Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!gargoyle!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices)
Message-ID: <1991Mar01.163211.25439@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 1 Mar 91 16:32:11 GMT
References: <14363@ulysses.att.com> <FWP1.91Feb23160240@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> <14367@ulysses.att.com>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 18

In article <14367@ulysses.att.com> ekrell@ulysses.att.com (Eduardo Krell) writes:

>No, I'm well aware of the difference between RFS and NFS. RFS is a distributed
>Unix filesystem and guarantees Unix semantics on remote files.

Does device access over RFS actually work completely in any released version
of unix?  See my articles in comp.sys.att for a description of problems
trying to get uucp to use a remote tty line.  It "almost" works but it
looks like certain ioctl()'s fail, with differences between '386 and
3B2 versions (each accessing a similar machine - the difference is in which
functions work properly).  All machines are running AT&T's SysVr3.2 with
the RFS links over Starlan.

Perhaps we can continue this discussion of how useful remote device access
is when someone can give a real working example.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us