but the argument is not complete without the mandatory pronouncement of FC's death.
i googled "is fibre channel dead?" and whoa! i didn't realise that it has become a cliche, and it is high time we removed the question mark. FC is dead. some selections:
ethereal mind: the case against FC and FCoE (dt.2009)
rayonstorage blog: is FC dead?
network world asked the question in 2007; 10g networks were still hypothetical. (here and now: our iSCSI san is on 10g and potentially aggregated to 40g)
sns in 2010 asked the same question.
intel began writing an obit on FC in 2010.
stevejenkins is sure that in 5 years FC will be as good as hubs in networking.
fiber channel industry association: roadmap for FC. 32g only in 2014 and they have no plans for future – labelled only by market demand. you can see death written all over their face.
but, but… sanman on vmware thinks that the death of FC is greatly exaggerated. (the article is from jan2012 and i didn't expect it here. strange world).
emulex makes i/o cards. just a look at their roadmap tells you why FC will be dead. by the end of 2013, FC is crawling at 32g (IF that is available – notice the big IF) and iSCSI not only has 40g now, it will have 100g mainstream by then. how can 32g compete with 100g?
marcfarley at dell is blunt: FCoE is stupid.
brocade refuses to believe that FC is dead and the exec thumbs his nose at naysayers. (note the date: last week, 19 july 2012) but remember that brocade will be one of the biggest losers – if not the biggest – when FC dies.
—
jmetz on his blog before joining cisco:
