danny@idacom.uucp (Danny Wilson) (06/02/90)
(Excerpted without permission from Communications week, May 21) In a key selection, the OSF picked the remote procedure call in the Network Computing System (NCS) of Hewlett-Packard Co - one of the OSF's founders. In doing so, the group rejected a competing proposal from Netwise Inc and Sun Microsystems, and set the stage for what could be years of stiff competition between the two radically different RPC's. [...] The OSF said the DCE (Dist. Computing Environment) can be easily ported for use with a number of operating systems, including the OSF's yet-to-be shipped OSF/1, AT&T's Unix System V, Microsoft's OS/2 and DEC's VMS. The DCE also can be used with a wide variety of network hardware and software, including TCP/IP, DECnet, SNA, Ethernet and X.25, according to the OSF. Some components of the software environment, adapted to work together are scheduled to be release later this year. [...] [...] A chorus of disapproval came from the rival distributed computing camp. Because users of Sun's RPC will have no method to interoperate with the RPC chosen by the OSF, Sun officials reacted vehemently against the decision. ... "This decision will delay people using RPC technology because now they have to choose". Sun claims some 800,000 installed nodes support its RPC. Jonathan Gossels, manager for interoperability technologies at the OSF, conceded that the number of nodes equipped to handle HP's RPC is significantly smaller, ranging from 400,000 to 600,000. But he noted that whichever RPC choice was made, a number of existing computer-network users would be left behind. (Any typos are probably mine) -- Danny Wilson danny@idacom.uucp IDACOM Electronics alberta!idacom!danny Edmonton, Alberta X.400 danny@idacom.cs.ubc.cdn C A N A D A Voice +1 403 462 4545
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (06/03/90)
From article <1990Jun1.180211.3586@idacom.uucp>, by danny@idacom.uucp (Danny Wilson): > > (Excerpted without permission from Communications week, May 21) > > In a key selection, the OSF picked the remote procedure call > in the Network Computing System (NCS) of Hewlett-Packard Co - > one of the OSF's founders. [some junk deleted] > between the two radically different RPC's. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My question is can both of them coexsist on the same hardware? > The OSF said the DCE (Dist. Computing Environment) can be easily > ported for use with a number of operating systems, including the > OSF's yet-to-be shipped OSF/1, AT&T's Unix System V, Microsoft's > OS/2 and DEC's VMS. How about DOS? [some more stuff deleted] > > ... "This decision will delay people using RPC technology because now > they have to choose". Sun claims some 800,000 installed nodes support its > RPC. > > Jonathan Gossels, manager for interoperability technologies at the OSF, > conceded that the number of nodes equipped to handle HP's RPC is > significantly smaller, ranging from 400,000 to 600,000. But he > noted that whichever RPC choice was made, a number of existing > computer-network users would be left behind. I somehow doubt these numbers. Remember Sun is not the only on selling NFS for unix. You got all the UNIX PC's out there that are servers also. Not only that but I see DOS servers now. Question, what is the best attribute of NCS that will make NFS users change over to it? ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
krowitz%richter@UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU (David Krowitz) (06/08/90)
I feel compelled to point out that NFS is a distributed file system built on top of Sun's RPC. NCS is HP/Apollo's RPC, but there is no distributed file system built on top of NCS that I am aware of. Comparing NFS to NCS is a case of comparing Apples to Oranges. -- David Krowitz krowitz@richter.mit.edu (18.83.0.109) krowitz%richter.mit.edu@eddie.mit.edu krowitz%richter.mit.edu@mitvma.bitnet (in order of decreasing preference)
joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) (06/08/90)
> = palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) # = someone else quoting an industry rag > My question is can both of them [Sun's and Apollo's RPC systems] coexsist > on the same hardware? Yes. I've done it, and so have you, if you run NFS while using Apollo's RPC. NFS is almost always built on Sun's RPC. It is for exactly this reason that I believe that standarizing RPC systems is like standarizing languages: a good think for a small company to do, an OK thing for a large company to do, but a bad think for a bunch of vendors to do. What would people say if OSF announced that C was the standard language for programming. FORTRAN, Pascal, and AWK would not be encouraged... Like programming languages, different RPC protocols have different strengths and weaknesses. Different problems will require different RPC systems; one size does not fit all. I do not see what the gain is in having OSF (or UI) choose one RPC system as "standard". Why not support all the common RPC systems? There are only 2 or 3, they each have special strengths and weaknesses, and do not interfear with each other. >Question, what is the best attribute of NCS that will make NFS users >change over to it? I'm not sure that this is the goal. I think that OSF wants new applications to be written using NCS. Furthermore, it may not be possible to implement NFS over NCS. The NFS spec requires that servers be stateless, it may not be possible to do this if your RPC system is storing state. (That is the "official word" on why NFS uses Sun RPC/UDP, instead of TCP.) I'm not saying that stateless file systems are a good thing, either. Joshua Levy (joshua@atherton.com)
mishkin@apollo.HP.COM (Nathaniel Mishkin) (06/08/90)
