Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!brian
From: brian@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NNTP vs. remote NFS mounts
Message-ID: <2820@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Mar-87 18:59:47 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.2820
Posted: Fri Mar  6 18:59:47 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Mar-87 09:50:35 EST
References: <17710@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: brian@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor)
Organization: UCSD wombat breeding society
Lines: 20

In article <17710@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> /jordan wrote:
>NNTP was not designed for a DFS environment.  In fact, it was
>specifically for a NON-DFS setup.  If you have NFS, you should clearly
>use it.
>/jordan

NOT TRUE!  NNTP was written to be independent of environment - and
becomes a clear winner as soon as the clients become a mixture of
at least ONE non-dfs systems.  Should I also store news on my Sun
in a distributed file system when I have a vax serving a dozen or
so machines which don't (and probably WON'T) use a dfs?  No, of course
not.

Now if all you have is one network with a filesystem that's common to
all the machines on it, NFS might be better.  Maybe.  But its a
shortsighted solution when a rich mix of clients is considered!

	Brian Kantor	UCSD Office of Academic Computing
			Academic Network Operations Group  
			UCSD B-028, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA