[TUHS] RFS was: Re: UNIX of choice these days?
krewat at kilonet.net
Mon Sep 25 03:51:54 AEST 2017
Where does RFS (AT&T System III) fit in all of this?
I used it for a while between a SunOS 4.1.3 box and a PC running AT&T
SVR4.2 (Consensys) because the client-side NFS was buggy on the SVR4.2
side. This was in the days when I ran a UUCP node (kilowatt) in the
early 90's and needed access from the PC to the "large" (5.25" FH 1GB)
disk on the SunOS machine. It worked, that I can say.
Eventually, I swapped it around after getting an Adaptec SCSI controller
for the PC - turned out the server-side NFS on this particular SVR4.2
Just looking for history on RFS if any.
On 9/24/2017 1:33 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> To me, the really important thing SMI did by giving away NFS, was to
> start the FS laying argument. What we ended up with is not perfect,
> its a compromise (I wish the stacking model was better), but we
> started to have the discussion. But because of NFS, we ended up
> getting a lot of different file system options; which previously we
> did not have. It made us really think through what were 'meta'
> functions that were FS independant, 'virtual' functions what span all
> FS implementasions, and what were 'physical' (implementation) specific
> file system functions.
> NFS really should be credited for forcing that clean up.
> Similarly, a few of us tried (and failed) to have the process layer
> discussion -- consider the Locus vprocs work. It's really too bad,
> we don't have that layer in any of the UNIX kernels today, it really
> make process control, migration, etc a lot cleaner; just as adding a
> file system layer did.
> But that's a war, I fought and lost....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TUHS