back to article One (storage) protocol to rule them all?

One of the questions posed to the “ask me anything” storage panel at this week’s TECHunplugged event was whether we will ever see a single storage protocol develop. This is an interesting idea and with the move to object storage, seems to have some merit. However, as always with technology, the answer “it depends” seems the …

  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

    FCoTR is the future.

    1. Justin Clift

      Fibre Channel over Tolkien Ring? ;)

    2. The Beer Monster

      Preach it, brother.

    3. chris coreline

      FC_AL still works... if your a masochist.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with FCoE

    Was mainly that it doesn't fit the 'tower' model of modern system administration. Either the network team needs to learn zoning so they can manage the converged ethernet/FCoE switches, or you need two teams with administrative access and authority to make changes to the same equipment. Inevitably this sort of thing will lead to turf wars and finger pointing.

    That's why FCoE has been mainly used in hyperconverged environments like vBlock where the lines have to blur anyway and there is less need for post-install switch configuration like zoning in the first place.

  3. DWRandolph

    STANDARDS ?!?

    sorry, but as a cynical old bastard, I am compelled to re-post this whenever I hear the word "standard", especially when they are talking about new / consolidate / simplify :}

    https://xkcd.com/927/

  4. Yaron Haviv

    Everything is an Object

    why not view everything as an object. Blocks, files, ..

    today in storage we have a narrow vision of what Objects are (e.g. cannot be modified, need to be served via HTTP, ..) if we think of Objects like programmers and add the notions of properties, methods, & events and flexible yet fast Ethernet based protocol you would be able to map block sectors, files, records, or any other form of data to such "data objects" and without compromising on performance

    My 2c

    Yaron

    SDSBlog.com

  5. chris coreline

    erm. FC is just a transport layer for SCSI anyway.

    NVMe should replace SCSI for anything 'new' in 5 years, probably over RoCE but there is no accounting for

    a) taste

    b) expensive core Fibre Channel networks which will work fine with whatever fNVMe transport arises.

    Object may replace CIFS/NFS in a similar timescale, but i doubt microsoft will react well to anything disturbing their CIFS protocol, which is tied into everything from cluster management to printer management....

  6. Alex McDonald 1

    To quote a colleague, if you've managed to get a file handle to an object, you're doing objects all wrong. Object protocols shouldn't support POSIX-like semantics. Files are for when you want to be stateful; objects are RESTful.

    Anyhow, back to the question you were posed. There's a hashtag on Twitter for this; #QTWTAIN. It's short for "Questions To Which The Answer Is No".

  7. celticnomad

    The proposition is Nonsense.

    For Protocol read transport and for mechanism read destination.

    Mapping this to the physical human world I'd say a comparison is that we either travel everywhere by Space ship (even to the corner shop) , or foot (even to the moon) , complete bonkers .

    The protocol/transport and destination/mechanism choices should be determined by what best fits the requirements of the data usage (application, latency requirements, etc) .. until we get the equivalent of instantaneous matter transfer for humans, multiple solutions will (and should) exist.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon