fibrechannel - comp.os.vms

Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one have a lot of configuration to do?

On 23-3-2012 20:35, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > have a lot of configuration to do? Is it fiber channel or fiber ethernet? Because those are two very different things. Could you perhaps tell more about the type(s) of hardware? - MG

On 3/23/2012 3:35 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > have a lot of configuration to do? > You will need, at a minimum, device drivers for every system that will use fiber optic. I believe that fiber optic requires special tools to install.

In article <D5ednfG2pqlTc_HSnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: >On 3/23/2012 3:35 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: >> Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it >> is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can >> be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which >> currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter >> of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one >> have a lot of configuration to do? >> > >You will need, at a minimum, device drivers for every system that will >use fiber optic. > >I believe that fiber optic requires special tools to install. Fingers and opposable thumb. The FC card plug in like any other PCI. The FC cables "plug" into those and then to the fibre switch or other FC devices. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 23/03/2012 19:35, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > have a lot of configuration to do? I hope you realise that SCS (cluster communications) does not use fibre channel as a medium ...

In article <4f6cd70b$0$6947$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG <marcogbNO@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes: > > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > > have a lot of configuration to do? > > Is it fiber channel or fiber ethernet? Because those are two very > different things. Could you perhaps tell more about the type(s) of > hardware? Or FDDI? Lots of things with "f". I'll have to wait until I have sorted all the new stuff!

In article <00ABECB1.9931770D@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > The FC card plug in like any other PCI. The FC cables "plug" into those > and then to the fibre switch or other FC devices. Without a switch, could I connect two machines and have some (all? what determines which traffic goes where) traffic between them via the new cards?

In article <4f6d7c50$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Roy Omond <roy@omond.net> writes: > On 23/03/2012 19:35, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > > have a lot of configuration to do? > > I hope you realise that SCS (cluster communications) does not use fibre > channel as a medium ... That's why I'm asking. Up until now, I have never used anything but ethernet (though various kinds) for any sort of cluster communication. The questions are: what is possible and what makes sense.

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <helbig@astro.multiclothesvax.de> wrote: > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if it > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it can > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a matter > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does one > have a lot of configuration to do? The RX2600 has gigabit ethernet, which should be fast enough for most uses. It might be that some gigabit ethernet cards could be used with Alpha systems. VAX likely isn't fast enough to bother. -- glen

Am Samstag, 24. M=E4rz 2012 12:12:21 UTC+1 schrieb Phillip Helbig---undress= to reply: > In article <4f6d7c50$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Roy Omond > <roy@omond.net> writes:=20 >=20 > > On 23/03/2012 19:35, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > > > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if= it > > > is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether it = can > > > be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet (which > > > currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it simply a mat= ter > > > of sticking in a card and having it just work out of the box or does = one > > > have a lot of configuration to do? > >=20 > > I hope you realise that SCS (cluster communications) does not use fibre > > channel as a medium ... >=20 > That's why I'm asking. Up until now, I have never used anything but=20 > ethernet (though various kinds) for any sort of cluster communication. = =20 > The questions are: what is possible and what makes sense. A Fibre channel solution is a great improvement for a cluster. It is possible that every node has its own path to the clustered files. Thi= s improves obviously the uptime of a service. The overhead of the I/O is much smaller that for Ethernet because fibre cha= nnel is been designed for disk I/O. Additionally contains the fibre channel controller a read/write-Cache just = like the Smart Array PCI-X controllers that improves the I/O rate significa= ntly. So my advice is: select fibre channel if you have the chance to get the har= dware. Eberhard

