Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!mit-eddie!husc6!uwvax!dave
From: dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NNTP vs. remote NFS mounts
Message-ID: <3315@rsch.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5-Mar-87 21:50:53 EST
Article-I.D.: rsch.3315
Posted: Thu Mar  5 21:50:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Mar-87 23:01:37 EST
References: <918@smeagol.JPL.NASA.GOV> <3311@rsch.WISC.EDU> <309@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sender: news@rsch.WISC.EDU
Reply-To: dave@rsch.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 30

[ I replied to Eliot in person, but he "Cc:" the net so... ]

In article <309@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes:
>The problem of binaries is not that hard to get over.

True, there's nothing that can't be solved by another level of indirection.

Maybe we'll try something like that eventually.  For now, though, using
NNTP takes no additional hacks, which is the perfect thing to use when
one has no time for even the most trivial hacking.

---------- [ end of forwarded msg ] 

Using NFS, in retrospect, is probably better CPUwise.  You don't need the
nntpd running on the server; you pay the price for disk access either
way.  Of course, you have to convince to system admin (I'm not) to set
up the server the way you want.  This isn't a problem for most people,
I'm sure.

The main reason I went with NNTP in this case (we used to use NFS for
news when the server and the clients were all vaxen) was that I didn't
have the time to set everything up right so it wouldn't break the next
time someone did "make install".  Using NNTP took less forethought.

When one must contend with gremlins on a dayly basis, it changes ones
outlook.

Dave Cohrs                                             Proud member of NOTHING
+1 608 262-2196                             UW-Madison Computer Sciences Dept.
dave@rsch.wisc.edu               ...!{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,rutgers}!uwvax!dave