Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!tim@lll-crg.ARPA@hoptoad.UUCP From: tim@lll-crg.ARPA@hoptoad.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Need information on NFS Message-ID: <8612200757.AA28013@hoptoad.uucp> Date: Sat, 20-Dec-86 02:57:26 EST Article-I.D.: hoptoad.8612200757.AA28013 Posted: Sat Dec 20 02:57:26 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 13:46:19 EST References: <8612191832.AA09278@topaz.rutgers.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: hoptoad!tim (Tim Maroney) Organization: Centram Systems, Berkeley Lines: 22 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa I really question whether RPC can be considered OS independent. It is way too big for microcomputers. An acquaintance involved with NFS (who has never worked for Sun) gave me an estimate recently that a client side alone would take 100K of machine code on a Mac. I have enormous respect for Sun as both a hardware and a software developer. But the fact is that it just doesn't make sense to develop a supposedly machine-independent and OS-independent network file system on a single-OS network with very powerful machines. This has left them with an overly elaborate protocol which is not suited to microcomputers. PC-NFS is a client side only, and a hypothetical Mac NFS would be the same way. This gives even less functionality than good old FTP; you can't even transfer a file from a PC to a PC with it! Client-only implementations fall far short of the goals of the system. To be truly OS-independent and machine-independent, NFS would have to be redesigned from the ground up, and simulatenously developed on more than one machine and OS. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)