How would you force all VM to VM traffic on the same ESX through a Nexus 5000? The reality is, any VMs on the same ESX Host, on the same VLAN, will directly communicate via the vSwitch and you will not see that traffic at the Nexus 5000.

Cheers,
Brad

SHEP

The distance limitation for lossless traffic (FCoE) on the Nexus 5000 is 300m.

Cheers,
Brad

Just purchased the 5010 lab bundle and wanted to point out some gotchas to anyoen reading.

Gotcha #1: Make sure you order the FCoE Bundle. You need the FCoE card AND the FCoE license (which costs 12K). If you order the ethernet bundle, you just bought a pretty white switch.

Gotcha #2: If, like me, you are running a NON Cisco UCS Blade Center, MAKE sure that your vendor makes a CNA mezzanine card to replace the ethernet mezzanine card.

Let’s just say that gotcha #2 somehow never made it into the initial architecture discussions and I now have really pretty 39K boat anchors (yes they are being returned unless cisco and my blade center vendor both say that a mezzanine card is shipping out in the next month and I can have them).

So for all of you out there who were really hyped on 10GigE FCoE back to the SAN and BladeCenter, ask the fine print questions, because as I have found out, the reps barely know at this point.

They are still working out the kinks I guess with a new product. (and I like my cisco reps)

NOW- on a side note, I did go to the labs to play with the NK7 and NK5, and it is pretty cool. So I will most likely revisit it again once I can actually use them in the manner that they were designed for.

LordInfidel

Do I have an Intel FCoE option today or the only candidates are the hybrid adapters from Qlogic or Emulex? Are their second generation CNAs already shipping?

The Intel Oplin 10GE adapter has software FCoE capabilities and broad operating system support is forthcoming. As of right now, the Qlogic and Emulex CNA’s are your certified and supported options for FCoE. AFAIK, the Gen2 CNA’s from Emulex and Qlogic should be shipping this summer (very soon).

Do I have an Intel FCoE option today or the only candidates are the hybrid adapters from Qlogic or Emulex? Are their second generation CNAs already shipping?

1 – VNTAG = 0 backward compatability. Kidding right?

Wrong. A switch that supports VNTag (such as Nexus) works perfectly fine with switches or NIC’s that do not have VNTag support.

2 – VEPA is backward compatable! You don’t mention it? Why?

A switch with VNTag support is backward compatible too, so what’s your point?

3 – Enabling VNTAGS = All other switches are broken unless they are Cisco with VNTags enabled.

Ouch, your 0-3. Wrong again! VNTag’s are link by link specific (NIC-to-Switch, or Fabric_Extender-to-Switch) and are not forwarded upsteam to other switches. So, enabling VNTag between a Server NIC and a switch means other switches continue to work just fine.

4 – This is Cisco’s way of trying to regain their huge losses in the edge switch market. Simpleton response by a networking company. Don’t make it better. Rip it all out and put new switches everywhere and since Cisco decided to push the VNTAG standard then nobody else will immediately implement it is a standard.

As stated above your “Rip it all out” comment is derived from being uniformed – no need to go there again. As for “Cisco decided to push the VNTag standard” — one point of clarification: VMWare is also pushing VNTag as a standard.

6 – This is a Network only view. What about the existing investments in Storage, Servers, WAN accelerators and the like.

Where does it say that everything in the Data Center needs to be ripped out? The suggestion that implementing Cisco Nexus switches requires trashing all other investments in the Data Center is either rooted in ignorance, the intent to mislead, or both.

7 – FCoE – Even with NEW standards to support lossless Enet is still slower than Fibre Channel.

Wow, wrong again. Gen2 CNA’s from Emulex/Qlogic, and even Cisco’s adapter in UCS can all forward Fibre Channel at 10Gbps per second.

8 – Cisco promises 2to1 cable reduction! Are you kidding? I am already at a 4to1 reduction with my solution! I will go backwards with FCoE!

Today a server can have a single adapter, linked to single switch, with a single cable providing 10Gbps Eth and FC. Can your solution do that? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Brad, you are obviously a Cisco Stockholder

You’re right. Even better, I’m also a Cisco employee, and I clearly state that for every reader to see in the “About the Author” section at the top of every page.

Your Network only view is pitiful. But I am sure the Cisco Kool-Aide drinkers will lap it up….

Note to readers: This juvenile post was made by an employee of Hewlett-Packard.

I should point out that some other comments in this article were made by HP employees in a mature discussion of facts and philosophical debate. Something I expect from a large and successful company like HP. This poster, unfortunately, did not represent HP very well.

I always welcome a spirited debate with adults … let me know when you are ready for that.

Cheers,
Brad

1 – VNTAG = 0 backward compatability. Kidding right?
Without VNTAGs enabled = The frame will simply be discarded. Great for IT shops!
2 – VEPA is backward compatable! You don’t mention it? Why?
In fact not a single person mentions it on this blog. Sounds like a resounding blast of ignorance!
3 – Enabling VNTAGS = All other switches are broken unless they are Cisco with VNTags enabled.
4 – This is Cisco’s way of trying to regain their huge losses in the edge switch market. Simpleton response by a networking company. Don’t make it better. Rip it all out and put new switches everywhere and since Cisco decided to push the VNTAG standard then nobody else will immediately implement it is a standard.
5 – Cisco continues to make 60 points on every switch sold. OUCH!
Moores law down the tubes!
6 – This is a Network only view. What about the existing investments in Storage, Servers, WAN accelerators and the like.
7 – FCoE – Even with NEW standards to support lossless Enet is still slower than Fibre Channel.
8 – Cisco promises 2to1 cable reduction! Are you kidding? I am already at a 4to1 reduction with my solution! I will go backwards with FCoE!

Your Network only view is pitiful. But I am sure the Cisco Kool-Aide drinkers will lap it up….

Brad, you are obviously a Cisco Stockholder. All this really adds up to is mo’ money for Cisco and no real progress for IT.