Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!prlb2!kulcs!dannyb
From: dannyb@kulcs.uucp (Danny Backx)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <1189@kulcs.kulcs.uucp>
Date: 14 Mar 88 12:26:52 GMT
References: <10370@ut-sally.UUCP> <720@uel.uel.co.uk>
Reply-To: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP (Danny Backx)
Organization: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Dept. Computer Science
Lines: 17

In article <720@uel.uel.co.uk> andrew@uel.uel.co.uk (Andrew Josey) writes:
>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 
				  ^^^^^
You mean UDP/IP, I hope.

	Danny
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Danny Backx                            |  mail: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 
 Tel: +32 16 200656 x 3537              |        Dept. Computer Science
 E-mail: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP              |        Celestijnenlaan 200 A
         ... mcvax!prlb2!kulcs!dannyb   |        B-3030 Leuven
         dannyb@kulcs.BITNET            |        Belgium