RFS is by far better that NFS!

[Karl Denninger]

In article <725 at unix386.Convergent.COM> markb at unix386.Convergent.COM (Mark Beyer) writes:
>In article <218 at inpnms.UUCP>, logan at inpnms.UUCP (Jim Logan) writes:
>> We all have 386's on our desks running RFS and have enjoyed
>> having root access to our machines, but not on the server.  From
>> what we have read, this is not possible under NFS.  Is this true?  
>
>No.

>Maybe you and I have a different concept of what "root access on the server" is,
>but with NFS, root exclusion happens by default.  root is mapped to uid -2 
>(well, in 16 bit unsigned) on the server.  So files you create 
>on the server while logged in as root on the client have "other" access, just
>as if you excluded root in the RFS uid rules.

Yeah, but there is one problem with this:

Unlike on many machines (Ultrix, Suns, etc) 386/ix doesn't permit you to 
turn this off or modify it.  This REALLY bites.

The problem we have is that we have a physically secure network.  Thus, we
WANT root to really be root -- on all filesystems.  Allowing this lets us
put one big Exabyte tape drive on the network and back up everything.  It
allows us many other conveniences as well.

With 386/ix NFS, none of this is possible -- unless I want to write a tape
server.  Ugh.

They claim it will be fixed soon (spring).  Soon isn't fast enough.  Putting
a tape drive in every machine, or doing the many hours of work to do a real
tape server isn't really a viable option.

--
Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"