Aus einer Presse-Miiteilung von IBM:
"San Diego, Kalifornien / 5. April 2007 - eine Gemeinschaft von IT-Anbietern hat die Schaffung einer neuen Technologiespezifikation mit dem Namen "Fiber Channel over Ethernet" (FCoE) dem T11-Komitee des US-amerikanischen National Standards Institute (ANSI) vorgelegt. FCoE würde es ermöglichen, SAN-Datenverkehr nativ über Ethernet-Netzwerke zu transportieren und gleichzeitig die Investitionen schützen, die Kunden bisher in ihre Speichernetzwerke getätigt haben. Der Vorschlag einer direkten Umsetzung von Fiber Channel über Ethernet hat die Unterstützung von wichtigen Industrieanbietern wie Brocade, Cisco, EMC, Emulex Corp., IBM, Intel, Nuova, QLogic, und Sun Microsystems. (...)
FCoE könnte Anwendern neue Wahlmöglichkeiten für weiter übergreifende Server-Konnektivität im Rechenzentrum bieten und würde heute existierende Konnektivität und Protokolle, die bei Speicher- und Rechenzentrumsvernetzung genützt werden, ergänzen."
"Ergänzen" ist vermutlich nicht ganz richtig. "Ersetzen" wäre zutreffender. iSCSI-SANs, die gerade im Kommen sind und in den USA schon einige Marktanteile errungen haben, könnten mit FCoE etwas Gegenwind verspüren.
Fehlt nur noch eine SME-Variante von Fibre Channel. Billig, einfach zu verwalten etc. ...
UPDATE: Was soll das Ganze? Hierzu zwei Antworten:
a) "FCoE: Run Away, Its the Monster
Today's ANSI news: .......... FC vendors propose FCoE. Fibre Channel Protocol over Ethernet or something like that. Serial SCSI running over Ethernet without TCP or IP. Let's see, that has been tried before with Nishan's SOIP, Adaptec's EtherSCSI and other less well known technologies - and killed off by whom? Most of the companies proposing FCoE. Ironic.
So, if you are a FC vendor and it looks like 10Gb Ethernet is going to be part of the tiger (along with iSCSI) that eats your lunch, what do you do? You resurrect old ideas that you hung five years ago, dust off the corpses, insert zombie brains and call it the new shiny FCoE (Frankenstein Convergence over Ethernet?). The only difference between what you killed yesterday and your unholy experiment today is that this bad boy saves your business. It doesn't really have that much to do with customers, except that you get to squeeze them a little longer."
[source: Marc Farley, EqualLogic]
b) "FCoE - Quick Take
I just read Marc Farley's blog on FCoE (FCoE: Run Away, Its the Monster) and felt compelled to write about this subject as a result. I really like Marc's passion but I can't say that I agree that FCoE is a monster. My initial reaction is that FCoE is a good thing.
FCoE - or FC over Ethernet allows you to use Ethernet to build FC SANs instead of - or in conjunction with FC infrastructure. The value of FCoE is that it perserves WWN addressing, zoning parameters, multipathing, SMI-S, etc already established with existing FC SANs. It actually makes it easier for FC-centric end user shops to leverage Ethernet. You will be able to use FC switches by adding FCoE ports. It will be Ethernet "in" from the host systems and then FC "out" to the existing storage systems that support FC ports. It allows the FC storage adminstrators to still be in control of their own fate versus having to go to the networking guys for infrastructure.
Additionally you be able to have FC and iSCSI traffic (as well as all of your other network traffic) sharing the same Ethernet infrastructure. That is a good thing. FC and iSCSI will be able to share the same front end of the network happily moving across common Ethernet networks. In fact, FCoE may actually help iSCSI gain a greater integration over time. FCoE can be a transition point from FC to iSCSI.
One of the big decisions that storage system vendors will have to make is whether they will support native FCoE ports in the future. If yes, then FCoE has a chance of being more viable over the long term. However, if the storage system vendors feel that the extra development and Herculean interoperability testing effort isn't worth it, then iSCSI will ultimately replace FC at the high end - just as it is doing in the mid-tier of the market.
It is important to remember two things. First, any new standard and technology takes much longer than anyone supposes to have a real market impact. That will be true of FCoE. Second, iSCSI provides greater benefits than just running over Ethernet. iSCSI and the IP protocol are much more virtualized than FC - making it much easier to manage and scale. FCoE does provide value by leveraging the existing FC ecosystem but it has nearly all of the limitations of FC: You still need specialized equipment; FC expertise; it is more distance limited than iSCSI, and it requires more manual management.
Like so many things FCoE is not a panacea but it could be a good transitional technology that helps FC-centric data centers save on some costs by sharing Ethernet infrastructure while perserving their FC investments. There are four possible outcomes for FCoE (that at least I can think of right now):
1. FCoE could be a non-event and gain no traction.
2. It could help pave the way for iSCSI to be dominate at the high end - FCoE would be transitional as a step towards iSCSI. It perserves the FC ecosystem but gets the data center sharing much of the same Ethernet infrastructure.
3. FCoE could replace FC at the high end if storage vendors embrace it and if there is still a bias against iSCSI at the high-end. This will be timing more than anything. As iSCSI becomes more mature, there will be less of an issue with adopting it at all levels. For FCoE to gain any real traction, the storage system vendors will need to support it quickly.
4. It will be the dominant SAN interconnect of the future. I wouldn't bet one dollar on this one coming true.
FCoE does support something that Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe said to another ESG analyst, Brian Garrett - "I don't know what comes after Ethernet, but it will be called Ethernet"."
[source: Tony Asaro, Strategy Enterprise Group]