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 : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (9704)	3/30/2000 2:16:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

GV, >Why isn't SCSI an option for enterprise SANs? Doesn't have anywhere near the speed, scalability or reliability of Fibre Channel. Buck may have more reasons. Is EMC getting back to your buy range yet? Tony

To: GVTucker who wrote (9704)	3/30/2000 2:29:00 PM
From: buck	Respond to of 17183

SCSI by itself is limited by several factors that don't lend itself to a large-scale, enterprise SAN. - Performance: SCSI runs up to 80MB per second, but it is shared between all devices on a SCSI bus (or cable). - Addressability: SCSI can only have 15 devices on a SCSI bus, where Fibre Channel can have from 126 to 2MM+, depending on the flavor installed. - Distance: SCSI cables are limited to 25m, so peripherals can only get so far from the host platform. For a long time, this has been acceptable, but it is becoming less so, as servers have grown in size and usage. - Sharability: SCSI is terribly difficult to share amongst hosts. The potential for data integrity problems is high. - Server slot space: most administrators attach only one or two devices per SCSI bus to avoid performance hits. If you want more, you need to add SCSI cards to the server. Sooner or later you run out of PCI slots. Fibre Channel eliminates this to large extent. I hope this helps. If not, let me know what I can clarify. buck