Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!quick!srg
From: srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <184@quick.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 88 01:18:37 GMT
References: <10370@ut-sally.UUCP> <720@uel.uel.co.uk> <45291@sun.uucp>
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle
Lines: 15
Keywords: Need a comparison.


Another problem with RFS is that the control structures are passed
around in native binary (or so say the AT&T training folks), so you
can't mount filesystems on machines with different byte orders.

I'll offer this comparison.  RFS is more transparent IFF you can use it.
It allows access to devices, and propagates unix file system semantics
more thoroughly (in fact, almost completely).  NFS, on the other hand,
is completely machine independent and even reasonably operating system
independent.  RFS runs ONLY on SYS V 3.2, and only between compatible
machines.  NFS lets a PC/XT mount a filesystem on a CRAY.  RFS and
STREAMS and such are interesting, but AT&T continues to act like
their own OSG releases are all there ever was, and that networking
and interoperating are only maybe going to happen someday.  Fortuately,
neither assertion is true.