Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!seismo!rutgers!aramis!lear
From: lear@aramis.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NNTP vs. remote NFS mounts
Message-ID: <304@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5-Mar-87 01:09:18 EST
Article-I.D.: aramis.304
Posted: Thu Mar  5 01:09:18 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Mar-87 20:44:15 EST
References: <918@smeagol.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 30

Regarding NFS vs NNTP, Mel Pleasant at Rutgers has written in support
into News for NFS.  The benefits are considerable in my view for the
following reasons:

(1)	In general, support does not have to be added to specific
	programs such as rn or postnews (although you may run into
	byte order problems when using vnews and its artfile.
	Mounting one file system and making several links seems far
	more elegant then rewriting all the utilities you have to use
	rrn.

(2)	Surveys should be considerably faster (although I do not have
	figures) using NFS mounts and vnews because of the artsfile.
	The reason is that there is much less traffic involved going
	between machines since the survey is already compiled.
	Furthermore, NFS should be faster the TCP, which is what NNTP
	uses.

(3)	For diskless suns, the cost of NFS News should be the same as
	the cost of normal news.

So why use nntp?  I came to the conclusion that the big plus of nntp
is that you don't need NFS.  This is what it came down to when I wrote
an NNTP client program for a -20.

					...eliot
-- 

[lear@rutgers.rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]