Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!linus!philabs!prls!mips!winchester!mash From: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions,comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: Remote File Sharing (RFS) - SVR3 Message-ID: <93@winchester.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Jan-87 16:42:56 EST Article-I.D.: winchest.93 Posted: Sun Jan 4 16:42:56 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Jan-87 18:56:17 EST References: <261@unixprt.UUCP> <371@oblio.UUCP> Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 59 Xref: mnetor comp.unix.wizards:509 comp.unix.questions:539 comp.bugs.sys5:17 In article <371@oblio.UUCP> monte@oblio.UUCP (Monte Pickard) writes: >In article <261@unixprt.UUCP>, monkey@unixprt.UUCP (Monkey Face@unixprt) writes: >> Now that System V, Release 3 has been available for 6 months,.... >> ... how about some discussion on RFS. >> >> Does it work? How does it compare to NFS? What transport providers >> are people using? Is anyone going to produce a transport provider >> for re-sale to other computer vendors? Will RFS or NFS become the >> de-facto standard? > >It appears to me that all the vendors that purchase a license to SVR3 get >RFS for free with it, and it is ported to SVR3. > >At a cost of $25,000, plus more for later updates, license fees, and the cost >of porting it to SVR3, NFS gets prohibitive fast. > >These things may help define the standard. > >Also, NFS does not implement the full UNIX file system symantics, so >applications do no port as easily (or transparently). Also, follow >on charges for NFS versions that will (speculative) get it up to the >full file system symantics will probably cost even more. > >Monte Pickard - Counterpoint Computers I don't think the dust has settled on this one yet. Our boxes run either 4.3BSD or SVR3, and we do a lot of OEM selling, so we hear a lot of different viewpoints. So far, it seems that: a) Most people believe that RFS has a number of technical pluses, which Monte mentions. b) Very few, if any, large computer companies have signed up yet for SVR3, given the confusion/controversy over the SVR3 licensing terms. [We have a number of very large customers who want SVR3, but whose lawyers won't let them sign the contract. Hopefully, the newest revisions will fix this.] So far, the people who've publicly supported RFS are those that have or have had special relationships with AT&T [Convergent, Monte's Counterpoint, Intel/Moto], or have other reasons not to want NFS [such as Apollo]. c) It's still not clear how well RFS will do an a heterogeneous environment, although it would certainly appear more attractive in a homogeneous environment. [This is not to say it won't be OK, it's just that NFS is clearly already OK in a heterogeneous environment.] d) At the last NFS Connectathon in December, about half of the 20-or-so vendors were there to try NFS in a SV environment. One must also give credit to SUN: they are doing a fine job of encouraging ports with good support: the Connectathon was well-run and well-supported. Anyway, there seems to be merit in both approaches, and it is just not clear yet, if only because RFS doesn't really seem to be in widespread use outside AT&T [readers: Correct me if I'm wrong.] Also, one may well draw a parallel with the XNS versus TCP/IP wars a while back: XNS had a lot of merit, but TCP/IP got there first, and in networking, it often seem to be a question of who gets there first. In any case, it appears that many people are hedging their bets by structuring their code to allow you to go either or both ways at some point. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER:UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD: 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086