FC over IP专线的灾备方案.ppt

* 384 ports x 8G x 2 (transmit + receive) = 6.144 Tbps. 5x competition is based on 6 Tbps vs 1.1 Tbps limit of Cisco 9513. (Cisco claims 2.2 Tbps but doubles 1.1 Tbps limitation for second crossbar.) * 10Gb Blade Xenon [Enter any extra notes here; leave the item ID line at the bottom] Avitage Item ID: {{2F173DE4-01F0-44E0-ABA0-D7EACA70E7E2}} As one of the first applications for storage networking based on TCP/IP, extending connectivity for Fibre Channel SANs over long distances is an essential component of disaster recovery, remote backup and other critical business solutions. Since IP networks have no inherent distance or speed limitations, moving storage data over TCP/IP enables a more flexible and robust alternative to direct Fibre Channel-to-Fibre Channel linkage. FCIP is a tunneling protocol that transports all FC ISL traf.c. Similarly, FCIP uses TCP/IP as the transport protocol and IPSec for security. A FCIP link tunnels all ISL traf.c between a pair of FC switches, and may have one or more TCP connections between a pair of IP nodes for the tunnel end points. From the FC fabric view, an FCIP link is an ISL transporting all FC control and data frames between switches, with the IP network and protocols invisible. One can con.gure one or more ISLs (using FCIP links) between FC switches using FCIP links. Disk Replication Considerations SAN Extension over an IP network serves as an enabling technology for implementing disk array-based data replication. However, one must determine whether to deploy replication services as asynchronous or synchronous. Consideration must given to such factors as: The distance between the remote sites which impacts the latency of a replication I/O operation. In a synchronous environment, this latency will have a direct impact on the performance of the replicated application. The fail-over time of the network should an FCIP tunnel fail. This time will potentially impact the application if the FCIP network is not designed in a red