From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tuhs-bounces@tuhs.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19F023CF9
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:09:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A08943B8F;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2025 03:09:01 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [208.79.93.154])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3957F43B8E
	for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2025 03:08:54 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from orthanc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by orthanc.ca (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id cf3c9951;
	Wed, 13 Aug 2025 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu>
In-reply-to: <CAKH6PiVDCdD8JLAvgA9Bbb8nHrUz=9JQY0U-LpeiPq9LTFAOYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANxB0bQmG-B9ts5yDyfe48rqHdNM=Z8k5t4fgPjZUbvLTyghJw@mail.gmail.com> <20250813015509.GA17097@mcvoy.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.2508131302230.53898@aneurin.horsfall.org> <CAKH6PiVDCdD8JLAvgA9Bbb8nHrUz=9JQY0U-LpeiPq9LTFAOYA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu>
   message dated "Wed, 13 Aug 2025 10:00:03 -0400."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <56368.1755104933.1@orthanc.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 10:08:53 -0700
Message-ID: <5be7bd0177c9c57e@orthanc.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: FMMKPJMUF4PPSVP5KX62M7U4Z65ULRW4
X-Message-ID-Hash: FMMKPJMUF4PPSVP5KX62M7U4Z65ULRW4
X-MailFrom: lyndon@orthanc.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs@tuhs.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1
Precedence: list
Subject: [TUHS] RFS
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.tuhs.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/message/FMMKPJMUF4PPSVP5KX62M7U4Z65ULRW4/>
List-Archive: <https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tuhs-owner@tuhs.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tuhs-join@tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tuhs-leave@tuhs.org>

Douglas McIlroy writes:
> I was always sorry that Peter Weinberger's RFS never made it outside
> Bell Labs. It allowed networking between separately administered
> systems by mapping UIDs.

My experience with (SVR3) RFS can be summed up in two words:

	stateful, and brittle

We ran RFS on a "cluster" of four 3B2s, and while it worked, to
varying degrees, the statefulness of the protocol inevitably led
to the whole thing locking up, requiring a reboot of all four
machines to recover.  This was especially problematic when we
accessed the one 9-track drive over RFS when attempting backups.

I eventually gave up on it, and hauled out the Lachman NFS source
tape and got NFS running on all the machines.  Life was much happier
afterwards.

I do not miss RFS.

--lyndon