Talk:Fibre Channel

message: Fibre Channel is a proper noun and thus is always capitalized.  Please do not un-capitalize it.  I have proposed a standard for capitalization of industry jargon here.  Please stop editing these articles until the matter is settled in a Wiki fashion!
It's also ALWAYS spelled "Fibre" when referring to the protocol instead of the glass.  FYI.--SFoskett 19:13, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
:: I've clarified the explanation on spelling. In Commonwealth English, the spelling fibre is used for glass (indeed, whenever American English uses "fiber"). It is only the American English that has the distinction. So, the explanation is primarily of interest to those needing to use American English. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling and captitalization 

message: There is a very similar article at Fibre_channel_port.  I don't know the protocol for merging and don't have time to figure it out right now.  Hopefully someone else finds this.
--Lukus 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Article 

message: Please add 3PAR (http://www.3pardata.com) to "Fibre Channel Storage". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.126.187.138 (talk • contribs) 15:27, June 13, 2006  (UTC)
:I think the storage companies should all be deleted. Mentioning the companies is 
:just advertising - not real information.  Its against the Wikipedia rules.  Also, 
:mentioning some and leaving out others is unfair. I propose removing the sections 
:"Fibre Channel Storage" and  "Storage Virtualization Software and Hardware" 
:which are just collections of links to the respective companies. Smallpond 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the guidelines, I deleted the sections that were just collections of ad links. Smallpond 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add 3PAR to Fibre Channel Storage 

message: I include deleted entries here.  I found them unclear and confusing (to an unprepared reader). I think some of them could be re-incorporated into the main text - with proper explanation.
Attribute                   	Point-to-Point        	Arbitrated loop            	Switched fabric
Max bandwidth               	2× link rate          	2× link rate               	(Number of ports) × link rate
Address assignment          	N_port login          	Loop init. and fabric login	Fabric login
Concurrent connections      	1                     	1                          	Switch ports/2
Concurrent maintenance      	Link down             	May disrupt entire loop    	Switch and port link down
Expansion                   	Additional P2P links  	Attach loop to fabric      	Expand fabric
Redundancy                  	Add redundant P2P link	Use dual loops             	Use redundant switches
Media types supported       	All                   	All                        	All
Classes of service supported	All                   	1, 2, & 3                  	All
Cost per port               	Port cost             	Port cost + loop function  	Port cost + fabric port
--Kubanczyk 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted some entries from table 

message: "Heterogeneous" means having equipment from more than one vendor; its use in the article appears to be a thinko on the part of the editor, and I'm editing accordingly.  If I'm incorrect, please discuss.  Also, I suggest removing the comment "recommending" homogeneous networks--it doesn't appear appropriate for WP. chrylis (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-vendor networks 

message: Although backed by a very "authoritative" source, the History section is incorrect. For example IBM was selling 1063 Mbps switches in 1995 (which obviously is before the stated 1997, see IBM Announcement Letter 195-297 dated October 10, 1995), and FC-266 products back in 1992 (seen that in an IBM paper catalogue in 1993 which stayed with my former employer). To the best of my knowledge FC have started at 133 Mbps with hubs similar to those found in Token-Ring and FDDI. --91.92.29.19 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have something on fractional speeds.  Pretty sure that Sun also used quarter-speed FC.  Cern news site archive mentions 16-port Ancor switch and full speed switch soon in 1995. Smallpond (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section is wrong 

message: The page claims that IBM's Serial Storage Architecture was superior but doesn't say why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.159.226 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was SSA better? 

message: The caption for :File:Lc-sc-fiber-connectors.jpg currently reads “Typical Fibre Channel connectors - modern LC on the left and older SC (typical for 100 Mbyte/s speeds) on the right” (emphasis added). Shouldn’t that be “Mbit/s”? Generally speaking, network speeds are measured in bits and storage capacities are measured in bytes. However, I’m not very familiar with Fibre Channel, so I’ll avoid changing it myself… —Wulf (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 100 megabytes per second is correct for "usable" transfer, but not for the line speed. So feel free to change it to "1 Gb/s speed" to avoid further misunderstandings. As FC uses 8/10 bit encoding it is not possible to transfer information in units other than full octets. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Mbyte/s 

message: I have asked that the edit you made 17:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 96.247.231.106 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fibre Channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127165148/http://www.fibrechannel.org/fibre-channel-roadmaps.html to http://www.fibrechannel.org/fibre-channel-roadmaps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: === Issue: ===
I found what appears to be a glaring inconsistency, a technical term referencing version 4 immediately followed by its acronym in parentesis, but making reference to version 5.  Having said that, it's probably just a typo, or more specifically, an incomplete update.
=== Re: Potential conflicting information, please see the articles section on ===
==== Layers [section:] ====
 Fibre Channel does not follow the OSI model layering, and is split into five layers:
 - FC-4....
 - FC-3....
 - FC-2 – Signaling Protocol, defined by the Fibre Channel Framing and Signaling 4 (FC-FS-5) standard....
 - FC-1....
 - FC-0....
 Fibre Channel is...
 This diagram from FC-FS-4 defines the layers. 
=== See also: ===
==== History [section:] ====
 Fibre Channel variants [table]
 Name: 		64GFC "Gen 7"
 Line coding: 	256b257b (FC-FS-5)
==== Topologies [section:] ====
 ....
 - Point-to-point (see FC-FS-3).
==== References [section:] ====
 13. ^abcdefg  Fibre Channel - Framing and Signaling - 4 (FC-FS-4)
=== Suggestion: ===
If for some (rather odd) reason this article is correct as it stands, then while no actual edit might be required, at least some note should be made (in the talk section here, or perhaps even in the article itself) to explain what would be a rather drastic departure from convention.
Since I don't know how best to confirm which version is correct (current?), I am mentioning this seeming inconsistency here so that others who are more informed can do the right thing.  I.e. edit the actual article by changing "4" to "5" and/or, vice-versa, changing "5" to "4", whichever is best, at the appropriate location(s).
Tree4rest (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request review of potential typo by a Subject Matter Expert in Fibre Channel (SME: FC).  

message: If for some (rather odd) reason this article is correct as it stands, then while no actual edit might be required, at least some note should be made (in the talk section here, or perhaps even in the article itself) to explain what would be a rather drastic departure from convention.
Since I don't know how best to confirm which version is correct (current?), I am mentioning this seeming inconsistency here so that others who are more informed can do the right thing.  I.e. edit the actual article by changing "4" to "5" and/or, vice-versa, changing "5" to "4", whichever is best, at the appropriate location(s).
Tree4rest (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: 

message: That's kinda contradictory Phiarc (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Media and modules" first says SFP-DD and QSFP are not used, then explains where they are used