At 4:52 PM -0500 2002/01/09, Ken Cross wrote:

>  A factor that totally invalidates that statement is the fact that
>  fiber-channel disks "look" like scsi disks to NetBSD.  We have
>  installations with many, many disks on a fiber channel.  In fact, the
>  problem we ran into was that the isp driver didn't allow enough LUNs for
>  all the disks.  (We hacked that locally.)

	No matter how hard you may try to force it, FibreChannel 
simply is *NOT* SCSI.

	Statements that are made about SCSI may or may not be true of 
FibreChannel, but would need to be re-tested and re-validated in the 
new environment.


	Moreover, all the SAN experts I've talked to laugh at the 
concept that using FibreChannel is anything remotely like "locally 
attached disk", as is inherently the case with SCSI.  FibreChannel 
is, quite simply, a totally different environment.


	Point me to the book(s) you are writing on the subject of 
SANs, NAS, FibreChannel, etc... and the tutorials you've given at 
world-renowned conferences put on by USENIX (or other comparable 
organization, if there is one), and I'll be willing to give your 
words the same weight as the people I've spoken to, and the books I 
have reviewed galley copies of (e.g., _Using SANs and NAS_ by W. 
Curtis Preston, published by O'Reilly & Assoc., ISBN 0596001533).

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>

H4sICIFgXzsCA2RtYS1zaWcAPVHLbsMwDDvXX0H0kkvbfxiwVw8FCmzAzqqj1F4dy7CdBfn7
Kc6wmyGRFEnvvxiWQoCvqI7RSWTcfGXQNqCUAnfIU+AT8OZ/GCNjRVlH0bKpguJkxiITZqes
MxwpSucyDJzXxQEUe/ihgXqJXUXwD9ajB6NHonLmNrUSK9nacHQnH097szO74xFXqtlbT3il
wMsBz5cnfCR5cEmci0Rj9u/jqBbPeES1I4PeFBXPUIT1XDSOuutFXylzrQvGyboWstCoQZyP
dxX4dLx0eauFe1x9puhoi0Ao1omEJo+BZ6XLVNaVpWiKekxN0VK2VMpmAy+Bk7ZV4SO+p1L/
uErNRS/qH2iFU+iNOtbcmVt9N16lfF7tLv9FXNj8AiyNcOi1AQAA