|WikiProject Computing / Hardware||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Spelling and captitalization
- 2 Apple Promotion
- 3 Duplicate Article
- 4 add 3PAR to Fibre Channel Storage
- 5 can someone add a picture
- 6 Deleted some entries from table
- 7 Multi-vendor networks
- 8 History section is wrong
- 9 Why was SSA better?
- 10 100 Mbyte/s
- 11 Fibre Channel Variants Table
- 12 Add Linux FC Target?
- 13 Edits by 22.214.171.124
Spelling and captitalization
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!
- I've clarified the explanation on spelling. In Commonwealth English, the spelling fibre is used for glass (indeed, whenever American English uses "fiber"). It is only the American English that has the distinction. So, the explanation is primarily of interest to those needing to use American English. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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
- 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
- Here are some pictures, choose one you like :) --Kvedulv 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted some entries from table
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"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
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. --184.108.40.206 (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?
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
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?
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?
Edits by 220.127.116.11
@18.104.22.168: I have asked that the edit you made 17:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC) be suppressed as the edit summary you included contains personal information (namely an email address). Unfortunately this will likely result in the suppression of the contents of the edit as well (unless there are options that the Wikipedia:Oversight team has that I'm not aware of).
Unfortunately I think the bulk of your edit is/was reasonable, so losing it will be unfortunately. I'd ask you to simply remake it, except that you likely have a WP:Conflict of Interest as regards this article (you stated in your edit summary that you are an employee of a major vendor of FC hardware). Please read WP:COI for policy on that situation. I agree that the article is in poor shape now, but the proper place to discuss it is on the article's talk page (here), not in private email. As an editor with a potential COI, it's best to make edit suggestions on the talk page as opposed to editing the article yourself, although that's not strictly forbidden. Preparing a draft article for review as a major update of this might be a good idea. In any event, remember that you or your organization will not WP:OWN this article, nor is Wikipedia a platform for WP:PROMOTION for yourself, your organization or any of its products.
Despite that, I don't want to discourage you from contributing - this is clearly an article that could use some help from subject matter experts, and given the nature of FC, many potential SMEs are likely going to have some COI. So I would just encourage you to stick with the guidelines in the COI policy. Again the place to discuss this article is right here (although you may want to start a new section). Rwessel (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)