nigel@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au (Nigel Harwood) (11/28/90)
We have two boxes connected via Ethernet. One has SVR3 and one SVR4. RFS comes standard with both SVR3 and SVR4. We have no need to talk to any other boxes i.e. DEC etc. Will RFS do the job or should we purchase NFS. My understanding so far is that RFS and NFS do basically the same job but that NFS is much more widely supported on different platforms i.e. DEC, SUN etc. Regards -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Nigel Harwood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Post: Coles Myer Ltd, PO Box 2000 Tooronga 3146, Australia >> << Phone: +61 3 829 6090 E-mail: nigel@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
dale@wucs1.wustl.edu (Dale Frye) (12/01/90)
I am using RFS right now with SVR3.2.2. It works fine for sharing files. Can also share devices. (with some limitations) Problems I have with RFS. I'm using it in a student lab (24 hour access) on 24 386 boxes. The students treat the machines like DOS boxes i.e. if they get hung up they reset the machine (UGHHHHH!!!!). RFS is not stateless. It maintains a connection list on each machine advertising (exporting) a service. RFS (over TCP/IP) does not detect the broken connection caused by the reset on the remote machine. When the remote machine reboots and remounts the resource it makes a new entry in the table. Enough of these and the table fills. Machines can't then remount resources. Because of this table you can only have x number of machines connected to a server machine. (NOTE: Each mounted resource counts as a seperate connection in this table i.e. if your table has 50 entries you can have 50 machines mount 1 resource or 10 machines mount 5 resources, etc.) My response: If your machines are closely held ( the machines can't be rebooted easily) and the number of mounts needed is not large RFS should work OK. I'm switching my lab to NFS during winter break because of both reasons. Dale Frye Washington University in St. Louis
liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts) (12/01/90)
In <1138@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au> nigel@cnw01.storesys.coles.oz.au (Nigel Harwood) writes: >We have two boxes connected via Ethernet. >One has SVR3 and one SVR4. >RFS comes standard with both SVR3 and SVR4. >We have no need to talk to any other boxes i.e. DEC etc. >Will RFS do the job or should we purchase NFS? RFS will do the job - you will even be able to use tape devices etc from the remotely mounted machine and have its tape unit work for you. RFS is providing full UNIX filesystem semantics, including FIFOs, devices etc. NFS however provides only the file bits of UNIX filesystem semantics, and that in a slightly generalised form. You get a few significant benefits, such as the clients surviving and not really noticing server crashes: RFS server crashes will imply some resetting of its client, though I don't know exactly what. Two machines and no growth: it would certainly be hard to justify buying NFS. More than two machine and growth prospects: it would be hard to justify the support cost implications of the rebooting problems associated with RFS, when NFS is so cheap... -- William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary & Westfield College UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP Mile End Road AppleLink: UK0087 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Tel: 071-975 5250 (Fax: 081-980 6533)