From: Arno Griffioen via TUHS <email@example.com>
Subject: [TUHS] Re: RFS (was Re: Re: forgotten versions)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:03:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yq//slwWEXME+Ul7@ancienthardware.org> (raw)
On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 07:19:31PM -0400, Brad Spencer wrote:
> order of the machines was different. I seem to recall that with RFS if
> /dev was remoted you actually accessed the remote devices and not just
> the device nodes from the system that /dev was mounted to. At the AT&T
> site I was at we used NFS exclusively too.
I used RFS on variuous SVR3 and SVR4 platforms back in the days, usually
for this purpose. Eg. to provide a simple way of giving 'workstation'
users access to modem-banks attached to central servers.
It worked fine as long as the platforms were pretty similar (eg. all
i386 based), but could indeed get 'interesting' once you added bits
in the mix that were based on other CPUs.
For me RFS came along 'before its time' as by design it could not handle
things like creating diskless or dataless workstations easily, exactly
because of the more fine-grained, file oriented, setup and that's where
NFS did it's thing.
The features RFS brought did, unfortunately, not seem as useful at the time
for general applications as things like broadly sharing boot and/or home/staff
environments was 'the thing' needed for a long time and NFS did that
very (too ;) ) easily.
However.. I do see it more like the UNIX 'grandad' for things we now
have like SMB and cloud sync/share 'filesystem' tools which operate
much more on a style of access and granularity like RFS did.
I always wondered if the Mircrosoft engineers that worked on the initial
SMB implementations looked at RFS for ideas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-20 5:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-18 0:35 [TUHS] Re: forgotten versions Douglas McIlroy
2022-06-18 5:00 ` Kevin Bowling
2022-06-18 5:13 ` Adam Thornton
2022-06-18 16:58 ` Clem Cole
2022-06-18 17:18 ` Warner Losh
2022-06-18 17:57 ` Clem Cole
2022-06-19 20:46 ` [TUHS] RFS (was Re: Re: forgotten versions) Derek Fawcus
2022-06-19 23:07 ` [TUHS] " Larry McVoy
2022-06-19 23:19 ` Brad Spencer
2022-06-20 5:03 ` Arno Griffioen via TUHS [this message]
2022-06-20 6:53 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-06-20 0:44 Norman Wilson
2022-06-20 1:02 ` George Michaelson
2022-06-20 4:50 ` arnold
2022-06-20 12:28 Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS
2022-06-20 21:53 ` Derek Fawcus
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).