In article <1056@fiver.UUCP>, palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: |> From article <1990Jun1.180211.3586@idacom.uucp>, by danny@idacom.uucp (Danny Wilson): |> > (Excerpted without permission from Communications week, May 21) |> > |> > In a key selection, the OSF picked the remote procedure call |> > in the Network Computing System (NCS) of Hewlett-Packard Co - |> > one of the OSF's founders. |> [some junk deleted] |> > between the two radically different RPC's. |> |> My question is can both of them coexsist on the same hardware? Yes. No question about it. (I assume it's obvious that applications written to use and linked with [only] Sun RPC can't talk to applications written to use and linked with [only] NCS.) |> > The OSF said the DCE (Dist. Computing Environment) can be easily |> > ported for use with a number of operating systems, including the |> > OSF's yet-to-be shipped OSF/1, AT&T's Unix System V, Microsoft's |> > OS/2 and DEC's VMS. |> |> How about DOS? I can't comments on product plans either for OSF or HP, but while there's currently no DOS-based product, versions of NCS have been brought up on DOS. |> I somehow doubt these numbers. Remember Sun is not the only on selling |> NFS for unix. You got all the UNIX PC's out there that are servers also. |> Not only that but I see DOS servers now. |> Question, what is the best attribute of NCS that will make NFS users |> change over to it? People frequently make the mistake of comparing NCS with NFS. NFS is a distributed file system (DFS) based on Sun RPC. Users of NFS generally are unaware, unconcerned, and/or uninterested in the fact that NFS runs on top of Sun RPC. NCS is an RPC toolkit and is thus trying to address the same issues that Sun RPC tried to address. The skies would not darken if EVERY distributed application in your environment except the DFS "application" were to be based on NCS (and NFS, the DFS, were to remain based on Sun RPC). It is a perfectly reasonable and expected scenario, given the widespread use of NFS. An interesting question is whether there are enough OTHER interesting distributed applications based on Sun RPC to increase the confusion that might result from having both NCS and Sun RPC in a single environment. I only know what see from looking around and reading the press. E.g., a sidebar in the May 7 Networld titled "Planned ONC Upgrades" says that while Sun RPC is installed on about 800,000 systems "Sun officials acknowledge that people haven't put it to extensive use". -- Nat Mishkin Cooperative Object Computing Operation Hewlett-Packard Company mishkin@apollo.com
khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) (06/13/90)
In article <24920@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) writes:
Like programming languages, different RPC protocols have different strengths
and weaknesses. Different problems will require different RPC systems; one
size does not fit all. I do not see what the gain is in having OSF (or UI)
choose one RPC system as "standard". Why not support all the common RPC
systems? There are only 2 or 3, they each have special strengths and
weaknesses, and do not interfear with each other.
It is a good idea for vendors (and users too) to standardize RPC's
because your comparison to programming languages _is_ a good one.
We have standardized FORTRAN (and soon Fortran (90)), C, COBOL, etc.
because it is very helpful to have the same program do the same thing
on different platforms.
RPC's will, among other things, (and do for that matter) connect
machines together.
It would be nice if *every* computer came with a plug (ethernet ? ;.)
and sw to let it talk to other computers.
NFS/RPC's had/have the advantage of being most of the way there (pc's,
nearly all NCS sites, cray's etc.). As far as I'm concerned (not
speaking for sun at all) my life would have been better if I were
assured that someday soon everywhere I went (computerwise) had NFS.
OSF's action may not prevent that from happening, but it certainly did
not help.
<note I'm not sure that I like NFS, but it is hugely useful>
cheers <from the uk side of the pond>
--
Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM
It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group (415 336 2648)
Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"marc@spix7.depr.bull.fr ( Marc PARIGOT ) (06/14/90)
In article <9006071810.AA19272@richter.mit.edu> krowitz%richter@UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU (David Krowitz) writes: >I feel compelled to point out that NFS is a distributed file system built >on top of Sun's RPC. NCS is HP/Apollo's RPC, but there is no distributed >file system built on top of NCS that I am aware of. Comparing NFS to NCS >is a case of comparing Apples to Oranges. AFS (Andrew File System) is a distributed file system built on top of NCS. Has anyone information about it? And too: has anyone an idea about the gain due to CPS for a NCS applications? Marc Email:Marc.Parigot@depr.bull.fr
rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) (06/15/90)
In article <673@bull.bull.fr>, marc@spix7.depr.bull.fr ( Marc PARIGOT ) writes: > AFS (Andrew File System) is a distributed file system built on top of NCS. > Has anyone information about it? I've just finished a port (client only) of AFS 3.0 to Domain/OS. It's not built on top of NCS. It uses rx, an rpc from cmu (enough acronyms?). I don't know rx's ancestry but I think it uses Sun xdr to pack the bits. The OSF DCE contains an AFS built on parts of NCS I think, but that won't be out for a while. By the way, NCS contains an RPC, but has lots of other parts too, like a distributed naming service. Glossary: AFS Andrew File System CMU Carnegie-Mellon University DCE Distributed Computing Environment NCS Network Computing System OSF Open Software Foundation rpc Remote Procedure Call rx ? xdr eXternal Data Representation