Talk:Fibre Channel over Ethernet

Name
I moved this page from the page which was based on the abbreviation (FCoE), rather than the full name (Fibre Channel over Ethernet), of the technology. I then redirected FCoE to Fibre Channel over Ethernet. The CorenSearchBot apparently sees the old page in a cache, and recursively is claiming the new page is violating copyright.

Misleading at best

 * Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss).

The above sentence has very awkward structure, and is at best misleading. Even Gigabit Ethernet had a flow control option. Flow control can remove packet loss due to most common congestion causes. But packets can be lost for a variety of other reasons: random bit errors, loose connections, power glitches, marginal hardware, software or firmware bugs, malicious users, etc. It was a smart marketing ploy to call this "lossless" but of course nothing is perfect in the real world in practice. Will try to reword without introducing personal research. W Nowicki (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fibre Channel over Ethernet. 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/20120304220914/http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_040808b.html to http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_040808b.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) 07:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable entry in "Timeline" section
The Timeline section mentions "By September 2011, a columnist was calling the technology 'dead'."

Why is what "a columnist" says relevant to the article? With no further explanation or contextualisation, what does it contribute?

The Timeline section continues afterwards, listing more recent uses of FCoE. The above seems to be inconsistent with this? ExoticViolet (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I have already removed the entry. Anyone disagreeing is welcome to revert and discuss. --Zac67 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)