Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6199 comp.unix.wizards:7303 comp.arch:4027
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ncar!noao!arizona!lm
From: lm@arizona.edu (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <4477@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 88 02:24:21 GMT
References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <7765@apple.Apple.Com>
Reply-To: lm@megaron.arizona.edu (Larry McVoy)
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Lines: 17

In article <7765@apple.Apple.Com> jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) writes:
>The key difference between NFS and RFS is:
>	Everyone wants and uses NFS and no one wants or uses RFS.

I suspect you'll get flamed for this but I'll back you up to this extent:
In a recent V.3 port to some big iron the powers that be spent about 5
minutes deciding to dump RFS and add TCP/IP and NFS.  I think it was
mainly a compatibility decision.  

Note that I don't necessarily mean to condone NFS (I was looking at IS'
TRFS [transparent remote file system] and it seems like they get 
better performance than NFS).  And there is this business of "NFS is
stateless so we'll add the stateful part in daemons off to the side".
That's a little weird, but it _is_ a hard problem.
-- 

Larry McVoy	lm@arizona.edu or ...!{uwvax,sun}!arizona.edu!lm