Around the Storage Block Blog
Find out about all things data storage from Around the Storage Block at HP Communities.

HP BladeSystem Tech Day: Virtual Connect and FCoE session video

 By Calvin Zito, aka @HPStorageGuy


At last week's HP BladeSystem Tech Day, one of the session was an overview of Virtual Connect.  There was also a lot of discussion about Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) that had many of the bloggers very interested.  Mike Kendall and Mike Witkowski from the BladeSystem engineering team led this discussion.  There's also a post about this session by my colleague from the BladeSystem team Dan Bowers that you can read to get his perspective on the session. 


I was scrambling to grab my video camera and missed the first minute or two of the session though I think you'll get the idea. 






Comments
Anonymous(anon) | ‎03-13-2010 04:55 AM

I sincerely hope you had high waders, a nose plug, and a very long snorkel while you listened to this.  I have never heard such a wind-bag version of BS for customers and I have been in the industry a long time.

HP should be ashamed of themselves.

| ‎03-15-2010 12:21 PM

Dags - I'm never sure how to respond to comments like yours because its completely void of any thing factual to respond to so I think I'll only say that every blogger I heard from at our Tech Day thought the presentations were very good to outstanding.  

Quite the contrary of being ashamed - I think our BladeSystem team did a great job at our Tech Day and is very proud.

Anonymous(anon) | ‎03-15-2010 05:22 PM

omg - this was educational. i truly had no idea how little HP people know about networking. scary. perhaps HP should stick their true competency - printer inks..?

Anonymous(anon) | ‎03-16-2010 12:49 AM

Okay, I will give you a few.  1) If you have been involved with the EVB efforts around 802.1Qbg and bh, you would understand why the marketing nonsense around what actually happened both pre-PAR and post PAR, would give you some indication of why the content given by these people is marketing BS.  If you want to make this a Cisco-vs-HP thing, then why did HP's efforts of VEPA come after the announcement and presentation of this as a proposal come after what Cisco and VMware presented to the IEEE.  

2) Your readers and audience will have to be intimately familiar with the details of bother 802.1Qbg and bh to understand the management differences between them - if you deployed both models independently - to understand the management challenges they face.  Also, how about HP market them both as standards, since they were both voted on unanimously as presented to Nescom for standardization.

3) For HP to be standing on a standards position in one slide, and then mention VC in another is amazing.  How about HP open up the provisioning of the servers, similar as with VC, with all IO modules, not just Cisco BTW, but all IO modules.  I understand Brocade builds the current 8G VC modules.  How about a customer not being forced to buy Ethernet VC, when they want WWN persistence and mobility.  Maybe HP should propose a sever provisioning model, similar to what they did only for the VC model, to the DMTF and allow all 3rd party software providers to provision the servers, maybe that would be a good standards provider as these marketing hounds so espouse in the videos above.

3) If HP is a standards company, in the context of .1Qbg and bh, then maybe they should state they support bh as well, since they were part of the process last fall that approved them both.

Anonymous(anon) | ‎03-17-2010 05:18 AM

Dags - thanks for coming back and leaving some detail instead of an attack.

If I understand your point, you are concerned that we gave short shrift to IEEE 802.1Qbh. Even through the slide in the video only had Qbg in the heading (an unintentional oversight on our part), Qbh content is shown under the ‘Remote Replication’ column and we did cover Qbh in summary. Since it is primarily for Fabric Extenders and we have no current interest in those, we may have spent too little time on it to everyone's liking but seemed right to us.

As to the point you raised on selling the Virtual Connect Fibre Channel module without the Ethernet module, since everyone buys some type of  Ethernet module we put the VC management processor in the Ethernet module to save cost. The Fibre Channel module is a slave unit. So no Ethernet unit and no brain.

Finally, your  idea of a server provisioning standard is interesting. Since the term ‘server provisioning’ is a broad term, I am not sure what part of server provisioning you are focusing on. Is it bare metal configuration? Bare metal OS load? Both? Since vendors including IBM, Dell, HP, Cisco, VMware, Red Hat, Microsoft and others all do aspects of this in unique ways some kind of commonality would be useful. Now where to start …

Thanks again for the comment.

Anonymous(anon) | ‎03-23-2010 04:13 AM

Actually, what is done is something different.  The non-marketing person in this video makes many statements around the direction "the industry" is going.  

The industry  voted for both PARs, bg and bh.  If you are not interested in that, which is interesting because the draft prior to bh was submitted by VMware and Cisco, so if you do not like Cisco, then there should be interest in VMware's position if nothing else.

Also, if you are not interested in bh, then HP is choosing not to support a standard in which they voted for its submission, is another interesting point.

Actually, this is a dog and pony show with many incorrect inferences and indirect pokes at Cisco, which seems to be an interesting approach - ok, let's alert our customer that they should be paying attention to our competition.

This is riddled with holes, as was the Folly report, I mean Tolly report on HP vs Cisco.  Read - money.cnn.com/.../0597495.htm.  Someone needs to learn how to configure a server, especially when it is paid to do so.

Either way you look at it, I hope these resources are not your best.

| ‎03-25-2010 12:36 PM

@DAGS - thanks for your opinion and dropping by.  Continuing a debate with you isn't going to bring any clearer visibilty to this for customers so we'll drop our discussion with you here.

Leave a Comment

We encourage you to share your comments on this post. Comments are moderated and will be reviewed
and posted as promptly as possible during regular business hours

To ensure your comment is published, be sure to follow the community guidelines.

Be sure to enter a unique name. You can't reuse a name that's already in use.
Be sure to enter a unique email address. You can't reuse an email address that's already in use.
Type the characters you see in the picture above.Type the words you hear.
Search
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
About the Author
25+ years experience around HP Storage. The go-to guy for news and views on all things storage..
Featured


Follow Us
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.