Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jsq
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions
Message-ID: <13218@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 19:58:02 GMT
References: <543@usenix.ORG> <544@usenix.ORG> <551@usenix.ORG>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: IR
Lines: 20
Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)

In article <551@usenix.ORG> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> >NFS (as it is currently implemented) shows what goes wrong when
> >reliability disappears.
> In a discussion of filesystem semantics, NFS is a straw man.  Everyone
> knows it's a botch.
> If AFS and RFS don't convince one that a networked filesystem
> namespace can work well, then nothing will.

Exactly! This example proves my point. What's so bad about NFS---why it
doesn't fit well into the filesystem---is that it doesn't make the
remote filesystem reliable and local. If you show me Joe Shmoe's RFS
with reliable, local, static I/O objects, I'll gladly include it in the
filesystem.

---Dan

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 185