Hmmm, so much of this looks like an attempt to solve the problems that were solved with fibre channel a couple decades back. Which I guess is standard NIH, with

Hmmm, so much of this looks like an attempt to solve the problems that were solved with fibre channel a couple decades back. Which I guess is standard NIH, with the advantage of not having to pay the FC consortium 95% HW margins. But still, you would think that some of those lessons could be learned before replacing it. AKA FC routes IP as one of its many protocols on top of the lower levels providing far more service guarantees than one normally gets with ethernet. Much of the QoS/latency/etc metrics were designed into FC from the beginning as a use on storage area networks (SANs). It just never took off as a IP transport because it cost 10x as much as ehernet, including a decade ago when these same groups tried to dump it on an ethernet MAC only to discover that it requires special switches which were $$$$ because "enterprise markup" defeating the whole point of cheap ethernet phy's. See FCoE.. And yet today, there is NVMEoF on FC, which is what one runs when its important that someone scp'ing a file on your network doesn't cause your database queries to slow down. What I don't get is why OCP doesn't just actually build some of these adapters/etc with a "we won't be greedy" take and sell them not only to the hyperscalers but on the open market. That way someone could actually build say, a FC adapter that has a price similar to an ethernet adapter.