Re: RFS vs NFS


Jim Rees (apollo!rees@eddie.mit.edu)
13 Aug 87 12:52:00 GMT


    Actually, I like to think of it as RFS using volatile state, and NFS
    using permanent state (i.e., disk). In order to permit the simple
    recovery that NFS aspires to, you have to store data on disk that
    will survive a failure so that a client can do correct cache
    invalidation. This NFS does, and it completes all writes prior to
    acknowledging a write to a client. In view of these requirements,
    I feel that the term "stateless" without qualification is incorrect.

Well... I guess so, but if you take that interpretation, you could also
argue that no server is ever stateless, because the data in the files
represents state, too. In this context, when I say "server state," I
mean some information held by the server about connections with the
clients. The server "knows" that node X has file "foo" open for reading.
NFS does not keep this kind of information around, not even on disk,
except maybe as an optimization.



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