Weitere ähnliche Inhalte Ähnlich wie FC/FCoE - Topologies, Protocols, and Limitations ( EMC World 2012 ) (20) Kürzlich hochgeladen (20) FC/FCoE - Topologies, Protocols, and Limitations ( EMC World 2012 )1. FC/FCoE
Topologies, Protocols
and Limitations
Erik Smith
Consulting Technologist – Connectrix BU
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 1
2. Abstract
An in-depth discussion of FC and FCoE
protocols focusing on
– topologies currently supported
– topologies under development
– known issues
Review of current EMC SAN best practices
and reasons behind them
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 2
3. Goals
Describe technical benefits and limitations of
both FC and FCoE
Describe currently supported FC and FCoE
topologies and EMC-recommended best
practices
Discuss known limitations with FC and FCoE
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 3
4. Agenda
FC or Ethernet
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI
Supported Topologies
Best Practices
Futures
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 4
5. FC or Ethernet
Today
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 5
6. FC or Ethernet
32G ??
Fibre Channel
16G
Today
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 6
7. FC or Ethernet
32G ??
Fibre Channel
16G
Today
??
10G 40/100G Ethernet
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 7
8. FC or Ethernet
32G ??
Fibre Channel
16G
Today
??
10G 40/100G Ethernet
If you’re asking yourself this question, you’re
not alone
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 8
9. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today Time Line
Physical
Ethernet
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 9
10. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today Time Line
Physical
Ethernet
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 10
11. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 11
12. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 12
13. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
FC FC FC
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 13
14. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
FCoE FC
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 14
15. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
Host Network Storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 15
16. FC or Ethernet
You don’t really need to decide right now
Physical
Fibre Channel
Today
Physical
Ethernet
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 16
17. FC or Ethernet Summary
Ethernet wins eventually
– There’s still plenty of time to decide what this
means to you
Migrating to Ethernet does not equal rip and
replace all FC
– Evolutionary versus Revolutionary
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 17
18. Agenda
FC or Ethernet
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI
– FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
– FC vs. FCoE
Supported Topologies
Best Practices
Futures
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 18
19. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
It’s more about what’s right for your
environment and less about which protocol
is better
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 19
20. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Latency (usec)
Store and Forward
Cut through
0 5 10 15 20 25
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 20
21. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Latency (usec)
SAS
FC
SSD
>=10x
Store and Forward
Cut through
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 21
22. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Latency (usec)
SAS
FC
SSD
>=325x
Store and Forward
Cut through
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
With block I/O, uncongested network latency
is practically a rounding error
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 22
23. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
A
B
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 23
24. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Zone 1
Host 3
Storage 2A
A Zone 2
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
Zones are created by grouping the WWPNs of the
B
Host 6 host interface and storage interface into a “zone”.
A
B
The set of zones created are put into a “zone set”
and activated on the fabric.
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 24
25. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Zone 1
Zone 3
Host 3
Storage 2A
Zone 5
A Zone 2
B
Zone 4
Zone 7 6
Zone
Host 4
Storage 1B
Zone 9
A
B Zone 11
Zone 8
Zone 10
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
Zone 12
B
Host 6
A
The number of zones in the fabric should always be
B greater than, or equal to, the number of initiators in
the fabric.
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 25
26. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Host 1
A LAN
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
With iSCSI, each host needs to be individually and
manually pointed at a storage port by specifying
A
B
either an IP Address, IQN, or both.
