Feeds

back to article Brocade's fat pipes a-singin' the Fibre Channel song

Brocade is singing its Fibre Channel song with renewed vigour - aiming to double speed, get OpenStack support, push on with 16gig products and try to render Virtual Instruments diagnostic gear redundant. It has announced the 6520: a denser Fibre Channel switch with 96 16Gbit/s ports in its 2U enclosure, and it also has Brocade's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
J.T

One of the biggest issues with Brocade is when I have device/port issues I first see an error in the main error report, and then have to visit the fabric log to start figuring out what is actually going on. The Fabric log is incredibly unintuitive and frequently useless.

So you have to upload support saves and get told "slow draining devices"..... but they can't point them out. Just they exist.

So now you come to the situation where you're trying to find a root cause and all Brocade can do is vaguely point out you have something somewhere.

So the SAN gets a bad name and management gets sold on FCoE.

0
0

Whats the trouble with pointing a slow drain device? Unless your fabric is REALLY complex someone familliar with the prevalent traffic flow should be able to pin it within a few hours.

If you are allowed to send the data to a stranger, even I might do it for you, though it might take me a few moments more than someone from your site/side ;).

Apart from that, yes, Network Advisor (or dcfm, as it used to be called) could be better.

0
0
Happy

Having used cisco and brocade. I'd go for Brocade any day. It's not perfect, but the software is way better than cisco's.

1
0
Bronze badge

Hmmmm

I'm unsure why FC is not faster already, Infiniband is already at 56Gb after the PCI bus was upgraded to improve speed so surely FC could do similar or at least match the old PCI bus speed, although it is trendy in computing to always double things...

I'm still baffled by FCoE though, the only purpose of this is that it has lower latency than iSCSI yet it has much higher latency than real FC as well as lower bandwidth so who is actually so bothered by cable costs that they have gone for it? I get the software defined network thing, but surely 4 cables and software defined 2 networks is acceptable?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.