Storage protocols:

Co.s morphing into info-driven entities at rapid pace. -> explosive data growth -> agile and scalab. DC
infra to support it.

Economically deploy storage.

iSCSI, NFS excellent st. connectivity for smll to mid size virt. Environs

file-based protocols (NAS) nfs, smb excellent for ditrib. FSes and object-based platforms catering to
unstr. Or sem-str. data

Infiniband: works well in high-perf. Comp. environs

FCoE: integr. Systems

FC: enterprise-wide st. deployments perf. And resiliency are supreme scale very well in large, multi-
petabyte mixed-workload environs.,, also offers equally competitive entry point wanting to deploy
shared, mixed-workload st. environs or densely virt. Environs

Mission-critc. Appl.s req relatnl DBs that req sub-millisecnd response times, which means n/w needs to
deploy multiple st. platforms like all-flash arrays and provide latency and congestion-free n/w access.

Continued demand for FC will incr . demand for fc-based st. from 13 to 14 b from 2014 to 2017

Represent the bulk of overall SAN and open-nw st. mkts

Will continue to gain adoption in mission-crit. environs

SAN: SAS vs iSCSI vs FC

Cost:

Cheaper side SAS, 1GbE iSCSI

SAS: req. sas HBA in each server and SAS cables to connect san

Speed: 3, 6 and 12 Gbps

Dependent on connect sas connectivity allows to connect 2 to 4 servers redunt to SAN

1 GbE iscsi: 2 to 4 ports per ctrlr running at 1GbE each

No limits to connecting servers

Things to see: how many machines connected too much traffic can create bottleneck in nw
and create perf issues,,,, need 1 GbE switches in place

Higher-end faster optns:

10 GbE iscsi connectns: 10 times speed of 1 GbE

Higher costs:

Need 10 GbE switches and NICs more expensive

FC: faster and more exp.

4, 6 or 16 Gbps

Transmits data using light instead of signals more reliable and faster and long-distance travel
bw SAN and conn. servers (coz of immunity against EMI electromagnetic interf.)

Usually ltd to 2 to 4 redun connectns to server but can expand with FC san switch

Higher costs --- cards, cables, SFPs

So,

Sas, 1 GbE iscsi cheaper

Iscsi most coverage but can have emi effects

Fc no emi, more exp, faster, reliable

iSCSI vs FC:

FC has lowest latency of all

FC easier to secure than most

Very fat, efficient and secure by design itself

Less disruptive to data and other n/w

Benchmark to compare other arch.s against

New tech iSCSI has low latency next to none

Giving tough comp. to FC

High speed, security, flexibility, ease of deployment

Much more affordable to get into shared st. or update st. utilize smthng alrdy there in iSCSI vs new
HBA in machines cost in FCs (iSCSI has converged HBAs)

Conflict b/w n/w and st. guys who may want diff. methods

Imp criteria doing what with the n/w???

FCoE vs iSCSI: