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.