How to compare FC and SCSI
How do you compare SCSI based storage technology with Fibre Channel based, and how do you compare them if the storage size is maximum 2 terabytes (TB)?

    Requires Free Membership to View

    Login

    When you register for SearchStorage.com, you’ll also receive targeted emails from my team of award-winning editorial writers. Our goal is to keep you informed on the hottest topics, the latest news and the biggest challenges you face as a storage professional today.

    Rich Castagna, Editorial Director

    By submitting your registration information to SearchStorage.com you agree to receive email communications from TechTarget and TechTarget partners. We encourage you to read our Privacy Policy which contains important disclosures about how we collect and use your registration and other information. If you reside outside of the United States, by submitting this registration information you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Your use of SearchStorage.com is governed by our Terms of Use. You may contact us at webmaster@TechTarget.com.

Two important steps to compare different technologies, in this case SCSI and Fibre Channel (FC) based storage, is to understand the applicable technology and your requirements. Understanding your requirements will help you determine which differences in the technology are relevant and important to your specific needs. An understanding of the technologies is important to be able to make fair and relative comparisons and avoid making apples to oranges comparisons.

So, here are a few things to consider and understand. Are you looking at and comparing storage systems with SCSI or Fibre Channel host ports (front-end)? Are you comparing back-end SCSI or FC disk ports and drives? Or, is it a combination? For example, a storage system could have FC host ports, yet utilize SCSI or emerging SAS disk drives.

From a disk drive perspective, FC, SCSI and SAS are about equal in terms of performance, reliability, capacity and features including dual-porting. From a host storage interface, SCSI can be less expensive due to lower costs by eliminating switches and using embedded server or low cost SCSI adapters. FC, on the other hand, provides more flexibility in terms of distance, flexible topologies and number of devices and servers that can be attached. From a performance standpoint, for most applications either SCSI (Ultra160 and Ultra320) or FC should be sufficient. Another alternative for block-based storage access would be to use iSCSI- or a SAS-based controller to attach emerging SAS-based storage to servers.

If your requirements are for 2 TB of storage, clarify whether you are referring to usable or raw capacity. For example, if you need 2 TB of usable storage and plan on using mirroring for data protection, you will need 4 TB of storage plus any applicable spare disk drives. There are many vendors whose products can scale up to 2 TB, or put another way, scale down to 2 TB, including the EMC AX100, HDS WMS100, HP MSA, IBM (DS400, DS300, DS4100, N3700), Sun/STK 3000 series and Xiotech Magnitude 3D 3000e among others.

This was first published in October 2005

Back to top