oh yeah, it seems to do a pipe bind to the other location, only when binding to the root. If I bind to /n/ftp/directory, it doesn't show the pipe bind in ns.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess what confuses me when dealing with something like ftpfs, is > that it seems to behave differently than other types of binds. > Examples I've used in the past involve simple binds like this. > I create 4 directories, let's say dir1, dir2, dir3, dir4. > Inside dir1 and dir2 I have files. > I can then: > bind -b dir1 dir3 > bind -b dir2 dir3 > then I can > bind -b dir3 dir4 > > When I look at ns > I see not only a bind from dir3 to dir4, > But I also see binds from dir1 to dir4, and dir2 to dir4. The act of > binding dir3 to dir4 automatically seems to have created binds to dir1 > to dir4, and dir2 to dir4. > > So what I guess I was expecting to see from ns when using the ftpfs > scenario, was to see not only a pipe bind to /n/ftp. But Also a pipe > bind to my other location, since the other location was a bind to > /n/ftp. > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I forgot to mention when I bind /n/ftp I was really binding >> /n/ftp/directory to another location. >> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> When I use ftpfs to mount a ftp site and then bind /n/ftp to another >>> location. All appears to work fine in /n/ftp and in the other >>> location. When I type ns, I can clearly see the pipe bind for ftpfs >>> mounted to /n/ftp. When I unmount /n/ftp I can type ls on /n/ftp and >>> not see anything there. But if I ls on the other location that I bound >>> to /n/ftp, it still can access the ftp server. How is the other >>> location able to do this, when I don't see any indication of a pipe >>> bind still listed in ns? I do see the ftpfs process running, though. >>> >> >
