Re: RFS vs NFS


System Mangler (mangler@csvax.caltech.edu)
9 Aug 87 22:58:03 GMT


In article <In article <3681e98d.b8ab@apollo.uucp>, In article <3681e98d.b8ab@apollo.uucp>, rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees) writes:
> 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.

The claim of statelessness should not be taken too literally. When one
of our disks got trashed (@*#% Xylogics!), we did the "obvious" thing -
we took the server down, created the filesystem afresh, restored all of
the backup tapes, and then let the clients continue where they left off
before the crash. Talk about some confused clients...

"Stateless" only means that the state is kept on disk rather than RAM.

Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {ll-xn,rutgers,amdahl}!cit-vax!speck



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