iSCSI vs. Fibre Channel vs. Direct Attached Disks?

Posted by Cliff on Thursday December 30, 2004 @11:45AM from the it's-all-about-the-performance dept.

mrscott asks: "Does anyone have any good, simple benchmarks about iSCSI performance in a SAN as it relates to fibre channel and direct attached storage? There's a lot of information out there about iSCSI TCP offload adapters that improve performance, but it's still hard to get a handle on even those stats without the original numbers for comparison. We're considering an iSCSI solution from Lefthand networks, but finding independent (and reasonably simple) numbers has proven somewhat difficult, even with the awesome power of Google behind me."

2 of 46 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

As of right now... by virid · 2004-12-30 11:53 · Score: 1, Flamebait

in terms of speed, iSCSI can't touch 2GB Fibre-Channel...

--
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
Re:The acid test: by Nutria · 2004-12-30 18:05 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Imagine having an nnn-Terabyte set of storage, from which ALL your servers boot EVERYTHING. Not a single magnetic disk is required in the servers themselves.

That's called, "having all your eggs in 1 basket", and we all know what a bad idea that is...

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1