- favorite 0 likes
- comment 0 comments
In the 35 years since its founding, ATTO has seen many different storage connectivity technologies come and go.
The pursuit of ever greater efficiency has catalysed countless advances, but over the years it has become clear that there is a distinct difference between efficiency and speed.
Without a doubt, speed is an important part of the overall equation, but performance means much more than just transmission speed. Application performance depends on overall throughput (generally considered speed), predictable latency, transfer efficiency, and many other variables.
That's why ATTO, even though its engineers have seen a lot and are fantastic experts, are still learning something new about mass storage and network connectivity.
Since it all comes down to application performance, one frequently asked question is what is the best choice for connectivity in video post-production environments.
Post-production environments are becoming more and more complex and demanding. Needing high-performance networking and storage solutions to support and create high-quality content. Over the last few years, the choice between Fiber Channel and Ethernet for networking has become a popular topic of debate.
There is no simple answer to the question of which is better - Fiber Channel or Ethernet. Both technologies have their advantages and disadvantages, and each is suitable for different work environments.
Some may be surprised to learn that Ethernet, while inefficient, has been the dominant technology in storage networking for decades, largely due to its ubiquity and low cost. These factors have inspired advances in the underlying technology and made it attractive to post-production work environments.
Ethernet-based storage solutions such as iSCSI, SMB, and NFS can provide high performance and low latency for small and medium-sized post-production environments.
These solutions are relatively easy to implement and manage because they are built on the same network infrastructure that is already available for other IT services. Ethernet also supports a wide range of speeds, from 1 GbE to 100 GbE and beyond, making it a flexible option for a variety of workloads.
On the other hand, Fiber Channel has been used in post-production since its inception. It is a dedicated storage networking technology that is specifically designed for high-performance, low-latency storage traffic.
It provides higher throughput, lower latency and better reliability compared to Ethernet-based solutions.
Fiber Channel supports speeds up to 64 Gb/s, which provides sufficient bandwidth for even the most demanding post-production environments.
Fiber Channel also supports advanced features such as lossless packet delivery, congestion control, and prioritization that can help ensure reliable and consistent delivery of storage traffic. For post-production, where predictability is essential, Fiber Channel is hard to beat by other technologies.
So how do these technologies stack up in terms of performance? While Ethernet can provide high performance, it may not be able to provide the low-latency consistency and high throughput required by demanding post-production processes. Ethernet is a shared network, which means that storage traffic must compete with other network traffic for bandwidth, which can lead to congestion and performance degradation.
Fiber Channel, in turn, provides higher overall performance and reliability, two connectivity attributes most important in post-production infrastructure.
While Ethernet is a shared network that competes with other network traffic for bandwidth, Fiber Channel provides dedicated bandwidth for storage traffic. This means that Fiber Channel can provide more consistent and predictable performance for storage traffic, even at lower speeds.
More importantly, Fiber Channel has lower latency than Ethernet because its dedicated, lossless packet delivery guarantees fast delivery times. On the other hand, Ethernet uses a best-effort delivery model, which can result in packet drops and variable, prolonged delivery times. This can lead to increased latency and decreased efficiency of storage traffic, especially in high-traffic environments, and is the reason why bandwidth is never as high as advertised with Ethernet.
Cost is another issue that customers often ask about. The usual answer is that while Ethernet acquisition costs are generally more affordable than Fiber Channel, that doesn't mean it's a better choice.
If the results in the studio are disappointing, then the initial low price is not the bargain it seemed. The sum of all costs, i.e. cables, switches and network cards, although they will be higher than Ethernet technology, the efficiency and comfort of work of Fiber Channel will be better if we want higher efficiency.
With this in mind, in many cases, Ethernet can use the same infrastructure that already exists for other IT services and may not require dedicated hardware as with Fiber Channel (assuming Fiber Channel infrastructure does not exist). This could make Ethernet an attractive option for small to medium-sized post-production environments with less demanding work environments. Ethernet will also be better for companies that cannot afford to invest in Fiber Channel infrastructure.
Other things to consider when deciding which Ethernet or Fiber Channel network to connect to your storage network are scalability, management, security, and reliability.
Without a doubt, Ethernet can be more cost-effective to scale and manage. Again, it is built on the same network infrastructure that likely already exists for other IT services.
Solutions such as iSCSI, SMB, and NFS are relatively easy to deploy and manage, making them well suited for small to medium-sized post-production environments.
However, remember that easier does not mean easy. Ethernet-based storage solutions can quickly become complex, especially as environments increase in size and complexity. Ethernet storage implementations for optimal performance require advanced configuration and tuning, typically requiring a high level of expertise possessed only by specialized engineers.
When it comes to security and reliability, Fiber Channel clearly wins. It was designed for storage networks and has built-in security features such as zoning and authentication to prevent unauthorized access to data. It is a dedicated point-to-point connection separated from the Ethernet network, so confidential data is not exposed. On the other hand, Ethernet relies heavily on software security measures, which are vulnerable to hacking and attacks.
Again, Fiber Channel supports advanced features such as lossless packet delivery, congestion control, and prioritization. These features can help ensure reliable and consistent delivery of storage traffic. Ethernet lacks some of these advanced features, which can impact the reliability and consistency of storage traffic, especially in high-traffic environments such as those found in post-production.
Considering all these issues, what is the answer to the question which is better in a post-production environment?
Well, it's complicated. Both Fiber Channel and Ethernet have their advantages when it comes to storage networks in post-production environments. Ultimately, the choice between Fiber Channel and Ethernet depends on each customer's unique needs, including performance requirements, budget, and available expertise. Both technologies, Ethernet and Fiber Channel, have a place in the evolving world of post-production.
Comments (0)