Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!ist!uel!andrew
From: andrew@uel.uel.co.uk (Andrew Josey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <720@uel.uel.co.uk>
Date: 7 Mar 88 15:59:04 GMT
References: <10370@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Unix Europe, London, UK
Lines: 15
Keywords: Need a comparison.
Summary: RFS vs NFS

In article <10370@ut-sally.UUCP>, srinivas@ut-sally.UUCP (Srini Sankaran) writes:
> I would like to know how System V.3 's RFS compares against Sun's NFS
> in capabilities, implementation, performance etc...
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
AT&T's RFS is fully System V compatible. RFS is media and protocol independent
whereas NFS relies on a specific TCP/IP implementation.  Both are data 
transparent, i.e. data can be accessed without the user knowing whether 
the data is local or remote. RFS also supports transparency to devices such 
as printers, tape drives, comms links etc. and has extensive administrative
support for controlling access to shared resources.
-- 
 Andrew Josey,	AT&T Unix Europe, a Division of AT&T (UK) Ltd.
 International House, Ealing Broadway, London W5 5DB, England, UK
 uucp:{ mcvax!ukc, attunix} uel!andrew
 { The usual disclaimer .... }