Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU!ralphw
From: ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <1342@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 7 Apr 88 18:10:48 GMT
References: <4456@chinet.UUCP> <1016@nusdhub.UUCP> <4633@chinet.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 18

In article <4633@chinet.UUCP> les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>As far as I know, no other system even attempts transparent access to remote
>devices accessed directly through the file system.
Well, this is a little too large a generalization.  CMU CSD RFS (not to
be confused with the AT&T product) supports remote device access. 
For example, mt -f /../a0/dev/rmt12 (where a0 is the remote hostname)
works as expected.  This is handy for remote backups between systems with
similar architectures.)  I understand that the filename syntax is similar
to that of the NewCastle connection.





-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA