Labels:text | menu | screenshot | document | font | number OCR: TABLE 1- A COMPARISON OF AFS/DFS AND NFS AFS/DFS NFS Installed base :* Less than 200,000 8.8 million Capital costs: Moderate to high Bundled or low cost File system access: Distributed, locationally transparent Client server, Iocationally dependent Geography specific: Cells ('aggregations) Domains and specific server/ clients Mounting points: Enforced Arbitrary or conventional Minimum fetch from network: 64KB 8KB++3 System backup: Live with available file system clones Requires file system quiescence Availability: Extremely high with file system clones Only as good as server uptime File system replication: Yes Yes Automatic file system rollover: Yes No Hardware/software resources: Extensive Very limited Net file system management: Any authenticated workstation Frequently must change each client individually Management software: Empirical Granular Do users make groups? Yes Ports: Selected Sun, HP, Digital, IBM MVS/ESA, San, HP, Digital, IBM RS/ 6000, Windows (3 x and NT), Windows, Silicon Graphics DOS, Mac, System 7+, Pyramid Technology (San Jose, CA). Cray ( Eagan, MN), The Santa Cruz Operation's (Santa Cruz, CA) SCO Unix /Xerox, NetWare/UnixWare, Sequent Computer Systems (Beaverton, OR), and 30 others Primary Sponsor(s): OSF, Transarc, and IBM SunSoft *The installed base figures are based on information from Dataquest, Sun Microsystems, and the OSF. ** NFS 2.0's fetch extent Is 8KB: NFS 3.0's is variable.
