Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncc!aurora.AthabascaU.CA!rwa
From: rwa@auvax.uucp (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Summary: there's a speed difference too...
Message-ID: <437@aurora.AthabascaU.CA>
Date: 10 Jan 89 01:28:12 GMT
References: <9018@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7387@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Athabasca University
Lines: 15

In article <7387@chinet.chi.il.us>, Leslie Mikesell writes:
> I've only used RFS but as I understand things RFS preserves the unix
> semantics to a greater extent than NFS.

Agreed.  But, sadly, the implementations I have used (RFS over
WIN/TCP, 10B5 network, AT&T 3B2/600's) are slower than molasses in
January.  Maybe it doesn't have to be that way.  It sure would be nice
if wasn't.  But Sun 3's and _small_ Vaxen's (Vaxstation 2000, anyone?)
running NFS routinely blow the 600's out of the water, approximately
7 :: 1 is the ratio I measure.  On the very same network...

	Ross

ps.  anybody out there got any tuning suggestions?  I've allocated
enough streams buffers to choke a horse already...