Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!rose!nowicki
From: nowicki%rose@Sun.COM (Bill Nowicki)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <45291@sun.uucp>
Date: 14 Mar 88 07:10:40 GMT
References: <10370@ut-sally.UUCP> <720@uel.uel.co.uk>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 30
Keywords: Need a comparison.
Summary: NFS vs RFS

In article <720@uel.uel.co.uk>, andrew@uel.uel.co.uk (Andrew Josey) writes:
> AT&T's RFS is fully System V compatible. RFS is media and protocol 
> independent whereas NFS relies on a specific TCP/IP implementation.  

Not true.

The NFS protocol is based upon Sun RPC (recently posted to the net),
which has been implemented on many different network architectures.
Most of the current NFS vendors happen to use TCP/IP so that they
interoperate.  As for media, IP (and NFS!) runs today on everything
from RS-232 dial-up, Arpanet, T1 point-to-point links, Ethernet, token
rings, ProNet-80s, Hypercahnel, and FDDI.

The difference often discussed is that RFS keeps state in the server
about every client who has a file open.  This implies that when your
server goes away all I/O to open files returns with errors, while NFS
allows the clients to wait until the server recovers if they wish.  But
the real difference is that RFS runs on System V Release 3.  NFS runs
on everything from MS-DOS PCs to a Cray-2: many different flavors of
Unix (including BSD and SVR3), LISP Machines, and even VMS and
TOPS-20 operating systems.

>  Andrew Josey,	AT&T Unix Europe, a Division of AT&T (UK) Ltd.

Obviously neither of us are biased! :-)

  Bill Nowicki
  Sun Microsystems

>  { The usual disclaimer .... }