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 26
27. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 27
28. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
Total
host network storage
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 28
29. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Total
host network storage
Windows
Linux
VMware
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 29
30. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC
Windows FCoE
iSCSI
FC
Linux FCoE
iSCSI
FC
VMware FCoE
iSCSI
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 30
31. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 7
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 7
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 7
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 31
32. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 7
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 7
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 7
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 32
33. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 5 7
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 5 7
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 33
34. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 34
35. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 19 7
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 14 7
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 23 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 35
36. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 19 7 7
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 14 7 7
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 23 7 7
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 36
37. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 7
iSCSI 19 7 7 33
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 7
iSCSI 14 7 7 28
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 7
iSCSI 23 7 7 37
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 37
38. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 2 7
iSCSI 19 7 7 33
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 1 7
iSCSI 14 7 7 28
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 1 7
iSCSI 23 7 7 37
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 38
39. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 2 37 7
iSCSI 19 7 7 33
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 1 37 7
iSCSI 14 7 7 28
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 1 37 7
iSCSI 23 7 7 37
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 39
40. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI provisioning steps…
...on …on ...on
OS Protocol Total
host network storage
FC 2 5 7 14
Windows FCoE 2 37 7 46
iSCSI 19 7 7 33
FC 1 5 7 13
Linux FCoE 1 37 7 45
iSCSI 14 7 7 28
FC 1 5 7 13
VMware FCoE 1 37 7 45
iSCSI 23 7 7 37
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 40
41. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI
Management during runtime
– FC/FCoE perform some amount of self
documentation due to FC Login and Name
Server registrations
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 41
42. FC/FCoE vs. iSCSI Summary
It’s more about what’s right for your
environment and less about which protocol
is better
– Network/Network stack latency are not
currently the best place to focus on to reduce
response time
– EMC believes
▪ Network-centric is better suited for larger
environments
▪ End-node-centric is better suited for smaller
environments
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 42
43. FC vs. FCoE
Essentially the same in terms of
– Network-centric
– Similar management tools
– Same multipathing software (for iSCSI as well)
– Similar basic port types
▪ N_Ports / F_Ports vs. VN_Ports and VF_Ports
▪ E_Ports vs. VE_Ports
– Same scalability limits
▪ Number of domains
▪ Number of N_Ports / VN_Ports
▪ Number of hops
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 43
44. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Physical FC versus Physical Ethernet
– Point-to-point links cannot be assumed with FCoE
– FCoE uses PFC instead of BB_Credit
▪ Distance implications
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 44
45. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Point-to-point links cannot be assumed
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 45
46. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Point-to-point links cannot be assumed
Must support FIP Snooping
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 46
47. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Point-to-point links cannot be assumed
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 47
48. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Point-to-point links cannot be assumed
VLAN 1
VLAN 2
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 48
49. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– Point to point links cannot be assumed
DO NOT DO THIS! Only one Fabric per VLAN
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 49
50. FC vs. FCoE
Completely different transports
– FCoE uses PFC instead of BB_Credit
▪ Distance implications
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 50
51. FC vs. FCoE
+16
+16
15
14
0
Waiting for
R_RDY
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 51
52. FC vs. FCoE
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 52
53. FC vs. FCoE
Buffer reaches
High water mark
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 53
54. FC vs. FCoE
Effective
bandwidth
10G
Distance
1k 5k Max Max+x
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 54
55. FC vs. FCoE Summary
FCoE is FC
– Management tools
– Basic concepts
– Multipathing
– Scalability limits
Transport use has implications
– Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should
▪ One fabric per VLAN
▪ Pay attention to topologies that are being created
– Do not use FCoE for distances that exceed the
maximum supported by the hardware vendor
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 55
56. Agenda
FC or Ethernet
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI
Supported Topologies
– General Guidelines
– Vendor-Specific
Best Practices
Futures
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 56
57. Supported Topologies
General Guidelines
FC
– Maximum 5 hops
– Maximum 55 domains
– Maximum 6000 N_Ports
– Maximum 10,000 N_Ports per L3 SAN
– Avoid heterogeneous FC-SW interop (please)
▪ Use NPIV if possible
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 57
58. Supported Topologies
General Guidelines
FCoE
– All FC guidelines apply (including multi-hop)
– Heterogeneous FC-SW interop is not supported
– When possible, connect directly to an FCF
– When not possible, use a FIP Snooping Bridge
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 58
69. Supported Topologies
Cisco Summary
Over 100 supported Cisco topologies are
described in the FCoE TechBook
Extensive support for multi-hop FCoE
Support for FIP Snooping Bridges
Connectivity to existing FC SAN does not
require the use of an FC router
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 69
79. Supported Topologies
Brocade Summary
A number of supported Brocade topologies
are described in the FCoE TechBook
Support for multi-hop FCoE in VCS only
No support for FIP Snooping Bridges
Connectivity to existing FC SAN requires the
use of an FC router
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 79
80. Agenda
FC or Ethernet
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI
Supported Topologies
