>>>> "Sridhar" == Sridhar Ayengar
<ploopster at gmail.com> writes:
Sridhar> Paul Koning wrote:
Jan-Benedict> ...One board (in the XMI cage) was a T2027, which is a
Jan-Benedict> XMI-to-FDDI board. Nice :)
> >> Ha, I had forgotten that ever shipped. I
suspect that's not a
> >> common board at all. Of course, finding anything to plug it
> into >> isn't easy anymore...
>
9000> Aren't there some FDDI-SCSI converters? I bought one from ebay
9000> (HSD 5 or 10?)
> FDDI to SCSI? Not 100% impossible but it seems
unlikely. FDDI is
> a network interface, similar to 100BaseT (but much more complex
> for no benefit).
Sridhar> No benefit? I get much better transfer rates through
Sridhar> regular FDDI than I do through *switched* 100Mbps ethernet.
Sridhar> I have a DEC GIGAswitch, and let me tell you that switched
Sridhar> FDDI is *extremely* fast.
FDDI and 100BaseT are the same speed given equally competent
implementations.
Sridhar> That's not even talking about fault-tolerance.
Ethernet and FDDI both offer fault tolerance. They do it in different
ways, but they both can do it.
Having spent several years in the FDDI ANSI committee, I know all the
"why FDDI is better" FUD. It doesn't hold water. And it certainly
doesn't justify the absolutely mindboggling complexity of FDDI
compared to Ethernet.
> You can run IP over it, of course. And then you
could run iSCSI,
> if you don't mind the slow performance. But FDDI was obsolete
> long before iSCSI came out. So an FDDI to SCSI converter would
> have to be a proprietary hack.
Sridhar> Obselete? It's still very much used in places where fault
Sridhar> tolerance is important.
You're thinking about the U.S. Navy? I heard from them a few years
ago when they realized that FDDI was dead, dead, dead, and they had to
look for alternatives, because new FDDI hardware could no longer be
obtained anywhere.
paul