Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pigboy who wrote (92790)	11/18/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: Mike Morley	Respond to of 186894

OT " I've come in here every now and then and touted Fibre Channel. etc... have opinions on this stuff? " I'll try. He certainly makes some valid points re: Fibre. The management of a fabric is in its infancy. Point to point and loop solutions are getting pretty common, though. NAS has it's primary place in file systems, and SAN seems primary in databases. A key point he does not include is that even 10 gig ethernet is still only IP, whereas the Fibre protocol does SCSI protocol, IP, and will do VI. So a "dumb" disk array on IP won't work as the storage for a database. So I see both having big roles going forward. They just serve different requirements. Back on topic. Either way, you need lots of Intel CPU power to make it all work. Mike

To: Pigboy who wrote (92790)	11/18/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Pigboy - Re: "I wonder if you or Tony or Amy, Ibexx, etc... have opinions on this stuff? " I have no opinion - or expertise - to offer on Fibre Channel. Paul

To: Pigboy who wrote (92790)	11/18/1999 8:15:00 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "I wonder if you or Tony or Amy, Ibexx, etc... have opinions on this stuff?" Hi Pigboy, he's smart and he carries a particular set of beliefs and has a reputable track record. Gilder loves Ethernet. And, I agree IP will dominate and 10 gigabit Ethernet will make big waves, and certain standards and technologies will be deployed to do some of the kind of things he alludes to. But he's a visionary person, not necessarily an implementer, and in this case, the devil is in the details. So, I disagree with the timing and over simplification. Like a great visionary, he talks as if it (his counter proposal) is all solved and deployed. And I can say it's not. But that's where opportunity is - he glosses over some as if they've already happened (when they're just beginning) and he dismisses others (like FC). But I concur with his big picture analysis - IP will rule - and that's where most of the opportunity is. But your question was about the different storage mechanisms, can't say I know, I'm not a storage expert, but I'll make a guess (and the rest of my post is only a guess): It appears the tremendous IP growth could play a positive influence in the growth of NAS - I wonder if prospects first ask about NAS storage before SAN regardless of the merits of SAN? If they dig into the details, certain users could use SANs - like TV stations. I have no bias for or against FC, but I tend to view FC as a way to connect storage drives together in a high-speed manner and I sort of get this ATM-niche-kind-of-feeling, but I don't have an opinion yet. On another point, he dismisses FC because he talks as if FC is going completely against the IP curve. When in fact, as Television Broadcast migrates to IP-broadcast, there will be an increasing need for storage handling, some of which SAN on FC could handle. So, contrary to what he indicates, the IP curve could possibly help indirectly fuel the need for SAN storage on FC. I believe their could be a niche for FC, e.g. TV stations with a whole farm of video disks will use FC to connect these. Intel is using FC & SANs with their Server Farms, which appears to be an appropriate niche. I can't speak for Intel since I am not affiliated with the company, however, it's my belief Intel advocates nearly anything which consumes chips, which implies (to me) both could be fair game depending upon the needs. Since I'm not an expert on Storage, I really can't provide any insights. Amy J

To: Pigboy who wrote (92790)	11/19/1999 9:53:00 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Pigboy, OFF TOPIC RE STORAGE AND FIBRE CHANNEL, I'm not a storage expert either but have been "all around it, or it's been all around me" for a number of years. A couple of things come to mind when reading Gilder's gloomy outlook for FC and SANs. The first is security. Banks, insurance companies, government, most everybody consider their data as their most important commodity, well, hopefully after people. I don't see all storage of critical data going out to hang on ethernets as a very secure situation. Big companies have terabytes or petabytes of high security data that they will continue to want in more traditional SANs that can't be tapped into easily at all. The second is RAS. Same problem with NASs. You won't get your five 9's with them as you will with SANs and high RAS servers. Hey, on the network, if a request gets lost, it's like, big deal, let them try it again. On dedicated SANs, no way Jose do you ever give up on an I/O request. Exaggeration but not too much. If you want to read from some real experts, check out EMC's home page. They talk about both SANs and NASs, are into both, are definitely not giving up on the former. Also, there is a storage expert on the SI EMC thread you could ask. If you can't tell who it is, PM me. Tony