Best Practices
Futures
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 80
81. Best Practices
Maximum hops
Maximum N_Ports
Single Initiator Zoning
Monitor for bit errors
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 81
82. Best Practice – Max Hops
Best practice
– Do not exceed 5 hops
Reason
– Concern about data corruption
– Concern about fabric segmentation in certain
circumstances
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 82
83. Best Practice – Max Hops
Example: 4 - Layer 2 Ethernet Hops
4 Ethernet switches
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 83
84. Best Practice – Max Hops
Example: 3 FC Hops
4 FC switches
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 84
85. Best Practice – Max Hops
Switches contain queues
– Used for buffering
– These queues have a “hold time” value
associated with them
Queue hold time
– Length of time a frame is held before it’s discarded
– Typically between 500ms and 2 seconds
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 85
86. Best Practice – Max Hops
R_A_TOV
– Maximum life span of a frame x 2 (FC-FS)
– Typically 10 seconds
R_A_TOV >= (max hops * Hold time) * 2
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 86
87. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
Sw mod
Host
Blade Server
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 87
88. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
ToR
1
Sw mod
Host
Blade Server
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 88
89. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
ToR 2
EoR
1
Sw mod
Host
Blade Server
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 89
90. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
ToR 2 3 SAN
EoR
Core
1
Sw mod
Host
Blade Server
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 90
91. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
ToR 2 3 SAN
EoR
Core
1
4
Sw mod
SAN
Host Core
Blade Server
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 91
92. Best Practice – Max Hops
Ethernet (Row) FC SAN
ToR 2 3 SAN
EoR
Core
1
4
Sw mod
SAN
Host Core
5
Blade Server
Storage
Rack Rack
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 92
93. Best Practice – Max Hops Summary
Do not exceed 5 hops
– If you must, ensure that the configuration will
never create a condition where frames older than
½ of R_A_TOV will exist
▪ IOW, you need to know the hold time for every element
▪ Consider error conditions and failures
Links between any network elements that
contain buffers must be counted as a FC Hop
– This includes FSBs and NPIV Gateways
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 93
94. Best Practice – Max N_Ports
Best practice
– The number of N_Ports should not exceed 6000
Reason
– Originally
▪ Testing revealed fabric segmentation due to HLO
timeout between switches with around 1000 N_Ports
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 94
95. Best Practice – Max N_Ports
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 95
96. Best Practice – Max N_Ports
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 96
97. Best Practice – Max N_Ports Summary
Do not exceed the maximum number of
N_Ports supported
– Results will be unpredictable
– In extreme cases, fabric segmentation can result
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 97
98. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Best practice
– Each zone should only contain one initiator and
the targets it will access
Reason
– Originally
▪ Concern about initiators logging in to other initiators
– Today
▪ Limits the number of name server queries that are sent
to the switch
▪ Related to Max N_Ports
▪ Recommended still due to its use in test configurations
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 98
99. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
A
B
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 99
100. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
A
B
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 100
101. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
Without zoning, the response would include information about
15 other N_Ports.
A
B
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 101
102. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
A
For each N_Port returned in the NS Response, host will query
B the Name Server for additional information. If a host only
needs to access 1 Target this means 14 extra NS queries per
N_Port.
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 102
103. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Initiator login with Single Initiator Zoning
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 103
104. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Initiator login without Zoning
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 104
105. Best Practice – Single Initiator Zoning
Host 1
A Fabric (FC or DCB)
B
Host 2
A Storage 1A
B
Host 3
Storage 2A
A
B
Host 4
Storage 1B
A
B
Host 5 Storage 2B
A
B
Host 6
A
Host will attempt PLOGI/PRLI with all N_Ports and perform
B report LUNs with all Targets.
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 105
106. Single Initiator Zoning Summary
Use single Initiator / single target Zoning if
at all possible
If not possible or practical
– e.g., some VMware and RecoverPoint
environments
– Learn to watch for the signs
▪ Randomly missing N_Port logins during power on or
after link events
▪ Elongated boot times
– Target Driven Zoning will help when available!
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 106
107. Monitor for Bit Errors
Best practice
– Monitor for bit errors
Reason
– VERY bad for performance
– FC – Buffer loss
– FCoE – Bit errors can cause unintentional data
distribution
▪ An I/O convergence issue not an FCoE one
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 107
108. Agenda
FC or Ethernet
FC vs. FCoE vs. iSCSI
Supported Topologies
Best Practices
Futures
– TDZ
– Network Virtualization
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 108
109. Futures — Target Driven Zoning (TDZ)
• TDZ is an EMC initiative aimed at
automating the provisioning of networked
storage
• TDZ allows for the SAN to automatically
configure zoning based on information
provided to it by a storage port
• TDZ makes use of Peer Zoning
– Approved in FC-GS-6 and FC-SW-6
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 109
110. Futures – Network Virtualization
• Network Virtualization
– Generic term being used to describe “Overlay
Networks”
– Encapsulations being discussed to support this
functionality are
• NVGRE
• VXLAN
• STT
– Could be very disruptive to today’s SANs
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 110
111. Futures
• Join us for more information!
• Birds-of-a-Feather: Storage Networking for
the Future
– Time: Tuesday 1:30p
– Room: Marcello 4401 A
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 111
112. In Summary
Physical FC will be around for a while
Migrating to Ethernet
– Can be done at any time
– Does not require rip and replace
Follow Best practices
– Unless you have a compelling reason not to
– Understand the risks
The EMC FCoE Tech books
– contain hundreds of supported topologies; and
– detailed installation instructions
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 112
116. Provide Feedback & Win!
125 attendees will receive
$100 iTunes gift cards. To
enter the raffle, simply
complete:
– 5 sessions surveys
– The conference survey
Download the EMC World
Conference App to learn
more: emcworld.com/app
© Copyright 2012 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. 116