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: David A. Lethe who wrote (3089)	4/14/2001 3:29:54 PM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4808

Seems like the usual high tech political battle to me. The distance consideratioms seem to logically flow from the fact that IP networks are basically designed for that, but FC is clearly not. Those of us who were around for the first battle that FC lost (to GE) have seen many tables where the LAN diameter of an ATM network was described as unlimited. Why wouldn't it be? The whole telecom infrastructure is there to support it. We will obviously not see a day when it is all replaced by FC. The same consideration applies for QoS on a telecom network. With various types of traffic and various priorities, QoS is obviously needed there. I am not too sure how QoS would help in a SAN where the traffic would seem to me to be more homogeneous. I read an interesting note somewhere saying that if there was enough bandwidth for all devices on the network - circuit rather than packet switching is preferred. On the issue of security. I know about the IP based security protocols but as a practical matter - I don't know how making your SAN accessible to a broad IP network will make it more secure. With regard to both technologies having a place in the data center - this document illustrates that very well: ietf.org If you go down to the "IP fabric implementation" it occurs because there is an FC fabric, whether it is FCP or iSCSI. The only question is will the IP companies be able to crowd out the FC company high margin products by incorporating FC ports (F_Ports) in their devices or not. My bias as an investor on the SAN side is that I hope they will be able to make the transition. I appreciate your input as someone who knows more about it than me. George D.

To: David A. Lethe who wrote (3089)	4/18/2001 3:36:07 AM
From: Gus	Respond to of 4808

Sooooo.....how is MTIC, David? Product Strategist (Major Storage Vendor Company) 2) iSCSI provides for greater storage access over distance SAN over WAN was a major issue for only about 10% of ESCON SANs. Based on a study by IDC commissioned by MOKE and some other interested parties, only about 18% of the potential market for Fibre Channel SANs are expected to need this product. What does iSCSI bring to that niche market? Additionally, I think IBM's earnings tomorrow will show a resurgence of mainframe hardware sales which have gone from $2B in 1999 to $1B in 2000. If IBM's current 10-rabbits vs 100-turtles marketing campaign (and very agressive pricing) is working, the largest SANs (read: the most lucrative storage accounts and most performance-sensitive accounts) will have FICON zones, 1 Gbps FC zones, 2 Gbps FC zones, 10 Gbps FC zones, Infiniband gateways, etc. Where does iSCSI fit in?