NFS on System V

[Jim Reid]

In article <7961 at sun.uucp> guy at sun.uucp (Guy Harris) writes:
>> I agree a user level NFS server would be ugly, but not quite as nasty as you
>> suggest. The real trouble with NFS on non 4.[23] based systems are to do
>> with the Berkeley additions that just slot into the NFS protocol - atomic
>> rename, mkdir system call, symbolic links, long filenames and so on. It's
>> curious how some of these additions make implementing NFS easier. I wonder
>> which came first - the new 4.2 filesystem or the Network File System?
>
>I have no idea why anybody would wonder that; 4.2BSD came out sometime in
>1983 (and the 4.2 file system first appeared in 4.1bBSD, which predated
>4.2BSD), while NFS was first shipped sometime in 1985.  Both these dates can
>be deduced with just a little research, so I see little to speculate on here.

OK - I didn't make myself too clear in the original posting. The chronology
is evident to anyone who looks as Guy said. However, I'm sure someone like Bill
Joy had a network file system in mind when the design of the 4.2 filesystem
was being thrashed out. We can all see when the two products were first
shipped, but which design was outlined first? [There must have been some
element of "if I have this system call, it'll make that network file system
operation easier to do". (Note, I'm distingishing a "network file system"
from NFS.)]

>Saying the Berkeley additions "just slot into the NFS protocol" is
>misleading; one could equally well say the NFS protocol was influenced by
>the operations supported by the 4.2BSD file system.

True, but I'd suggest that the initial design of both (whether consciously
or not) went on in parallel. There are too many similarities for this to be
just a happy coincidence.

		Jim

ARPA:	jim%cs.strath.ac.uk at ucl-cs.arpa, jim at cs.strath.ac.uk
UUCP:	jim at strath-cs.uucp, ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim
JANET:	jim at uk.ac.strath.cs

"JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"