Jump to content


Photo

Is it an end of the Era for FC SAN?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Gina

Gina

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:20 AM

The recent changes in the storage industry may be signaling the end of the SAN era. Why?

#2 Gina

Gina

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:46 AM

The problem that SAN was designed to solve, still exists, which was to replace locally attached storage. Does anybody have a say on this?

#3 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,853 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:16 AM

I'm not sure what the question is exactly...SAN still has a big market and doesn't appear to be slowing, though NAS and other solutions do nibble away at the lower end of the market.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview | @BMBeeler

#4 Linzi1980

Linzi1980

    Member

  • Member
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:47 AM

I guess the question is about FC. I'm sure that Fibre Channel is the best performing technic for building a SAN but it's also very expensive.

I don't think that FC SAN will disappear from the market, but it's meaning to the market will probably significantly decrease.

Edited by Linzi1980, 29 April 2013 - 03:02 AM.

#5 mbreitba

mbreitba

    Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 04:33 PM

FC and it's guaranteed lossless capabilities will ensure the protocol's continued acceptance and use. FCoE will probably break in and replace a lot of legacy FC implementations, but I don't see FC as a protocol going away.

#6 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,853 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:57 PM

Not going away for some time due to the install base and progression to 16, but if you were to build a new infrastructure, it would be hard to argue for FC.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview | @BMBeeler

#7 ib_dirk

ib_dirk

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 August 2015 - 06:43 PM

Not going away for some time due to the install base and progression to 16, but if you were to build a new infrastructure, it would be hard to argue for FC.

 

Really? I'm in the middle of researching and the other IT gurus I know personally claim that iscsi still doesn't have a leg to stand on. Are you implying something other than iscsi? 

 

For instance, I was looking at one SAN that had 8 gigabit iscsi ports or 2 8gig FC ports, even disregarding all traffic overhead the FC is still twice the bandwidth, 8 versus 16, right? Then you're pushing iscsi through a switch before going into your server, or are you putting 8 nics in the server just for iscsi?


#8 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:39 AM

 

Really? I'm in the middle of researching and the other IT gurus I know personally claim that iscsi still doesn't have a leg to stand on. Are you implying something other than iscsi? 

 

For instance, I was looking at one SAN that had 8 gigabit iscsi ports or 2 8gig FC ports, even disregarding all traffic overhead the FC is still twice the bandwidth, 8 versus 16, right? Then you're pushing iscsi through a switch before going into your server, or are you putting 8 nics in the server just for iscsi?

 

It really depends on where you want to focus your budget. Brian's saying that the bigger deployments of FC will always have that desired to run FC so they dont have to rip and replace to try out new things. Its known, stable and across the board very high performance. Now on the new deployments customers are getting more creative with where they spend there money or looking more towards Ethernet and FC. Not saying one is explicitly better than the other, just that right now you can be more flexible with iSCSI than you could with FC.


#9 qasdfdsaq

qasdfdsaq

    iNoob

  • Mod
  • 1,597 posts

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:41 AM

For instance, I was looking at one SAN that had 8 gigabit iscsi ports or 2 8gig FC ports, even disregarding all traffic overhead the FC is still twice the bandwidth, 8 versus 16, right? Then you're pushing iscsi through a switch before going into your server, or are you putting 8 nics in the server just for iscsi?

Even low-end SANs had multiple 10 Gigabit ethernet ports two years ago, when the post you're replying to was made. There's also Infiniband, which is considerably cheaper than FC and offers 40 gigabit interlinks.

Also:

http://packetpushers...trust-ethernet/

#10 Matt_Breitbach

Matt_Breitbach

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 August 2015 - 02:58 PM

My opinion on this is that the FC SAN (and block storage in general) as we know it will begin to fade (or at least not continue to grow at the rate we are currently seeing).  The real reason it will fade is not because it's going to be superseded by FCoE, or by NAS, or by iSCSI, but because applications will likely move to an object-storage model.  When we start referencing the documents that we save in MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and the likes as an object on an object store (either in our home or in the cloud) the need for an FC SAN diminishes.  There will still be workloads that live on an FC SAN forever due to its isolation, due to its speed, and due to its resiliency.  My cat photos, home videos, resume's, and rambling dissertations on life don't need to be stored on an FC SAN in the cloud.  They will just as happily live on object storage that has as much (or more) data resiliency as an FC SAN, but a fraction of the speed and price.  

 

I see this trend starting now, and I would expect to see a large shift in the next 8-15 years.  What does that mean to me?  FC SAN has at least two generations of releases before it's relegated to the high-performance workloads that it was originally designed to handle.  These workloads will likely include transactional databases, Email servers, and other legacy services consuming block device resources.  





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users