Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.nfs:276 comp.sys.mac:34953 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!oxtrap!time From: time@oxtrap.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tim Endres) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: NFS and Mac IIs Message-ID: Date: 18 Jul 89 17:40:28 GMT References: <5458@b11.ingr.com> <2596@mit-caf.MIT.EDU> <1272@intercon.UUCP> Sender: time@oxtrap.UUCP Reply-To: time@oxtrap.UUCP Organization: Digital Works, Ltd. - Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 54 In-reply-to: kdb@intercon.uu.net's message of 14 Jul 89 18:38:07 GMT >> Many questions concerning MacNFS Being the original author of MacNFS at CITI UofM, maybe I can clear some things up. One) MacNFS versus AppleShare When we started the MacNFS project more than three years ago, we had to chose between implementing NFs protocols on the Mac or implementing AppleShare protocols in Unix. We chose to implement the NFS protocols on the Mac for "open-systems" reasons. CAP implemented the AppleShare protocols (and nicely I might add). AppleShare will ALWAYS beat NFS protocols for the Macintosh. Without getting too deep into details here, suffice it to say that the mapping of Macintosh files to the Unix domain is not a simple task. You must keep tracks of the three forks (Data, Resource, Finder). You must answer many "very brain-damaged" interface calls. The biggest head-ache was the repetetive "GetFileInfo()" in "index-mode" that killed any file server whenever the Finder went into its display mode. Since the NFS protocol was/is (and for good reason) limited, we had to make *many* network calls to NFS to implement even a *single* GetFileInfo() call. AppleShare, on the other hand, gets the complicated Macintosh calls on the Unix side, completes any necessary "kludges" on the Unix side and returns the answer !All in one network call!. So MacNFS will never compete with this advantage. Two) Where is MacNFS Well, you can blame 9 months of its delay on Bert Herzog at CITI! He sat on finished, released code and documentation for 9 months, because "I don't know who to send it to at Apple.". Thanks Bert. Apple seems unprepared to meet an original deadline for the release of MacNFS. Why? Well, I could never get it to work 100%!!! We did not have the Finder source code, and the Finder did things that did not match the IM docs, and we could get no answer from Apple Support. I would have thought that internally they could produce this themselves, but apparently they understand their code very little. Or, there are other reasons, I can NOT speak for Apple. MacNFS is a very complicated beast, even if you have source to the Finder and MacOS. Three) Do you *really* want MacNFS YES you do. It may not be the best performance package but it is on every unix box going. CAP is a *very* good facility, but not commercial. Apple, please get MacNFS out in the hands of your users. It has been stalled long enough. It seems a shame for such a large amount of work (paid for by Apple) to sit on a shelf. Tim Endres.