Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6220 comp.unix.wizards:7336 comp.arch:4043
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!vdsvax!barnett
From: barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <4112@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 24 Mar 88 11:22:38 GMT
References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <7765@apple.Apple.Com> <7533@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: barnett@steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 13

In article <7533@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
|Funny, I thought the difference was that RFS is NFS done right.

RFS allows access to remote devices, NFS does not.

NFS is stateless. RFS is statefull. This might not seem like much,
but if an RFS disk is mounted on 100 machines, and the server crashes
and reboots, ....... Well, it just gets very messy.

If an NFS server reboots, the clients just waits and then continue on.
-- 
	Bruce G. Barnett 	<barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP>
				uunet!steinmetz!barnett