So, personally, I think this is a big deal.
I’m on record saying – hey, I think NAS + iSCSI (and post-facto, I’ll add Object storage as I’ve become wiser, though still learning) will “win” long term (note that “win” doesn’t mean exclusively).
BTW – if you want to see the dialog/wager, you can read it here. One way or another, someone’s getting a nice bottle of wine! But.. Over the last couple years, I’ve learned a lot…
Interesting stats on FC storage target FC vs. Ethernet storage targets per year. Thank goodness EMC is an IP storage leader, that graph isn’t looking good for FC in 2009, and I bet 2010 didn’t fare better :-)

Our growth in the midrange, backup and other spaces is almost all in Ethernet-connected storage (see the Q4 FY’10 results – which were very good here).
I’ve come, over time, to understand Chuck’s perspective more clearly – and that expanded understanding is one of the reasons I think the the native FCoE software stack form intel is a big deal.
At the time of the debate, I was coming from the commercial (mid-sized customer) side of EMC where I came in via acquisition of a company that had a long history with iSCSI targets, and software initiators (so I certainly had a bias).
In that commercial market, customers have little to no existing FC infrastructure, iSCSI is a natural shared block storage choice (always coupled with NAS).
Conversely, over the last few year, I’ve meet customers with thousands of existing FC ports they are happy with, and there, it’s a different story altogether – they have considered iSCSI completely, and rejected it almost absolutely. As is often the case, perspective matters a lot.
As an aside, that Chuck/Chad public debate is a bit of an interesting archeological artifact. You can see CLEAR evidence of Chuck dragging me kicking and screaming to blog.
While I still think you’re wrong on this Chuck (iSCSI will win over FCoE by port/target count, revenue, various measures) – I respect that you’re right on another note – for a large existing FC shop, there’s little of interest in iSCSI, and they need to have a good evolutionary path to a converged 10GbE Ethernet network.
BUT – that’s why today’s announcement is a big deal. FCoE’s strength is that it enables convergence for that huge install base of FC customers. There’s a consideration when you’re buying a new host about whether you want a converged adapter. Where this becomes a no-brainer is “what if iSCSI/FCoE/NAS/LAN” is just part of the NIC (particularly if it’s LOM)? And what if the acquisition price is way lower than having separate Storage/Network infrastructure?
So – whammo, today Intel formally announces what the X520 software FCoE initiator. It looks like this:

The x520 is one of the most robust, more popular 10GbE adapters in it’s own right. You can also get it in the Intel® 82599 10 Gigabit Controller family, which may be embedded on your server MB.
EMC and Intel are VERY close partners. Since everything we ship as a product runs on Intel (we are fully invested into x86 as the winning wager over custom ASICs and other hardware), and we ourselves use their tech for much of our 10GbE stuff – it’s no surprise that these Intel software initiators are fully supported by EMC and on the E-Lab Matrix with our VNX (and previous generation) Native FCoE (and frankly all FC) targets DAY ONE.
You want iSCSI? Great. You want FCoE? Great. You want NAS? Great. You want object storage? You want it all over 10GbE as part of your converged network strategy? Great – I’m glad that EMC and Intel can help you.
Long and short – this is a big milestone into making the “what protocol do I use” a “100% moot point” at this point – the debate is over, Ethernet has won, and the only question is are you running FCoE, iSCSI, NAS, Object, or any combination thereof.
If THIS is the debate you’re having (“no it’s FC! No, it’s Ethernet!”), or someone is trying to start that debate with you – with some caveats, I’d suggest you’re talking to the wrong people.
BTW – I’m checking in to see when this will appear on the VMware HCL. Stay tuned for that update.
Recent Comments