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:10:21 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > In article <4f6cd70b$0$6947$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG > <marcogbNO@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes: > >> > Having recently obtained some new (for me) hardware, I'm wondering if >> > it is worth the trouble (now, that means mainly the question whether >> > it can be done quickly) to have connections other than ethernet >> > (which currently carries everything) among the machines. Is it >> > simply a matter of sticking in a card and having it just work out of >> > the box or does one have a lot of configuration to do? >> >> Is it fiber channel or fiber ethernet? Because those are two very >> different things. Could you perhaps tell more about the type(s) of >> hardware? > > Or FDDI? Lots of things with "f". I'll have to wait until I have > sorted all the new stuff! If you do have FDDI, that isn't Fibrechannel. I used it in 1997 between 2 Alphas a mile apart. The main problem was that you didn't see remote disks until both systems were up, so a reboot would trigger a full shadow copy for the disks shadowed across the 2 sites (this was of course before mini-merge came along). FDDI is only 100 Mbit/s which in the light of your recent enquiries about Gigabit ethernet might not offer the advantage you require. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_Distributed_Data_Interface -- Paul Sture

In article <jkka4v$95u$2@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes: >In article <00ABECB1.9931770D@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- >@SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > >> The FC card plug in like any other PCI. The FC cables "plug" into those >> and then to the fibre switch or other FC devices. > >Without a switch, could I connect two machines and have some (all? what >determines which traffic goes where) traffic between them via the new >cards? If the machine is a HSG or HP equivalent offering. Think of the FC cards as SCSI controllers with "light" cables. There's only storage control and data on the FC, not cluster comm. You'd still need an ethernet connection to provide a pathway to speak SCS. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 24-3-2012 12:10, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > I'll have to wait until I have sorted all the new stuff! In the meantime I can tell you that 10GbE, i.e. 10 gigabit fiber-optical ethernet (10GBASE-SR), works just fine for me with VMS. I've been using it for quite sometime. - MG

On 24-3-2012 17:26, MG wrote: > In the meantime I can tell you that 10GbE, i.e. 10 gigabit > fiber-optical ethernet (10GBASE-SR), works just fine for me > with VMS. I've been using it for quite sometime. In my previous message I forgot to emphasize that I have only successfully used 10GbE with I64 systems: several rx2600s in the past and currently two rx2620s. (The rest of the cluster interconnects are simple copper GbE.) My DS10s would simply not handle 10GbE. As a matter of fact, I do not think anything above fiber GbE (e.g. 1000BASE-SX) was supported for EV6/EV68 and below Alpha systems either, but I guess it was at least worth the try. - MG

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:12:21 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: > That's why I'm asking. Up until now, I have never used anything but > ethernet (though various kinds) for any sort of cluster communication. > The questions are: what is possible and what makes sense. You cannot use Fibre Channel SCSI as a cluster interconnect. You can use FDDI as a cluster interconnect. You can directly cross-connect FDDI adapters in two different servers. FDDI data rate is only 100Mbit/s. If you have a lot of SCS traffic then you're better server by using Gigabit Ethernet with large frames.

FrankS wrote: > FDDI data rate is only 100Mbit/s. If you have a lot of SCS traffic then you're better server by using Gigabit Ethernet with large frames. Just out of curiosity, if I were to put a gigabit ethernet card on a DSL10's only PCI slot, would it work ? (do they make gigabit ethernet cards for the old PCI ?) Did the last generation of Alphas produced come with gigabit ethernet hardware ? Or is additional cards the only way to get gigabit support on alpha ?

On Mar 24, 4:29 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Just out of curiosity, if I were to put a gigabit ethernet card on a > DSL10's only PCI slot, would it work ? (do they make gigabit ethernet > cards for the old PCI ?) Is a "DSL10" anything like a DS10L, or is it some kind of Internet connection, or what? Did your Google search of comp.os.vms for "gigabit" _really_ find nothing interesting? Is the PCI slot in a DS10L any lamer than the ones in an XP1000?

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message news:jkka4v$95u$2@online.de... > In article <00ABECB1.9931770D@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- > @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > >> The FC card plug in like any other PCI. The FC cables "plug" into those >> and then to the fibre switch or other FC devices. > > Without a switch, could I connect two machines and have some (all? what > determines which traffic goes where) traffic between them via the new > cards? > No VMS requires a switched SAN environment.