Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6221 comp.unix.wizards:7337 comp.arch:4044
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.arch
Subject: Re: RFS vs. NFS
Message-ID: <7540@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 24 Mar 88 19:55:32 GMT
References: <3211@phri.UUCP> <616@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <616@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> rob@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Rob Logan) writes:
>I think the point is rather mute when you consider System V.4
>is shipping with NFS.

I didn't know that SVR4 is shipping at all yet, but I can believe that
it will include NFS support.  This doesn't mean that NFS would be a
better choice than RFS in all circumstances (only if interoperability
with other NFS systems that lack RFS support is necessary).  I would
hope that RFS is also continued in SVR4.  Better yet would be for Sun
to fix NFS so that the interface looks the same but the internals use
much of the same implementation approach as RFS.