back to article Fabric maths: Pure + Cisco = end-to-end NVMe

Pure and Cisco could build an end-to-end NVMe FlashStack using Pure's NVMe-using FlashArray//x and Cisco's NVMe over fabric's Fibre Channel. There are three ingredients contributing to this window of opportunity: Pure's FlashArray//x, which uses NVMe-accessed DirectFlash modules and an NVMe-tuned //X70 controller Cisco's …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NVMe is a very interesting protocol.

    FC is not. Why are Cisco beating this dead horse?!?!?

    1. returnofthemus

      NVMe is a very interesting protocol.

      FC is proven.

      NVMe is not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: NVMe is a very interesting protocol.

        So is Ethernet and NFS and iSCSI and RDMA and virtualization and SAS and Infiniband. This announcement is playing on IT's insecurities of not wanting to change, even though it may mean the same time of leap from one technology to another.

        I am surprised one would call this out as innovation. It's packaging of complexity that exists in the first place because of vendors like Cisco and Pure's desire to tug on storage admins heart strings -- supposedly minimize the risk with predefined architectures.

    2. Chris Mellor 1

      Installed Fibre Channel base migration. Could be no-brainer.

  2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Can you say $$$$$

    Sorry, while I love the tech... think of the cost and what you're getting versus alternatives.

    A cluster of servers w NVMe drives with a distributed file system versus disk array?

    What am I missing that would make this thing attractive?

    Think of the children! Think of how better you could spend the money!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So they just went from <1ms latency to <1ms latency? Fascinating

    Until someone shows the perfromance of an NVMe-over-FC array compared to a "plain" FC array, the motivation to use NVMe-over-FC doesn't exist.

    Cisco's announcement on MDS supporting NVMe-over-FC also remarked that they implemented *nothing* to have the switch support it (as in, it is supported in older switches and older switch firmware levels that pre-date NVMe). There's no evidence that NVMe-over-FC contains any benefit compared to FC.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just use FC-VI

    Buy Netapp and just use FCVI. Genius!

    https://standards.incits.org/apps/group_public/project/details.php?project_id=1503

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why NVMe

    NVMe is important because SAS and SCSI are disk-centric serial technologies so without improvements in parallelism we will see the same problem with flash we saw with spinning rust--they get bigger and stop getting faster. In response to the comment on NVMe vs. FC that is not the right comparison. NVMe is a protocol that can be used with FC (Cisco announced w/32Gbps MDS, Brocade has mentioned as well) or ETH (using RDMA). The difference is removing the SCSI protocol, Flash Translation layers (treating SSDs like disks) and massive improvements in parallelism (64K parallel queues). Like it or not it's the future of all flash tech (most modern laptops already use NVMe) as disk-centric retrofit AFAs continue to use the old stuff and tell everyone it will be "just fine."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020