RFS vs NFS


Jim Rees (apollo!rees@eddie.mit.edu)
6 Aug 87 14:40:00 GMT


    While we're at it, could anybody summarize the differences between RFS
    and NFS?

I wrote an article for Unix/World a while ago on this topic. The big
technical difference is that NFS is stateless, and RFS statefull.
This means you get exact unix file system semantics with RFS, but
not with NFS. On the other hand, NFS clients are able to recover
from server crashes without a glitch, and continue processing where
they left off before the crash.

If you want file locking (and I do; there are ~2000 machines on my
local network sharing a single file system) then you can't get it on
NFS without adding state to the servers. If you do that, you've lost
much of the advantage of having a stateless server. Most people don't
care about this (yet).

I won't go into all the politics, but right now (and for the foreseeable
future) NFS is much more widely available.

Disclaimer: I dislike both RFS and NFS, but for different reasons.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:49 GMT