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. >> >
