<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:clearspace="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/clearspace/rss" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Knorrhane</title>
    <link>http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane</link>
    <description>Things that happens and is good to be remembered.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:25:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <generator>Clearspace 1.10.12 (http://jivesoftware.com/products/clearspace/)</generator>
    <dc:date>2008-02-07T19:25:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Comparison of Storage Protocol Performance</title>
      <link>http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/2008/02/07/comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance</link>
      <description>&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;b&gt;Download:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/storage_protocol_perf.pdf"&gt;http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/storage_protocol_perf.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p /&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Description&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p /&gt;
This paper demonstrates that the four network storage connection options available to ESX Server are all capable of reaching a level of performance limited only by the media and storage devices. And even with multiple virtual machines running concurrently on the same ESX Server host, the high performance is&lt;br /&gt;
maintained. The data on CPU costs indicates that Fibre Channel and hardware iSCSI are the most CPU efficient, but in cases in which CPU consumption is not a concern, software iSCSI and NFS can also be part of a high‐performance solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p /&gt;
From: VMware</description>
      <category domain="http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/tags">performance</category>
      <category domain="http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/tags">comparision</category>
      <category domain="http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/tags">fc</category>
      <category domain="http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/tags">iscsi</category>
      <category domain="http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/tags">nfs</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>nikkar</author>
      <guid>http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/2008/02/07/comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance</guid>
      <dc:date>2008-02-07T19:25:00Z</dc:date>
      <clearspace:dateToText>1 year, 9 months ago</clearspace:dateToText>
      <wfw:comment>http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/comment/comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/Knorrhane/feeds/comments?blogPostID=1462</wfw:commentRss>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

