<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on A Fibre Channel over Ethernet primer ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T08:08:22-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: A Fibre Channel over Ethernet primer]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568-3411758]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Agree - lots to think about when it comes to choosing the right technology for storage networking.  Understand the needs of your application and match the storage, and the storage networking technology accordingly: Tier 1 mission-critical apps still need the performance of Fibre Channel.  Tier 2 consider FCoE and iSCSI.  Tier 3 local file-based storage works on NAS across Ethernet and Cloud-based storage with the help of new Cloud Gateway appliances.  Also suggest standardizing with a single end-to-end network vendor who can cover all bases for you and provide a single source for support and guidance.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568-3411758]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mhardi01@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:49:45 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Additive value of FCoE]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568-3411462]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Very nice primer which didn't need any of the hype or hyperbole that too often blurs the discussion. In my experience (first working for a vendor and now as an independent analyst) Fibre Channel customers have found the concept of FCoE appealing - it allows for seamless integration with existing hardware and skills which moving towards a single set of equipment. Configurations and pricing are still maturing, but today there are many vendors (Cisco leads the FCoE charge, but IBM, HP, EMC, NetApp and others) offering solutions that bundle FCoE inside a configuration (such as with blade servers) where the customer doesn't need to consider that it has FCoE as part of the configuration, simply that it has LAN and SAN connectivity. I look forward to your further posts and always happy to discuss this topic.Stuart MinimanWikibon.orgTwitter: @stu]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-340568-3411462]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Stuart Miniman]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:14:23 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

