RFS vs. NFS (really Locus and AIX)

[karish]

In article <12852 at brl-adm.ARPA> lcc.richard at seas.ucla.edu (Richard Mathews) writes:
>
>The reason that LOCUS was not mentioned as part of DS is because DS
>is a totally separate product.  It is my understanding is that it is
>NFS-like in that it provides a transparent file system capability,
>though with more function.  I'd actually be interested in any
>available description of DS vs. NFS vs. anything else comparable to DS.
>Version 3.2 of NFS is also included in the AIX Family Definition.
>
>Richard M. Mathews
>Locus Computing Corporation		       lcc.richard at CS.UCLA.EDU

I've been using Distributed Services on PC-RTs for several months, and
can share some impressions.

DS is more powerful than NFS in that it allows users (anyone who has
write permission for the mount point, and read permission for the
file to be mounted) to mount any ordinary file or directory from a
remote machine.

Mounts may be inherited, meaning that if I mount a directory which
itself includes a mounted remote object, I'll be able to use the
files referenced by the second-order mount.

User ID numbers are individually mapped from one host to another, so
the system administrator can fine-tune access more easily than is
possible under NFS.

'ls -l' prints a D in the first column for a remotely-mounted directory,
and F for a file.

The present AIX version of DS is layered on top of SNA.  The IBM sales
people say that the version that ties together the whole IBM world will
use TCP/IP for transport.

There was an article on DS in ;login last fall; ask the usenix
office or an IBM salesperson for a copy, if you want more information.

Chuck Karish

Disclaimer:
RT-PC, Distributed Services, AIX, and IBM are trade marks of the
International Business Machines Corporation.  While my employer
produces software under contract to IBM, I have no personal financial
interest in the sale of any IBM product.