From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:22:38 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com> > in particular - I've seen RFS be mentioned. This was > AT&T's implementattion of transparent real-time (for > contrast with UUCP, FTP, etc.) remote file access. It wasn't real time, it was "remote file system" == RFS. It was different than NFS in that it was stateful and that it knew that the other side knew what it knew (think ioctls, yuck). My officemate worked on it, it was problematic. Don't go there. NFS is bad enough, but it works. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com