Re: Real world testing
There was a lot wrong with the test. Probably the most dramatic was either using software FCoE initiators (despite the installed VIC card being capable of hardware FCoE) thus sabotaging the FCoE results, or the authors were so unfamiliar with the very basics of UCS they didn't understand they'd actually setup a hardware initiator (the document claims the FCoE is software initiated), and thought they set up a software initiator. That would show they had no idea what they were doing with Cisco UCS, and makes me wonder what else they got wrong. Can't really tell, since they only provided a single useless screenshot (though not totally useless, I could tell which version of UCS they used, which they didn't state in the document).
The cabling and power was laughable, given it was a test scenario, and nothing like what would be done in a production environment. They counted the number of cables that provided FC versus the number of cables that provided FCoE as well as Ethernet. 2 blades is not why you buy a blade system, you buy it for 6, 10, 20, 40, 80 blades. Then you can compare cable, power, and port counts for both FC, Ethernet, and/or FCoE. If you're only deploying 2 blades in any chassis system, you're either waiting to grow into more blades, or you're fine with wasting power and cooling anyway.
If they had used UCS 2.1 (the screenshot indicates 2.0), they could have plugged the storage array directly into the fabric interconnects bypassing the Brocade switch. If the storage array was a NetApp (they never mentioned which vendor they used) they could have done direct FCoE connectivity.
The overall configuration was not given, so it's impossible to tell if they got something wrong on the UCS side.
And I loved the part about whining about setting up UCS. Of course setting up an unfamiliar technology is going to take longer.
Overall, it was kind of a trainwreck.