2 posts • joined 18 Jan 2010
Your math is not quite correct
I rather like this whitepaper from Brocade, as it isn't just showing how big their cock is but also showing what they can do with it (which is what it's all about as I tell my wife... enough of the smut).
Not sure who wrote this little piece saying the math doesn't add up but I've spotted 3 errors with it already that I'm sure a "20 year veteran of the storage industry" wouldn't make, unless he was just making mischief.
Firstly, if the writer had actually read the whitepaper he would have discovered that the whole point of it was to show "real world" situations and blocksizes, not the usual spurious 128byte rubbish these vendors usually use in test reports. At 4K blocksizes Brocade managed 2,600 MB/sec, whilst Emulex only managed 1,400 MB/sec and QLogic 1,700 MB/sec. At 128K blocksize, Brocade managed 3,672MB/sec with Emulex and QLogic coming at 3,200MB/sec & 2,500MB/sec respectively. I learnt this by reading the report - it looks like Mr Storage Veteran's non “credible" claims about Brocade also apply to QLogic and Emulex. The reason for this is, to quote Wikipedia, “10 Gigabit Ethernet supports only full duplex links” and as this whitepaper is about “real world” it is showing BOTH reads and writes (in fact if you read the whitepaper it says 60% reads, 50% random).
Secondly, your figures would be incorrect as this is FCoE performance not native 10Gb/E, so the maximum throughput would be 8Gb/sec full duplex not 10Gb/sec.
Thirdly, as anyone with 20 years in the storage industry know, 10Gb/E (and FCoE which runs on 10Gb/E) uses 64b/66b encoding not 8b/10b encoding.
I don’t know why we always have to have these “crazies” poo-pooing reports. I guess it is the marketing department of one of Brocade’s competitors as he says “I gotta go fix my driver”. I for one think it is a useful whitepaper and would welcome more, from all sides, detailing “real world” comparisons rather than spurious achievements like “I don’t have a heat sink and you do”.
Anything to make flying safer
I'm 100% for the full body scanners. So it might not be 100% perfect but it's better than the current rubbish they use (you have to take your shoes off because the metal detector doesn't reach to the floor??!).
I want to exercise my right to live and not be blown up by some nutter, and if that means full body scanners then great - I can take some bored chap in a separate room looking at pictures of my enormous turnip.
Roll on the first airline that insists on everyone going through full body scanners - that's the airline I'll fly with.
How many El Al flights have had idiots setting fire to their pants? They have been screening passengers for years - shouldn't we try and learn something from them.
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES