(I REALLY didn't mean this post to get THIS long.. sorry all)
You know you actually sound somewhat even minded and reasonable. You've shared some of your interesting perspective, and I feel ok to respond with some of my own. (I apologize beforehand if this isn't useful..)
>Does SANbox eliminate all of most of the shortcomings you and Keylabs have identified?
This is THE question actually. How much of an improvement does the SANbox make over the MKII series? What most on the Ancor chat boards REFUSE to realize is how inferior the Ancor switch has historically been. The typical stance is that Ancor has always had the better technology and that Brocade is basically where they are, because they are a bunch of liars. (Read the posts here and over at Yahoo, and on balance this point of view will be supported..)(BTW this is my opinion, but I don't think Brocade REALLY cares about the answer to what kind of improvements are made in the SANbox. There's a lot to improve, so I'm sure they're curious. But their lead is extensive, why would they care?..)
My own personal favorite of course is the ..ahem.. misrepresentations that Ancor continually makes in regards to others (of course this means Brocade) relative to the "superiority" of Ancor's connected switches. Supposedly Ancor switches "mesh" together better than anyone else's (read Brocade's). People keep saying that even today. One interesting "misrepresentation" exists to this day if you visit the Ancor web page at;
ancor.com
You'll see a reference like the following;
"Multi-staged (Ancor exclusive: Highest performance, lowest cost-per-gigabit, highest resiliency, ideal for larger installations and/or tape drives)"
This would probably lead the casual reader to believe that only Ancor switches can be connected in the topology depicted. (Many Ancorites still believe this). However this is patently false. (You'll see this topology used in an example in the Keylabs report where both the Brocade and Vixel switches can be configured in this way) Now it isn't until you read further in their "technical" report at;
ancor.com
You see that what Ancor describes as "exclusive" is actually something called a "cross-connect" chassis. For example;
"Ancor's exclusive multi-stage cross-connect architecture offers the following benefits.."
I mean even in THAT statement, it is still unclear as to what Ancor is referring to as "EXCLUSIVE" to them. However, we will be generous and simply state that the exclusive "feature" is the Ancor "cross-connect architecture". This is in fact true. Ancor is the only switch platform that provides (forces?) a cross-connect chassis configuration. (It basically means you manually configure a switch to support ONLY switch to switch links, referred to as ISLs). BTW this doesn't mean that data moves ANY faster between switches even though the notion of calling it a cross-connect "CHASSIS" may lead one to believe so. It doesn't do anything special in "meshing" the switches together, or anything of the kind. It only means that a "cross-connect" switch can ONLY connect switches to each other.. That's it. (As a matter of fact the reason for it's being isn't really all that clear until you begin to look at the topologies and think about data routing..)
The problem is that far from this being some fantastic feature, it is a GLARING admission that the routing used in the MKII series of switches, is very ..umm.. "simple". Their 2-stage configuration requires that all node devices be no farther than 1 hop away, and their 3-stage config require a manual "hard set" of a switch to cross-connect, to pass data with a guaranteed MAXIMUM two hop count for any node to any node. They act like this is something great for end users, the reality to me is that it's a limitation of their routing setup. They even have different FC addresses for their I/OT switches and their cross-connect switches. (probably simplifies the routing further)
Now what kind of benefit is that? You force the end user to conform to your simple routing limitations? What a product?! It's not my idea of a scalable NETWORK product. Brocade on the other hand RECOMMENDS that you keep devices no more than 7 hops away from each other because most SCSI end nodes can't hack the delay for that long this early in the SAN marketplace. Not because the architecture doesn't support it. There aren't any limitations of the Brocade product, that forces end users to do what Ancor's end users HAVE to do. It's freaking NIGHT and DAY.. THAT'S just ONE difference between the Brocade and Ancor approaches. (Brocade has mature excellent routing, Ancor has ...well.. end user limitations..) Superior meshing my a$$.. Which approach do YOU think has more scalable headroom..?
