Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: FCoE Deployment
From: David <david () davidswafford com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:10:32 -0500

our reason btw was to cut down on cabling/switch costs, it starts to add up when you consider how many blades get eated 
by 1gb copper.  going to DL580s amd a few hp chassis.  A chassis used to eat nearly 64 copper 1gb and 32 fiber channel 
connections.  on FCoE/CNAs, we're literally talking 4 x 10gb cables (16 blades).  

David

Sent from an email server.

On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Pierce Lynch <p.lynch () netappliant com> wrote:

FCoE was until very recently the only way to do centralized block storage 
to the Cisco UCS server blades, so I'd imagine it's quite widely adopted.
That said, we don't run FCoE outside of the UCS <black box> - its uplinks
to the SAN are just regular FC.

Agreed, very much the only implementation I have come across FCoE installations for is Cisco UCS chassis. Personally, 
it's not something that I have seen regularly adopted as of yet outside proprietary hardware configurations such as 
UCS deployments.

Certainly also keen to understand as to any other use cases and deployments others have implemented using full-blown 
FCoE.

Kind regards,

Pierce Lynch




  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault