Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Almighty Buck Technology

Fibre Channel Over Ethernet: From Fee To Free 87

Posted by Soulskill
from the investment-dollars-well-spent dept.
alphadogg writes "With demand for Fiber Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) more sluggish than vendors had hoped, 10 Gigabit Ethernet switch and adapter makers are making it available for free. FCoE is a standard driven largely by Cisco to converge customers' data center LAN and storage fabrics with 10G Ethernet. Industry heavyweights Intel and Brocade are among those now giving away FCoE capabilities. There are several factors prompting vendors to slash FCoE prices or stop charging for it altogether, including market indifference; technological immaturity; competing alternatives, such as virtualized Fibre Channel and Ethernet I/O; the recession; and vendors looking to drive switch volumes. 'When FCoE first came out there used to be a fairly large price premium,' says Alan Weckel, director of Dell'Oro Group. 'Cisco had to give it away for free to drive switch volumes. Users were not adopting as rapidly as thought or that Cisco had hoped for.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fibre Channel Over Ethernet: From Fee To Free

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Their stock was killed last week ... down below $20. I know, I own some. They are just trying to generate business, kind of like those 'tards who are pushing 3D TV.
    • I think we are starting to see a trend....anything that people do not need to upgrade, they do not, who needs a octo core computer when surfing the web, or windows 7 when xp does the job just fine, or a regular 10/100 router, when the 10gb are available... in the end, it boils down to the computer sector was overpriced for many eyars, and now we are seeing the true value of things.....gone are the days that laptops used to sell for about 2000$ when bestbuy has trouble moving the 250$ netbooks which are twic

      • by jon3k (691256)
        woah woah lets calm down no one is trying to sell you a 10gb home router. literally no one, on earth, there isn't even a product that exists for home users thats 10gb. i was with you up until that point. shit, gigabit is still relegated to "performance" oriented home products for the most part.
  • Too late (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:23PM (#35204988)

    As network fabric bandwidth continued to increase and latency decrease, FCoE appeared to be a last ditch effort to plug the steady trickle of customers from the highly expensive FC over to the much cheaper to deploy iSCSI. I'm sure the thinking was that by making it routable and with the same semantics as existing FC installs, it could accomplish that task. However, I'm also thinking that in most situations, where there's little to distinguish between iSCSI and FCoE other than the now almost commonplace on-NIC hardware iSCSI acceleration, it's a case of too late.

    • Re:Too late (Score:5, Informative)

      by Junta (36770) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:43PM (#35205110)

      Actually, FC isn't routable. FC over *ethernet* has no ip and no provisions to span gateways. The *theory* is that FCoE has fewer layers allowing for higher performance, but it's rare for that difference to be realized in cheap ethernet fabrics (the whole point of FCo*E*) and even rarer to matter relative to storage device performance limitations. iSCSI is much easier to manage with fewer limitations and gets some nice things from being over TCP whether FCoE people will admit it or not.

      When FCoE first came to market, vendors had dollarsigns in their eyes with thoughts of extorting customers with FC pricing strategies using 'just' ethernet. You saw people trying to do per-port FC enablement licensing BS and other stuff unheard of in ethernet land.

      If FCoE is going to exist long term, it will be as a 'freebie' alternative to iSCSI or as a convenience to build large SANs without a lot of FC switches and HBAs but using existing FC enclosures.

      • by afidel (530433)
        FC is so routable, there have been FC directors with routing capabilities pretty much since there have been FC directors. That said routed FC is kind of a hack but since lossless iSCSI requires DCB which also isn't really routable to get the same reliability you end up with the same limitations with a much higher complexity and CPU cost.
        • Re:Too late (Score:4, Interesting)

          by guruevi (827432) <evi@smokingcCOFFEEube.be minus caffeine> on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:36PM (#35205470) Homepage

          I think he meant that FC is not routable as the standard IP protocol is unless you buy expensive and proprietary solutions (as you call it, a hack).

            iSCSI has the advantage of being able to sustain a packet loss while FCoE can't stand it. FCoE is thus only possible over a small fabric (eg. 1 stack of dedicated switches) while iSCSI can be mixed with other traffic without sustaining any issues. Off course, some people using iSCSI can't sustain any packet losses either (because of latency - eg. streaming video and live video editing) and don't understand that Ethernet is not built for that kind of load - network engineers don't care about packet losses and hope the transport layer will fix them, storage engineers can't have any packet losses and the transport layer relies on it.

          That being said, FCoE is similar to ATAoE, never widespread because of it's iSCSI cousin and those that ended up using it, might as well just used a true FC (or Infiniband) fabric.

          • by butlerm (3112)

            network engineers don't care about packet losses and hope the transport layer will fix them

            That is a bit of a generalization don't you think? Excessive packet loss is death to any real network, which is why there has been a lot of effort to do various forms of explicit congestion notification instead.

            On the Internet, that may be hard, but on a local network it is much easier. Some switches even have ECN marking these days, which is a far superior solution to avoiding loss through buffer bloat.

            • by GooberToo (74388)

              This is really the truth.

              Most TCP stacks have fairly complex algorithms to avoid, manage, and recover from congestion. Furthermore, with technologies such as sliding windows, TCP allows for rather good scaling once you leave the single switch. This in turn means iSCSI can better scale and intermix with other traffic without catastrophic issue. Even better, loss of frames results in increased latency rather than loss of data.

              So while iSCSI is in fact a fatter, heavier stack, that's also why there are dedicat

        • by jon3k (691256)
          CPU cost? With iSCSI off-load I'd always assumed (incorrectly?) that the difference in CPU load between FC and iSCSI was somewhere between non-existant and negligible. What about when using dedicated iSCSI "HBA" ?
          • by afidel (530433)
            iSCSI HBA's at 10Gb cost about the same as FCoE CNA's so where's the advantage?
            • by jon3k (691256)
              Massively decreased complexity and huge reduction in switching infrastructure costs?
              • by afidel (530433)
                Decreased complexity? I find iSCSI to be WAY more complex, especially if I have to go into yet another interface to configure the HBA.
      • by butlerm (3112)

        FC over *ethernet* has no ip and no provisions to span gateways

        That is why they invented TRILL [wikipedia.org]. Link state routing at layer 2.

        • by Junta (36770)

          I would have considered that just enhanced switching (it solves a lot of topology problems with large layer 2 ethernet networks, but still would have issues with broadcast in widespread deployment). I know a lot of the terminology says 'routing', but it just seems more logically close to sane enhancements to switching than routing. I recognize at some point the distinction between 'switching' and 'routing' gets blurry.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      FCoE is a L2 protocol, it's not routable. You may be thinking of FCIP. FCoE would've made more sense as an access layer technology early on if some of the supporting standards (TRILL, etc) had been ready at the same time FCoE devices started hitting the market.

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      FC is expensive, compared to what?

      Unless you're using the (mostly shit) iSCSI software initiators, you'll be using iSCSI hardware initiators on 10gbit Ethernet - which is hardly cheap.

      Do the math: to get > 1Gbit/s on your fabric-side links, you need to spend a copious amount if you're going 10gigE. Not only are the switches ungodly expensive compared to 1Gbit, but they're expensive compared to pretty much everything else - Infiniband or Fibrechannel. When it comes down to it, the biggest thing 10gig Ethe

      • by grub (11606)

        Do the math: to get > 1Gbit/s on your fabric-side links, you need to spend a copious amount if you're going 10gigE. Not only are the switches ungodly expensive compared to 1Gbit

        At work the iSCSI chassis we've been buying have 4x 1Gb ports which bind to make a 4 Gb pipe (the initiator has to be capable). Not 10GigE but much cheaper than a 10 Gb-ready switch.

        'course, if you need 10 Gbit, you need 10 Gbit but this is a nice trade-off if super-performance isn't critical.
        • Does that actually give you 4gbit throughput to any host across a single data stream, or is like most link aggregation schemes in that it just spreads concurrent sessions across multiple physical links, but each session is limited by the bandwidth of a single physical link?

          • by grub (11606)
            That's the aggregate from the iSCSI chassis to the servers. They get =>3Gb/sec easy. Jumbo frames help there. From the servers to the network it's the standard spread-the-load means across 4 gig lines. All clients are 100Mb or 1Gb, nothing faster, so it's quite zippy for them. Not 10Gb speeds but priced well.
            (standing on bus, think I got it all... ;))
            • by swb (14022)

              Sounds like the Equallogic model. I've always wondered what kind of actual bandwidth you get and how it gets spread out, I can get never get a straight answer from our Equallogic rep and the management software doesn't really give you any idea beyond simple bytecounts per physical interface.

              In most of the setups I've been around (recent model PS4000 and PS6000s) using the ESX 4.1 sofiware iSCSI initiator, we see real disk throughput top out around 60 MByte/sec in any given VM with basically no other ongoin

      • by FST777 (913657)
        The main idea is convergence: when you already have a 10GbE network, why built a second infrastructure for FC? Usually it is cheaper (and easier to get the budget) to just expand your current setup to facilitate either FCoE or iSCSI.
      • by jon3k (691256)
        Look into Arista Networks. Founded by Andy B, who founded Sun, and Granite 1Gb switches that he sold to cisco before running their gig-e switch line. You're looking at copper 10Gb ports for about $500 a piece. Optical for about $500/port and about $150, if I remember right, for 10Gb sr transceivers. Layer 2-4, runs linux kernel (fedora kernel specifically, if I recall) along with a gnu userland and will run every port at wirespeed. Plus you can get 48 10Gb ports in 1U. No one else in the industry can
        • by pyite (140350)

          Plus you can get 48 10Gb ports in 1U. No one else in the industry can touch that density

          Not entirely true. Arista has little secret sauce. They're using merchant silicon. Stay tuned for the plethora of switches about to be released based on the Broadcom Trident ASIC [broadcom.com] (64 10 GigE switch on chip, manifesting itself as either 64 10 GigE or 48 10 GigE + 4 40 GigE). Some (like Force10's [force10networks.com]) are already announced. The differentiator in 10 GigE ToR switching is quickly becoming software.

          • by jon3k (691256)
            No secret, just ask them, they'll tell you the exact vendors of their ASICs (hint: it hasn't always been Broadcom). Their whole business model is built on being able to use the best silicon available and layering the software on top of that.
          • by jon3k (691256)
            Oh, and it is entirely true - because Arista ships products _today_. So as of right now, what I said is absolutely correct. No one can touch that density. What happens tomorrow we'll see, but as of right now, Arista is king of the hill as far as sheer 10GbE density, bar none.
    • by Dadoo (899435)

      FCoE appeared to be a last ditch effort to plug the steady trickle of customers from the highly expensive FC over to the much cheaper to deploy iSCSI

      Seriously? We've experimented with iSCSI here and, in our experience, the performance leaves a lot to be desired. I have to assume that's because of the IP overhead, and I'd expect something like HyperSCSI or AoE to perform significantly better. (Why people would rather use iSCSI than something like those is beyond me.)

      We're heading in the SAS direction, instea

      • by jon3k (691256)
        What made you think it was the IP overhead? What was the configuration like? We run iSCSI in a lab and we get >920Mb/s over copper gig-e.

        What do you mean you're using SAS? Are you using DAS and then something like NFS? That doesn't make a lot of sense, SAS isn't really an alternative to a SAN.
  • by 7213 (122294) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:25PM (#35205006) Homepage

    FCoE...

    A solution in search of a problem. 10GbE ethernet is really very nice. FC (and FCoE included) have a history of poor vender interop.

    So by using FCoE you get the worst of both worlds, 10GbE with vendor lockin at the storage level....

    So... NFS anyone (or I guess iScsi)?

    Only time i've ever used FCoE was as a WAN tunnel link for asynch rep.... not seeing any other value for this anytime soon.

    • 10GbE ethernet is really very nice.

      Too bad you can't really buy it, and it's insanely expensive, with per-port costs in the hundreds of dollars range. Lots of choices for adapters (which are also insanely expensive)....but I went looking for a 10GbE switch for our small-ish server room for some of our higher bandwidth systems that easily saturate gigabit ethernet...and came up very short in terms of selection. The vast majority of the market consists of switches with 1-2 10GbE uplink ports. That's sli

      • by afidel (530433)
        Huh? I've had 10GbE in the core as long as I've been at my current employer (coming up on 5 years) and I'm seriously looking at it for all ports when my older 6509 core goes EOL. Just because cheap closet switches don't have 10Gb yet doesn't mean people aren't using it. Oh and it's coming down in price all the time, Linksys XSM7224S is a 24 port 10GbE switch with 4 uplinks for $8,700.
        • Thats $350 per port, I think he was right about "insanely expensive".

          • by afidel (530433)
            Hehehe, FC is ~$1,000 per port for both the switch and the HBA and QLogic alone shipped 1M ports last year.
          • When we are talking a t5240 or a M5000, so what? Fraction of the total cost, especial for an Oracle RAC cluster.

            Even @$1000 per port, gimme 2, I will use the bandwidth. Hell, gimme 4 on the M5000, eventually they will use it.

            Problem is for CISCO, companies that need that bandwidth are too few to drive their revenue model.

          • by inKubus (199753)

            Yeah, but equivalent to 240 ports of GbE. Or equivalent to an $870 24-port 1Gb. That's about the going rate for a decent L3 Gb switch, even HPs. And that's a lot of cables saved, lot of server NICs, etc. 10Gb is really the only way if you have dense stuff like blades or SAN nodes that can push a lot of bits. Obviously. But it's a little more expensive, but only a little. $8k is not really that much when you look at what 50 copies of windows is or *shudder* 50 new iMacs. If you're a medium-sized shop

          • That $350 doesn't include transceivers which you need at both ends.

            I would think about $4k/port is more realistic for an average install (which won't be using Linksys).

            • by jon3k (691256)
              For 10GbE?

              $367 [provantage.com] for a 10GbE port, $454 [provantage.com] optics/port, $691 Intel 10GbE NIC [cdwg.com] (dual port too)

              Total: $1,512/port

              So unless you can build out 1Gb for less than $150/port (and have enough space for 10x the ports!) then 10GbE starts looking pretty attractive. But it depends on the size of the isntall, if we start considering a core/distribution/access architecture and including all the upstream ports, etc, it could get incredibly expensive. You could also include cost to install, configure, manage, etc. Bu
            • by afidel (530433)
              sfp+ direct attach for top of rack, cables cost from $30-120 depending on the length you need.
          • by jon3k (691256)
            $350 per port is "insanely expensive" to you? Well let's see, its 10x the bandwidth of gigabit ethernet at 10x the density. So you pay LESS THAN $35 per port for gigabit?
      • by jon3k (691256)
        You think 10Gb ports at "hundreds of dollars" is expensive? I pay that much for 1Gb ports from Cisco.
    • by BitZtream (692029)

      I really can't understand why anyone would do this FCoE?

      Its a crappy protocol to start with, the only useful part of it was the fact that fiber was faster than copper at the time for any reasonable price, now thats no longer true. Fast enough copper is WAY cheaper than fiber and with none of the trouble.

      FCoE to me makes about as much sense as PPPoE, when you start talking like that you've clearly very little actual understanding of what you are doing. You can come up with some reasons as to why you might

    • by lanner (107308)

      It's ISCSI that is a great cheap SAN protocol. FC still has some use to it that ISCSI can't beat, but for most stuff, ISCSI is awesome.

      I just don't see a lot of reason to bridge the two, unless you are transitioning in a very very large environment.

      Look at Cisco's switches that try to bring FC and 10GbE together -- they suck! No layer 3 support, and the latency is horrible compared with competitors.

      People will complain about the overhead that the network stack adds to it, or latency or junk, but really, i

      • by jon3k (691256)
        Cisco rep emailed me today to tell me that the Layer 3 daughter cards for the 5548P will be available starting in March. The list ("not to exceed") price is ~$17k. Figure the usual 30%+ off that.
    • by Vlado (817879)

      Which solution are you referring to when you say FCoE over a WAN?

      I'm not aware of any products like that on the market.

      You may be referring to the FC over IP which is actually in use quite a lot for years now in situations where native FC either isn't technically possible or would be way too expensive.

      FCoE has practically nothing to do with FC over IP.

  • by MrQuacker (1938262) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:25PM (#35205010)
    Worked wonders for the auto makers, hows that working for you?

    /s

  • by afidel (530433) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:29PM (#35205036)
    When Brocade introduced their FCoE switch I could pick up two 40 port 8Gbps FC switches and a pair of 48 port GigE switches with 10Gb uplinks for what they were charging for 24 ports of FCoE with 4x FC connections. So instead of going with the switch that probably cost them no more to manufacture I bought a pair of 5100's and bought a pair of stacking HP GbE switches and so had complete redundancy for about the same cost as one FCoE switch.
    • by drsmithy (35869)

      So instead of going with the switch that probably cost them no more to manufacture I bought a pair of 5100's and bought a pair of stacking HP GbE switches and so had complete redundancy for about the same cost as one FCoE switch.

      You also had 1/10th the bandwidth and twice as much cabling to each server, higher power draw, more rack space required and more devices to manage.

      • by afidel (530433)
        I do have more cabling but power draw's actually lower due to early FCoE adapters being complete power hogs. Rack space isn't a consideration for either my primary datacenter or my colo space since power density means I can't fill racks with servers anyways. Oh and at least for my applications storage bandwidth is much more important than IP bandwidth so I actually have equivalent bandwidth.
        • by jon3k (691256)
          I'm glad I'm not the only one having the problem. Seems like I can barely fill a third of a rack before I'm bumping up against the amount of power they will deliver to a single rack. It's getting ridiculous.

  • At work a few years ago we were looking at FCoE but it was huge coin. We opted for iSCSI and haven't looked back. Our gear doesn't have to be super-zippy so we started with 16 drive iSCSI->SATA2 chassis in RAID 6 w/ hotspare. We can bind 4 GigE channels for decent throughput. Not 10 Gb speed but great for our purposes. YMMV.
  • How exactly does one charge separately for fiber channel over ethernet when selling ethernet switches?

    Does the switch have firmware that actually dedicates processor time to blocking FCoE traffic unless you pay the man(and is a license fee for "UDP over ethernet" or "HTTP over ethernet" the next brainwave from Cisco?), or is the "over ethernet" a marketing exaggeration, and there are actually certain non-ethernet features that the switch must support in order to handle FC "over ethernet"?
    • by Junta (36770)

      One is most 'FCoE' equipment had FC and ethernet ports, so there was a hardware difference.

      Another is FCoE generally means the ethernet switch has some FC layer management features (e.g. looking at WWN, zoning, etc). I think this is the *key* priced modification for most FCoE equipment without FC ports. Basically making a way of dealing with the switches exactly the way storage admins are accustomed to dealing with SAN switches.

      Finally, there are some layer 2 features considered essentially mandatory for

    • by quickOnTheUptake (1450889) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:57PM (#35205192)
      Apparently the latter. "Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . . Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks: -Encapsulation of native Fibre Channel frames into Ethernet Frames. -Extensions to the Ethernet protocol itself to enable an Ethernet fabric in which frames are not routinely lost during periods of congestion. -Mapping between Fibre Channel N_port IDs (aka FCIDs) and Ethernet MAC addresses." --Wikipedia
      • Sorry, let's try that again:
        Apparently the latter.

        Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . .
        Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks:

        • Encapsulation of native Fibre Channel frames into Ethernet Frames.
        • Extensions to the Ethernet protocol itself to enable an Ethernet fabric in which frames are not routinely lost during periods of congestion.
        • Mapping between Fibre Channel N_port IDs (aka FCIDs) and Ethernet MAC addresses.

        --Wikipedia

    • by sirwired (27582) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:00PM (#35205204)

      Your plain-vanilla 10GbE switch does not have the flow-control bits required to make Ethernet lossless; without essentially lossless traffic, SCSI/FC perf goes in the dumpster. (0.03% packet loss == approx. 50% performance cut.)

      In addition, there must be at least one switch in the VLAN that can provide FC services, such as zoning, address assignment, name services, etc.

      • by jon3k (691256)

        (0.03% packet loss == approx. 50% performance cut.)

        Do you have a link to back that up? That would be very interesting if true.

    • by jon3k (691256)
      Yes, it's licensed base, with Cisco at least. You have to buy the storage license to be able to configure ports as storage ports.
  • It's a little early to call the death of FCoE. We still can't really do a true FCoE environment. The firmware to enable multi-hop FCoE on switches is just now starting to ship. Up to now all we've done is single-hop where the storage is directly connected to the same switch as the end devices...which is not scalable. I have a lot of customers doing 10Gb NFS (I do a lot of VMware) but for true high performance the choice is still Fibre Channel and those same customers are the ones looking heavily at FCoE

  • by Desmoden (221564) on Monday February 14, 2011 @11:58PM (#35206286) Homepage

    With no tuning (other than Jumbo frames for FCoE) I was able to get 9.7Gb/s using FCoE over 10Gb ethernet.

    While 16Gb FCP/FC is around the corner, you will be able to run FCoE over 40Gb and 100Gb ethernet in 2-3 yrs. (at MUCH $$)

    Keep in mind however, iSCSI has been around for over 10yrs now. These things take time to grow, mature, attach.

    So lets wait a few more years before declaring anything dead or alive =)

    And keep in mind, FCoE is not meant to replace FCP/FC, its meant to fix what is keeping iSCSI from doing better.

  • not only is FCOE pricey, even gigabit ethernet products are too expensive. they've been out for years - the prices should have dropped by now.

  • by TheGreatDonkey (779189) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:06AM (#35208476)
    Beyond this, the physical costs versus 8gig are just not justified yet. With the overhead of FCoE, you can roughly say 10gig FCoE is the same speed as more traditional 8gig FC. If you believe that to be roughly true, then price is the next factor to consider, as what are you really getting?

    8gig Fibre Channel GBIC for a SAN fabric averages around $150-$200.
    10gig network (CNA) GBIC for a more traditional network averages around $1100.

    I am building out a new virtual farm now, and much as we tried to go the converged route with 10gig network, the price point simply isn't there yet (technology is still maturing this year as well). You can work around this with copper for very short runs, but the expense comes in per-rack network gear.

    This should start to settle in the fall as the standards fall together better.
    • Or you could use Twinax to connect your servers if you're using a top of rack (or similar) topology.

    • by kamata38 (1988546)
      Having worked in IT only for SMBs, I didn't know much about FCoE so in that sense TFA and these comments are quite informative for me. That said, I don't anticipate deploying FCoE (or any type of FC) anytime soon since we don't have a need for the FC-specific benefits. I am in the process of building a new server room for an office relocation, and have already designed the LAN access/distribution layers using Catalysts using 10GbE trunks to the core. I have to agree that GBICs are way too expensive--especi
    • by jon3k (691256)
      You're not considering FC overhead. Why are you comparing a fiber channel GBIC to a 10Gb CNA? That's like comparing the price of a car to the price of a muffler. You need FC HBAs just like you need 10Gb CNAs. And they cost as much, or usually more, than a CNA.

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...