Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!ucbvax!BU-CS.BU.EDU!bzs
From: bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: SLIP working group?
Message-ID: <8803311706.AA05557@bu-cs.bu.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 88 17:06:52 GMT
References: <8803311257.AA16410@mome.cs.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25


Hm, perhaps I was wrong about modifying udpcksum enabling it for NFS.

As far as NFS over a serial line I tried it one evening over our 9.6Kb
Cypress line between BU and UCB. It really wasn't bad, NFS is not a
particularly high overhead protocol, the info being exchanged is
fairly similar to what gets exchanged in an FTP session (DIR,GET,PUT
etc.) Of course this disregards transmission problems which I didn't
seem to have that evening, the question was thruput.

It's probably an intuitive confusion that because NFS is so useful and
neat that it must therefore demand massive bandwidth (or perhaps
people are mixing the thought with ND, the diskless protocol?)

Doubtless you'd want your binaries local but as a very easy to use
"ftp" (eg. snooping around directories, copying stuff, file
management) it's really not bad on a relatively slow line in my
experience, perhaps a little slower than FTP but being able to use the
native OS interface to the remote file system can make it worthwhile.

Note that there are various timeout parameters etc that would need to
be tuned (can be set on a per mount basis) for smooth performance, but
the concept is not nearly as wild as seems to be presented here.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University