Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!bohra!als
From: als@bohra.cpg.oz (Anthony Shipman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: ISC 386/ix 2.0.2 with TCP/IP & NFS crashes absolutely ALL THE TIME!
Summary: RFS is good
Message-ID: <566@bohra.cpg.oz>
Date: 15 Aug 90 14:32:48 GMT
References: <797@hades.ausonics.oz.au> <1940@cybaswan.UUCP> <279@prosun.first.gmd.de>
Organization: Computer Power Group, Melb, Australia
Lines: 21

In article <279@prosun.first.gmd.de>, tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) writes:
> kind of networking not necessarily NFS. Isn't there a thing called
> RFS (AT&T's Remote File System) included with ISC? Shouldn't it 
> actually perform a lot faster than the state-less design of NFS?
> Is anybody actually using it on an [34]86 box with 386/ix?
> What are the trade-offs? Can I run it together with TCP/IP or is
> it actually based on it. Can I do rlogins, telnet and FTP?

I have used RFS on 386/ix 2.0.2 and it seemed to be quite reliable. It requires
STREAMS and you can run it alongside TCP/IP.

The big advantage for me over NFS for homogeneous SysV networks was remote 
device access. You can mount another machine's /dev directory and access it's 
devices directly. RFS however can only be used between machines running SysV.

I have never used NFS with 386/ix so I can't compare the performance.
-- 
Anthony Shipman                               ACSnet: als@bohra.cpg.oz.au
Computer Power Group
9th Flr, 616 St. Kilda Rd.,
St. Kilda, Melbourne, Australia
D