Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!urz.unibas.ch!doelz
From: doelz@urz.unibas.ch
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: MacNFS vs AppleShare
Message-ID: <1990Nov10.100943.1166@urz.unibas.ch>
Date: 10 Nov 90 09:09:43 GMT
References: <4665@husc6.harvard.edu>
Organization: University of Basel, Switzerland
Lines: 54

In article <4665@husc6.harvard.edu>, Cherry@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (J. Michael Cherry) writes:
> If you could pick between NFS or AppleShare based strictly on the protocols' 
> performance and ease of use which method of network file sharing would you 
> use between a Macintosh and a multiuser system like Unix or VMS. With NFS 
> the Unix software is included with the operating system, with AppleShare 
> the software is included with the Macintosh. On a VMS system neither NFS 
> or AppleShare is included but both are commercially available. Which method
> would be the best from a technical point of view?

None. Depending on resources, all gateways we have tested so far lacked 
performance. The following options are available: 

HOST      ----converter-----    Mac 
Apple
Share 

This would be CAP, PACER, ALISA, LANWORKS, HELIOS, etc. 
The drawback is that the host is bothered quite a bit. Further, the 
mac-like storage of resource and data forks makes it necessary to 
either split the files or to convert them somehow on the fly. Both
is computationally expensive. 

HOST      ----converter----    Mac 
                              NFS, or (cryptic) DECnet 

The poor Mac has lots of things to do and will be not really useful any longer.

HOST      ----smart converter---- Mac 
NFS             Gator Box            AppleShare

The cheapest solution because a smart converter can serve a lot of 
macs and hosts, (and it even works with VMS/UCX/NFS).  
             
> 
> If the primary computer to the end user is a Macintosh then I feel the 
> AppleShare approach would be best because NFS does not provide the icon 
> information. Please correct me if I am uninformed for I do not know much
> about either methods design. 
> 

The problem is that you can rarely afford all the methods and let your 
users have the choice. From a commercial point of view, I would cosider 
a reasonably equipped mac with a large disk to be the best file server. 
Even if you manage to get your giga disks on the mac, you can't really *work*
with those things because the performance of both the network and the con-
version software is slow and costy. The file transfer is something 
else, though. If you manage to get your users work without switching 
the protocols (e.g., nfs/appleshare) and let them work in 'native' 
language locally, the off-line file transfer can be o.k. to work with 
larger files across system boundaries. I tested some, and there are 
some performance differences, but for *transfer* those products are fine.

Regards 
Reinhard