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 : Son of SAN - Storage Networking Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas Nordgren who wrote (1741)	1/22/2000 10:41:00 PM
From: Greg Hull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4808

Douglas, Thanks very much for the IB report. I love reading your accounts of the action. Say, you know there is some pundit with a similar gift for the language who writes a monthly technology report and charges $295 annually. Are you going to begin to charge us for your insights, too? Greg

To: Douglas Nordgren who wrote (1741)	1/23/2000 3:58:00 PM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4808

RE: Server I/O 2000: Tsunami Alert Douglas - many thanks for the outstanding report. I had a few quick observations: "Justin Rattner of Intel gave FC five years, the others thought FC should have a healthy market for the next ten years. By then FC could be another lingering legacy from the last century, or a horse of a different stripe." It is always interesting to look at rhetorical comments. I guess the difference that I see in this case is that FC is going to be linked to yottabytes of data on magnetic storage that is going to continue to be important. Not that we are culturally used to having all of our important and personal data available to us on line - will we be satisfied scrapping it after 5 or ten years. What will happen to all that stored data layered by the interconnect speeds in server farms? The futurist tells us that there will be all optical storage and networks to get at this, but it seems less clear to me. From a political standpoint FC was easier to kill in the LAN than the SAN. "Andy Bechtolsheim from Cisco turned a few heads when his presentation depicted embedded IP and 100Gb Ethernet as an interconnect for IB and Storage Area Networks. I wonder if he and George Gilder are drinking buddies. Justin Rattner of Intel replied that 100Gb and IP was fine at the edge and beyond, but they had no place as an IB transport." Sounds like a case continuing to use the ethernet word for leverage here. We all remember how it was marched out for the GE rollout. Do you mean 10 Gbps GE rather than ethernet? I though Gilder's point was that the storage future was 10 Gbps GE + NAS? Great job, George Just a link for some notes on the rate of expansion of networked data and how it compares for example to all the words spoken by humans to date: Message 10135575 For present day comparison, external RAID vendors sold $15.4B in external RAID last year. That's a lot of gigabytes.

To: Douglas Nordgren who wrote (1741)	1/25/2000 6:23:00 AM
From: Pigboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4808

DouglaSAN, great report. didn't get to read it until today. were you a screenplay writer btw? ;-) IB or Not to IB. Seems like IB will B and it will have a profound affect on storage and server stuff for years to come. has to, bc our world is only made up of a few large gorillas. the ball starts rolling, much as it started to roll when Seagate started making FC disk drives (although never noted for that big a deal, it really was the first tell tale sign FC would be the next generation in storage infrastructure...if you don't get this, i apologize). would like to hear more from your weekdays in Monterrey? please share more if you can! Andy B and Gilder in the same pub? yeah, I think i saw those guys earlier this evening. ;-) pigboy