FC HBA Speed

Fibre Channel 1GFC, 2GFC, 4GFC use an 8B/10B encoding scheme. Fibre Channel 10GFC, which uses a 64B/66B encoding scheme, is not compatible with 1GFC, 2GFC and 4GFC, and is used only to interconnect switches.

1, 2, 4, and 8 Gb Fibre Channel all use 8b/10b encoding.   Meaning, 8 bits of data gets encoded into 10 bits of transmitted information – the two bits are used for data integrity.   Well, if the link is 8Gb, how much do we actually get to use for data – given that 2 out of every 10 bits aren’t “user” data?   FC link speeds are somewhat of an anomaly, given that they’re actually faster than the stated link speed would suggest.   Original 1Gb FC is actually 1.0625Gb/s, and each generation has kept this standard and multiplied it.  8Gb FC would be 8×1.0625, or actual bandwidth of 8.5Gb/s.   8.5*.80 = 6.8.   6.8Gb of usable bandwidth on an 8Gb FC link.

10GE (and 10G FC, for that matter) uses 64b/66b encoding.   For every 64 bits of data, only 2 bits are used for integrity checks.   While theoretically this lowers the overall protection of the data, and increases the amount of data discarded in case of failure, that actual number of data units that are discarded due to failing serialization/deserialization is minuscule.    For a 10Gb link using 64b/66b encoding, that leaves 96.96% of the bandwidth for user data, or 9.7Gb/s.

So 8Gb FC = 6.8Gb usable, while 10Gb Ethernet = 9.7Gb usable.   Even if I was able to use all of the bandwidth available on an 8Gb FC port (which is very unlikely at the server access layer), with 10GE running FCoE, I’d still have room for 3 gigabit Ethernet-class “lanes”.   How’s that for consolidation?

10Gb FC has the same usable bandwidth, and without the overhead (albeit a small 2% or so) of FCoE, but you don’t get the consolidation benefits of using the same physical link for your storage and traditional Ethernet traffic.

http://www.unifiedcomputingblog.com/2010/04/08/8gb-fibre-channel-or-10gb-ethernet-w-fcoe/