15 May
2006
15 May
'06
4:22 a.m.
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
15 May
15 May
7:46 a.m.
New subject: TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5
On 15 May 2006, at 05:22, Larry McVoy wrote:
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 memory, which may be wrong, is that some SunOS 4s had support for
it (may be all did), so there are probably manuals and so forth which
can still be found there.
--tim
2:02 p.m.
New subject: TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:46:33AM +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
On 15 May 2006, at 05:22, Larry McVoy wrote:
That's correct and I have those manuals somewhere (anyone want a full
set of 4.x manuals?)
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
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 memory, which may be wrong, is that some SunOS 4s had support for
it (may be all did), so there are probably manuals and so forth which
can still be found there.
6559
days inactive
6559
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
lm＠bitmover.com -
Tim Bradshaw