Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6200 comp.unix.wizards:7307 comp.arch:4028 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS Message-ID: <3211@phri.UUCP> Date: 24 Mar 88 03:52:54 GMT References: <7765@apple.Apple.Com> <7533@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 24 jk@apple.UUCP (John Kullmann) writes: > Everyone wants and uses NFS and no one wants or uses RFS. To which gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) responds: > Funny, I thought the difference was that RFS is NFS done right. From what I hear and understand, both statements are exactly right. Yes, NFS has its faults (not to mention the Yellow Pages, which is even worse). Many is the time I wished I could just do "tar f /system/dev/mt0" instead of having to deal with rmt. Nevertheless, I make NFS a requirement on any system I spec. It works well enough for me (which means I don't get bent out of shape over the details of Unix file system semantics) and it seems to be near-universal. I can get NFS on everything from IBM-PCs to Alliant FX/8s, with lots of stuff in the middle (for all I know, it may even run on Crays, but I can't get Crays). Until I see RFS being that ubiquitious, I'll continue to spec NFS. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why vendors shouldn't support both NFS and RFS (just like they support X and NeWS, TCP/IP and ISO, Coke and Pepsi, etc). -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016