Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6280 comp.unix.wizards:7402 comp.arch:4098
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!umd5!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: <7561@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 27 Mar 88 11:30:18 GMT
References: <326@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <7765@apple.Apple.Com> <10184@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <10184@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes:
>I thought the key difference was that RFS maintains true Unix
>semantics when the file is remote. NFS does not (locks, for
>instance).

In some implementations, at least, there is a separate "lock daemon"
process that receives locking/unlocking requests on a socket and
coordinates access to the files.  I know, it's a kludge, but it ought
to be able to work right (somebody did report problems with theirs).