[Info-vax] VMS QuickSpecs

[johnson.eric at gmail.com]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 8:18:43 AM UTC-4, Dirk Munk wrote:

> The ethernet protocol for FCoE is far less robust as FC, FCoE didn't 
> make it, iSCSI adds the overhead and latency of the IP stack, in most 
> situations we don't need it.
> 
> FC still is technically superior to anything ethernet can offer at the 
> moment.

Rather than argue in a traditional fashion, I'm curious to see which of the
following statements you'd agree with.

a) There are some storage problems that only FC is equipped to deal with

b) Ethernet based solutions can be an appropriate solution for smaller domains

c) In general, the ethernet solutions would be called "good enough"

d) The ethernet solutions will have a lower upfront cost than their FC counterparts

e) Providers of ethernet based solutions will grow at a rate faster than FC

f) In five years time, FC will be even more of a niche product, and ethernet based solutions will be the dominate commodity of choice for everyone.

g) In five years time, the number of problems that is true for (a) will have shrunk

EJ