna see ethernet over fiber, >> long haul, you're going to see 100 Mbit, gigabit ethernet, and it's >> going to be cheap. ATM is going nowhere." >