Xserve and Fibre Channel over Ethernet

It appears the mental model here is that of a Network Attached Storage (NAS) device.

You don't have one of those here.

This is a Fibre Channel Storage Area Network (FC SAN) configuration. While it does have "network" in its name, it is a network that is specifically configured and operated for I/O traffic.

Think of the FC SAN as a massively fast and massively long and multi-host USB, or as a really fast and very long SCSI bus connection. (And at the lower levels, the USB and SCSI and FC SAN I/O implementations are all far more related than you might expect, too.)

The usual expected SAN storage environment here is "above" a NAS box, too; with more hosts and faster I/O connections and more storage configured into the FC SAN and into the Xserve RAID FC SAN storage controller(s) that are present on the SAN.

FC SAN is fairly common in enterprise configurations; for computers and environments where you need big storage and big I/O.

FCoE or FCIP? Those are generally "tunnels"; FC on each end, with Ethernet or IP in the middle.

Not what you want here.

The "gateway" or "adapter" you're seeking is typically the Xserve or Mac OS X host box.

With an FC HBA. If you want to serve up the storage via CIFS/SMB or such to Windows or Linux or otherwise, then you would connect an Xserve box or another box with a Fibre Channel Host Bus Adapter (FC HBA) to the Xserve RAID as part of a Fibre Channel Storage Area Network (FC SAN), and use the Xserve to serve up the files to the other hosts via IP or other protocols.

Is there a reason you don't just attach the RAID to one of the servers in the rack and use standard file sharing (e.g. AFP, NFS, etc.) to make the volume available to the other servers. They'll all communicate with the host server at gigabit ethernet speeds and it will take care of talking to the RAID over fiber channel.

Bear in mind that if you want to go the other way and directly attach each server to the RAID over fiber channel you are talking some serious $$s - especially if you want all the servers to share the same volume (as opposed to each having their own little piece of the RAID). Since you mention 'sharing' I'm guessing that you want them all to see the same content, so now you're looking at something like XSAN at $1,000 per node, plus a dedicated SAN controller (or two).

ok but is it possible to use only the Fibre Channel as network connection? So the xserve will be connectet at the network with only Fibre Channel?

ok but is it possible to use only the Fibre Channel as network connection? So the xserve will be connectet at the network with only Fibre Channel?

No. There is no IP over FC. Not on your budget.

There are two similarly-named boxes here. Xserve. Which is a computer. And Xserve RAID, which is a Fibre Channel Storage controller box.

Xserve RAID is only accessible via Fibre Channel, and only using the integrated Fibre Channel protocols. Xserve RAID cannot serve its storage via an Ethernet network.

An Xserve box (an Xserve box, the computer, and not the Xserve RAID box, the storage array) typically already has a network connection or two and (likely present within this configuration) an add-on Fibre Channel storage I/O card. Xserve can serve up most any storage that it can access to other clients via IP protocols and Ethernet networks. This served storage can include Xserve RAID storage that the Xserve box has access to.

Put another way, you can boot and can run the Xserve box and can serve the files stored out on the Xserve RAID, if you have the correct pieces. The Xserve and the Xserve RAID are here (together) used as a NAS box.

Alternatively, look to sell or swap this hardware to somebody that can use an Xserve and Xserve RAID configuration, and move on to something that better meets your particular expectations. If you phrase your swap correctly, you might get yourself a small and dedicated NAS box, which is what you seem to be envisioning.

But stop trying to connect Ethernet over Fibre Channel. Few FC controllers can even provide that stacking, and even fewer sites use that approach. Most everybody that needs fewer communications wires (between distant sites, for instance) uses FC over IP. Not IP over FC.