[TUHS] RFS was: Re: UNIX of choice these days?
krewat at kilonet.net
Mon Sep 25 08:08:01 AEST 2017
Also, Clem when you say "function shipping" - that sounds like RPC.
On 9/24/2017 3:54 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net
> <mailto:krewat at kilonet.net>> wrote:
> Where does RFS (AT&T System III) fit in all of this?
> Well it was not in PWB 3.0 - aka System III.
> Just looking for history on RFS if any.
> David Arnovitz's work -- Dave worked for us at Masscomp in Atlanta
> afterwards. IIRC Summit pushed it out via System V, it was not part
> of System III (David did not even work for BTL when System II was
> RFS was based on ideas Peter had used in Eighth Edition file system.
> When we did EFS @ Masscomp,Perry Flinn and I were both aware of
> Peter's work (I had talked to him a few times). As we finished it, we
> hired Dave in Atlanta and told me about us a little about RFS although
> it had not yet been released. If you look, my EFS paper was the
> alternate paper given against Rusty's when the NFS paper published -
> difference - Masscomp would not give away EFS - different story].
> Anyway, Dave's RFS used Peter's file system switch that was in
> Eighth Edition. I used something similar for EFS. Which was not as
> clean as Steve Klieman's VFS layer; which I think Sun did right. But
> NFS got the whole stateless thing wrong which I was pleased over the
> years to see I was right (the whole point of the EFS paper was if it's
> a real UNIX file system, then their will be shared state and its how
> do you recover from an error).
> RFS, EFS and Weinberger's FS all did stateful recovery. RFS used a
> function ship model IIRC. I did not get to look at the code until
> long after it was released so I never studied it in detail and I never
> ran it. But he had Peter's work available to him, so I suspect there
> is a lot common ideas. I think Peter used function shipping also.
> [EFS did not, it was more ad hoc as what we shipped and what we did
> not. That was a performance thing for us as we had Apollo down the
> street and were very, very concerned with what Ageis/Domain could do].
> That said, NFS had a really simple model, which (in practice) was good
> enough for many things and more importantly, Sun gave the code away
> and made it a standard. So the old less is more; Christensen
> disruption theory of technology came through.
> Masscomp (and Apollo with Domain) both had 'better' distributed file
> systems, but 'lost' because (like DEC were many of their people -
> particularly in marketing - came) - did not get it. Tried to keep to
> closed like VMS et al... and it ultimately died. NFS was 'free' and
> did the job. What was there not to like.
> In hindsight, I wish I could have understood that then. Cudo's the
> Kleiman for what he did!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TUHS