Another thing that's beautiful about Ancor's meshing is that while you are forced to allocate extra links between switches no matter how you configure Ancor switches, data only passes along 1 active link, even if you have 3 other identical links between the EXACT same switches. Something ANYONE can read by simply reading the Ancor Multistage manual.. There are two other great quotes from this document. The first one is the following;
"Greatest expandability (Up to 3072 ports, 100% non-blocking fabrics to 2048 ports)"
Now any Ancor SE will tell you that the GigWorks switches can only be connected into a maximum mesh of 20 switches (16 port) and provide a maximum of 192 available I/OT ports (node ports.. BTW did anyone notice we LOST 128 ports in this config?? (16x20)-192.. you expect to lose some ports to meshing but THAT many..?). Anyway, where in the world can you build a single mesh of 3072 ports? A great DD type of question to ask. And all of the rabid Ancorites claim Brocade is doing nothing but lying.. sheesh.. Of course Ancor is off of the hook because of my last favorite quote here (notice the last sentence in particular);
"Notice: This document is for informational purposes only, and does not set forth any warranty, express or implied, concerning equipment, features, or services to be offered by Ancor now or in the future. Ancor reserves the right to make changes to this document at any time, without notice, and assumes no responsibility for its use. Features described may not be currently available."
umm.. yes.. well.. of course..
In case anyone actually has the stones to ask Ancor where someone can build a 3072 port Ancor fabric, I bet you will be directed to Ancor's Class 1 quarter speed product, the inimitable 64 port FCS-266. You should then ask if it's still being sold. And then tell them you want to connect servers and storage devices to this network, and let us know what they tell you...
The Keylabs report accurately depicts (regardless of who paid for the tests.. Read ALL of page 104 of the report..) the significant differences between Brocade's approach and Ancor's approach. Finally the truth is coming out, and MANY people posting their "EXPERT" FC technological opinions among the boards who support Ancor, DON'T like it..
BTW, simply addressing identified issues with the Ancor switch will not grant Ancor a "pass" to the front of the class. If you really analyze the Keylabs report, the individual user manuals, and information from their respective websites (whitepapers etc.), and perhaps speak to engineers who have installed both switches, you can see that the differences between the switches are significant. So how much do you think they DID FIX in SANbox? (Maybe you think they didn't really have anything TO fix..)
Now I've gone on and on AGAIN.. (Someone really should stop me..) And I didn't address two other things you brought up. One. WHY OH WHY did ALL of those other OEMs choose Ancor over Brocade? Didn't they technically evaluate these switches?? The answer to that question is rhetorically "of course". However, this presupposes (very naively as a matter of fact), that every OEM chose their final switch product for technical superiority reasons ALONE. Maybe.. Maybe.. However it could be something else.. (actually plenty of something else)
For example if MTIC chose Ancor not because of technical superiority but instead because of price, or cronyism, or warrants, or whatever. What do you think sounds like the "right" answer in a concall? "We chose Ancor because they didn't have the best technology but they had the best price point?" MANY other parameters can be used for these types of OEM decisions (ask any OEM salesrep). And certainly many of THOSE will probably never become public knowledge. It's stupid for any investor to let an OEM's decision be their sole bar for excellence of a product. You don't see most Brocade advocates stating all of their OEM wins as sole reason for their product's excellence.. My reading is that only the Ancorites want to stack up OEMs and see who can pee farther (or whatever..).
>Like I said, you posed the question correctly, but neither you nor I know where things will stand in six months, dowe? Perhaps both products will work well.
Hear, hear. VERY well said, and I agree. I don't even attempt to guess what will be in 6 months (or even tomorrow).
>Does Ancor bash Brocade to the same degree as Brocade bashes Ancor?
My opinion is that your perception is wrong relative to who is bashing who. (I have the impression you have come in halfway through this argument.) Again this is simple enough to verify if you can spend a night or two reading the past postings in the Ancor thread on SI, and on Yahoo. You can clearly see that some Ancorites, WHEN they bash anyone, have typically "bashed" the Brocade, approach, switch, and company (and by extension anyone stating anything positive about Brocade). CONTINUALLY. (No joke). BTW even THAT'S ok. I mean "all's fair..etc.." For me it was when some started to claim these fantastical technological claims that I simply decided to jump in and debate the point. (at first innocently enough. Now it's turned into something on par with "As the World Turns..")
So it isn't until some of us decided to say that the Ancor switch wasn't all THAT great, that the most vocal Ancorites decided to basically unload on us. What you are seeing is definitely a response, not an offense. Again something well supported in the record of posts. I've basically responded to posts that I've felt were in error, but I even do that less and less. The attacks come more and more. I've adopted a stance that I'll stay out of Ancor's boards, and if someone wants me.. well they know where to find me.. However, MY PREFERENCE has always been for informed POLITE debate. (with an emphasis on the polite side..) But as you have seen.. I'm no shrinking violet. So when put upon, I respond in kind.. That's what we have here.. (whew.. and with that I'm outta here..) |
