Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!attibr!mjm
From: mjm@attibr.UUCP (Mike Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Summary: RFS Implementation.
Message-ID: <102@attibr.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jan 89 17:36:59 GMT
References: <9018@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7387@chinet.chi.il.us> <2735@rti.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T International, Basking Ridge, NJ
Lines: 22

> We don't have any machines at our shop that can run RFS, so I don't know
> how easy it is to set up.  We have a few machines with NFS compiled in,
> but we don't use NFS either.  I think that RFS is technically superior to
> NFS, but NFS has a marketing advantage.  NFS is available on many more
> machines than RFS, so choosing which to use is easier.
We use RFS at ATT International and have found it quite easy to setup. We use
it for the following applications at this time:
	1 - Facilitate HDB uucp transfer over Ethernet (STARLAN).
	2 - Do high speed backups for a net of 3B2/600's using one device
	remotely mounted.
Our network is growing everyday and hopefully new applications will be added
( There is a strange tech culture at ATT to buy and implement new technology
before finding any use for it ). A database application would be a interesting
test.  It's true that RFS only works for V.3 but UNIX consolodation under V.4
might pave the way for wider acceptance/availability.
> -- 
> Mike Mitchell	{decvax,seismo,ihnp4,philabs}!mcnc!rti!mcm  mcm@rti.rti.org
> 
Mike Matthews
Tech Support
ATT International
Basking Ridge, NJ