Talk:Fibre Channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Spelling and captitalization[edit]

Fibre Channel is a proper noun and thus is always capitalized. Please do not un-capitalize it. I have proposed a standard for capitalization of industry jargon here. Please stop editing these articles until the matter is settled in a Wiki fashion!

It's also ALWAYS spelled "Fibre" when referring to the protocol instead of the glass. FYI.--SFoskett 19:13, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Apple Promotion[edit]

The caption for the link to Apple sounds like an advert to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.153.79 (talkcontribs) 15:47, December 7, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Article[edit]

There is a very similar article at Fibre_channel_port. I don't know the protocol for merging and don't have time to figure it out right now. Hopefully someone else finds this. --Lukus 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Smallpond 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like its a separate article again (as of 2k7.04.06). There are differences between articles. Is there a way to compare articles | see only differences ? And you are right, i'm sorry i have no idea how this works. Someone.

add 3PAR to Fibre Channel Storage[edit]

Please add 3PAR (http://www.3pardata.com) to "Fibre Channel Storage". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.126.187.138 (talkcontribs) 15:27, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

I think the storage companies should all be deleted. Mentioning the companies is
just advertising - not real information. Its against the Wikipedia rules. Also,
mentioning some and leaving out others is unfair. I propose removing the sections
"Fibre Channel Storage" and "Storage Virtualization Software and Hardware"
which are just collections of links to the respective companies. Smallpond 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Per the guidelines, I deleted the sections that were just collections of ad links. Smallpond 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

can someone add a picture[edit]

What does the Fibre Channel plug look like? An example of some periferal would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.2.235 (talkcontribs) 16:01, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

Here are some pictures, choose one you like :) --Kvedulv 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
QLA 2200F.jpg
Lc-sc-fiber-connectors.jpg
FC-Topologies.jpg

Deleted some entries from table[edit]

I include deleted entries here. I found them unclear and confusing (to an unprepared reader). I think some of them could be re-incorporated into the main text - with proper explanation.


Attribute Point-to-Point Arbitrated loop Switched fabric
Max bandwidth 2× link rate 2× link rate (Number of ports) × link rate
Address assignment N_port login Loop init. and fabric login Fabric login
Concurrent connections 1 1 Switch ports/2
Concurrent maintenance Link down May disrupt entire loop Switch and port link down
Expansion Additional P2P links Attach loop to fabric Expand fabric
Redundancy Add redundant P2P link Use dual loops Use redundant switches
Media types supported All All All
Classes of service supported All 1, 2, & 3 All
Cost per port Port cost Port cost + loop function Port cost + fabric port

--Kubanczyk 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From the first page...

(*Note: The term "trunking" is not a standard Fiber Channel term and is thereby used by vendors interchangably.

Should ei be a negated sentence... not interganchangeable, or replace interchangeable...

...vendors arbitrarily ...vendors inconsistently

A note about the bandwidth and other table items inthe discussion page... these are indeed important concepts... and ones that different vendors also use inconsistently. Cisco uses a bandwidth number that is generally higher than Brocade... because Brocade considers a 1gbit fibre as a 1gbit (each way) link, while Cisco markets the 1gbit bandwidth as a 2gbit aggregate (1gbit each way) link.

Yeah.. confusing for th unprepared.. making a description of the issue all the more important. Other differences in architecture make the bandwidth numbers within the switch even hazier... at the link, however things OUGHT to be clear, or inconsistencies explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.28.215 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Multi-vendor networks[edit]

"Heterogeneous" means having equipment from more than one vendor; its use in the article appears to be a thinko on the part of the editor, and I'm editing accordingly. If I'm incorrect, please discuss. Also, I suggest removing the comment "recommending" homogeneous networks--it doesn't appear appropriate for WP. chrylis (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

History section is wrong[edit]

Although backed by a very "authoritative" source, the History section is incorrect. For example IBM was selling 1063 Mbps switches in 1995 (which obviously is before the stated 1997, see IBM Announcement Letter 195-297 dated October 10, 1995), and FC-266 products back in 1992 (seen that in an IBM paper catalogue in 1993 which stayed with my former employer). To the best of my knowledge FC have started at 133 Mbps with hubs similar to those found in Token-Ring and FDDI. --91.92.29.19 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Should have something on fractional speeds. Pretty sure that Sun also used quarter-speed FC. Cern news site archive mentions 16-port Ancor switch and full speed switch soon in 1995. Smallpond (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was SSA better?[edit]

The page claims that IBM's Serial Storage Architecture was superior but doesn't say why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.159.226 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

100 Mbyte/s[edit]

The caption for File:Lc-sc-fiber-connectors.jpg currently reads “Typical Fibre Channel connectors - modern LC on the left and older SC (typical for 100 Mbyte/s speeds) on the right” (emphasis added). Shouldn’t that be “Mbit/s”? Generally speaking, network speeds are measured in bits and storage capacities are measured in bytes. However, I’m not very familiar with Fibre Channel, so I’ll avoid changing it myself… —Wulf (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

100 megabytes per second is correct for "usable" transfer, but not for the line speed. So feel free to change it to "1 Gb/s speed" to avoid further misunderstandings. As FC uses 8/10 bit encoding it is not possible to transfer information in units other than full octets. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fibre Channel Variants Table[edit]

  The last two rows of the table Fibre Channel Variants state that 16GFC and 20GFC would be available in 2011 and 2008 respectively. It is now 2011, and I have yet to find a single 16GFC product from any of the major vendors - is there any reference for this claim? As for 20GFC being available in 2008, perhaps it is a typographical error, and should it actually be 2018? Rocketshiporion 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look, e.g., at the QLogic 2600 HBA series

Add Linux FC Target?[edit]

With Linux 3.5 (released 2012-07-21), the Linux kernel now has a Fibre Channel target mode driver built in for the first time. Is it worthwhile mentioning here?