>>The one advantage that fibre channel currently gives SANs over NAS is performance. Because fibre channel is dedicated to storage, it currently offers higher speed than an NAS on an Ethernet network - since there are various other types of traffic on the network.
>Because NTAP's NAS architecture is FC based and in any case the ethernet network is not burdened by disk I/O...What is this guy thinking?
thanks for missing me, DS. but given my post, perhaps i should've stayed away a wee bit longer ... <vbg>
i'll concede that the piece is dumbed down, hence, my "plain language." for example, no mention of scalability, homo- (there's that word again!) or heterogeneity, or even cost.
>An NAS appliance is not tied to a server like SANs are because it acts like a server itself - as an appliance linked to a network by an Ethernet card.
perhaps the author was out the day they taught latin. a la the PSIX comma faux pas, that dash (-) should've been a for example (e.g.).
re: FC, i believe the author meant that it's storage-dedicated not network attached storage-based. then again, it could be my jet lag.
re: GE, i think the issue here is LAN traffic vice I/O. a quote i read the other day: "Network people learned a long time ago that 100BaseT in theory offers about 12-Mbyte-per-second throughput. But with overhead, you really only see 6 to 8 Mbytes."
feel free to bust me out where i'm off base,
-chris. |
