[Info-vax] VMS QuickSpecs

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Monday, 17 August 2015 13:15:22 UTC+1, johnso... at gmail.com  wrote:
> 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

Next steps: replace the words "ethernet based" with "commodity".
Replace the word "FC" with "OpenVMS".

Any parallels? NB I don't know enough about storage interconnects to
understand the technical details of FC vs Ethernet, so my comparison
may or may not make sense. I do know that in terms of operating systems,
one size still does not fit all.