[2079] in Info-AFS_Redistribution
Re: NQS/DQS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (rick@msc.cornell.edu)
Thu Oct 14 18:27:02 1993
Reply-To: rick@msc.cornell.edu
From: rick@msc.cornell.edu
X-Originated-From: panther.msc.cornell.edu
To: P.Lister@cranfield.ac.uk (Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 16:29:44 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: info-afs@transarc.com (AFS Mailing List)
In-Reply-To: <9310141619.AA06942@xdm039.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk> from "Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" at Oct 14, 93 05:19:17 pm
> > What offers DQS more than NQS?
NQS (as distributed) is a "push" system (bad).
DQS is a "pull" system (good).
NQS is not very efficiently coded. (e.g. uses NIS stupidly).
DQS is "lean and mean".
DQS has provision for PVM parallel jobs.
That's all I can think of. It was enough for us.
-Rick
|Rick Cochran 607-255-7223 rick@msc.cornell.edu|
|Cornell Materials Science Center rick@crnlmsc2.bitnet|
|E20 Clark Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 cornell!msc.cornell.edu!rick|
