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 : BAY Ntwks (under House) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lerxst who wrote (3508)	1/15/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Pigboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6980

Thanks for your response, Lerxst, << I would view a fiber channel "san" as simply an evolutionary SCSI connection. FC may look, feel and smell like a network, but that doesn't make it so. Today's NFS servers have an ethernet connection into the box which then connects to a bunch of disk drives on SCSI (largely). Is the SCSI connection considered part of the "network"? Nope. I think the same is true for drives connected via FC. >> You are correct that FC is on one hand the simple evolution from SCSI. It is very different though, merely bc it can transport many protocals, such as SCSI, FC, and IP. You can preserve your old storage (SCSI), and allow the GE backbone stuff to connect right into the storage (with IP). The 'SAN' has been mentioned by many in the FC industry themselves as misleading, bc of the term 'network' actually. With Storage needs growing expodentially, largely bc of the internet, while they may not necessarily become 'networks', linking FC with switches, hubs and routers to ATM and all forms of Ethernet will be something that is not like SCSI. Being curious and not sarcastic, so please don't take this the wrong way Why do you think the private company Vixel has such large contracts with CPQ (up to 50 million -- vixel.com ) and Sun for FC hubs? Brocade has got the largest oems to date for fabric switches, and that is with SQNT (I believe they are on par for over 25 million run rate), and most of the large companies haven't chosen oem's yet. This is a LOT of money for an industry that hasn't even started, in my opinion, to take off yet. And this ain't no SCSI market...is it? << I would argue that if the SAN was to become part of the network, why not implement it with IP over Gig Enet or ATM or POS? >> I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but I believe that you are asking why FC isn't connected to GE and ATM with IP? Most FC companies are working on GE and ATM bridges, I think. I assume the ability to throw IP over FC is the main reason for this. I agree with you that FC SANs may not be 'part' of a typical LAN network, and that it might be stand alone. Storage is where FC will explode...but I just have a hard time seeing how somebody in the current networking goliaths wouldn't want to participate on a new field that has hubs and swithes and is going to explode with a lot of revenue soon. ALL IMHO pigboy