Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: NFS vs. RFS Message-ID: <8268@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 8-Jan-87 17:08:28 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.8268 Posted: Thu Jan 8 17:08:28 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Jan-87 23:39:03 EST References: <5488@brl-smoke.ARPA> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 12 To: Gwyn@BRL.ARPA YP is conceptually separate from NFS. Pyramid supports NFS but not YP, because they aren't very happy with YP in its current form. However Gould is not alone in bundling the two together. Celerity seems to do so as well. In my view NFS is more general in its usefulness than YP. For a large set of diskless machines, it's very useful to have both. But NFS is also useful with larger timesharing system, an environment in which YP may not be necessary. There is nothing in NFS that makes it depend upon YP. They are both implemented on top of RPC, but they are separate services. When YP is present, programs are larger if they use any routine that reads from a YP database. Examples are the YP versions of standard C library routines for reading password entries, host table entries, etc.