Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!qmw-cs!liam
From: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: NFS for $'s or RFS for free
Message-ID: <2777@redstar.cs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Nov 90 19:44:23 GMT
References: <1138@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au>
Sender: usenet@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: whitesand

In <1138@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au> nigel@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au (Nigel 
Harwood) writes:

>We have two boxes connected via Ethernet.
>One has SVR3 and one SVR4.
>RFS comes standard with both SVR3 and SVR4.
>We have no need to talk to any other boxes i.e. DEC etc.

>Will RFS do the job or should we purchase NFS?

RFS will do the job - you will even be able to use tape devices etc from the 
remotely mounted machine and have its tape unit work for you. RFS is providing 
full UNIX filesystem semantics, including FIFOs, devices etc.

NFS however provides only the file bits of UNIX filesystem semantics, and that 
in a slightly generalised form. You get a few significant benefits, such as 
the clients surviving and not really noticing server crashes: RFS server 
crashes will imply some resetting of its client, though I don't know exactly 
what.

Two machines and no growth: it would certainly be hard to justify buying NFS.
More than two machine and growth prospects: it would be hard to justify the 
support cost implications of the rebooting problems associated with RFS, when 
NFS is so cheap...


--

William Roberts                 ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Queen Mary & Westfield College  UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP
Mile End Road                   AppleLink: UK0087
LONDON, E1 4NS, UK              Tel:  071-975 5250 (Fax: 081-980 6533)