Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!godiva.cis.ohio-state.edu!karl
From: karl@godiva.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Distributed Filesystems vs. NNTP at large sites.
Message-ID: 
Date: 27 Sep 89 03:27:43 GMT
References: 
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: OSU
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: wesommer@athena.mit.edu's message of 26 Sep 89 21:01:00 GMT

wesommer@athena.mit.edu writes:
   I bet your server has more horsepower than ours; Bloom-beacon is a
   Microvax II,

Um, yeah, you might say that a Pyramid 98x has a bit more horsepower
than a Microvax.

   which is a 1 "MIP" CPU; on a good day, it gets about
   70KB/s out of its disks; the disk bandwidth is the limiting factor,
   not CPU horsepower.

Certainly true.  Point conceded, that one must stipulate the
conditions under which NFS is acceptable.  It's acceptable if the
server is up to it; ours is.  Our biggest problem with NNTP reading is
that the granularity with which one can define limited-access
newsgroups (by chmod'ing the spool directory) is only per-machine
instead of per-newsgroup, as we have with NFS.