Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!shaver
From: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Dave Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <709@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 89 03:57:33 GMT
References: <9018@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7387@chinet.chi.il.us> <437@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> <340@moriaMoria.Sp.Unisys.Com>
Reply-To: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Dave Shaver)
Organization: Iowa State U. Computer Science Department, Ames, IA
Lines: 15

Thomas Hintz writes:
>[Comparing RFS & NFS]
>Also, administration of
>an NFS network is a hell of a lot simpler [than an RFS network].

Oh, my.  Having only worked with NFS, I'd avoid RFS based on this
statement.  I've found NFS ``OK,'' but flaky.  Kind of like a MSCS
project that got shipped before it was debugged.  We're always having
strange things happen.  (Maybe follow-up should be sent to
comp.protocols.nfs?)  I don't find the administration of our NFS
network that trivial.

/\  Dave Shaver  -=*=-  CS Systems Support Group, Iowa State University
\\  UUCP:  {hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet!umix!sharkey}!atanasoff!shaver
\/  Internet: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu