|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > May 2005 > Mount a particular *place* on a HD at a particular point...?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Mount a particular *place* on a HD at a particular point...?
|
|
| binary-nomad@hotmail.com 2005-05-02, 5:56 pm |
| Hello,
How do I mount, say, /dev/hda2/lotsofdata, ie. the *directory*
"lotsofdata" in /dev/hda2, under a particlar point, like,
/mnt/accessithere ?
Thanks,
The NO-Mad!
| |
| Bill Marcum 2005-05-02, 5:56 pm |
| On 2 May 2005 10:07:44 -0700, binary-nomad@hotmail.com
<binary-nomad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How do I mount, say, /dev/hda2/lotsofdata, ie. the *directory*
> "lotsofdata" in /dev/hda2, under a particlar point, like,
> /mnt/accessithere ?
>
>
In Linux, you mount with the "bind" option. In Unix, that may or may
not be possible, other than with a symbolic link.
--
QOTD:
"It's not the despair... I can stand the despair. It's the hope."
| |
| Doug Freyburger 2005-05-03, 2:49 am |
| binary-no...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> How do I mount, say, /dev/hda2/lotsofdata, ie. the *directory*
> "lotsofdata" in /dev/hda2, under a particlar point, like,
> /mnt/accessithere ?
What version of UNIX? Look for "lofs" or loopback
filesystem. Mount the entire filesystem in one place,
then remount the directory from it somewhere else.
LOFS acts like NFS but it is local rather than
remote.
There's a better way. Symbolic link.
| |
| binary-nomad@hotmail.com 2005-05-06, 8:47 pm |
|
>
> There's a better way. Symbolic link.
How much overhead is there in processing a symbolic link?
| |
| Michael Trausch 2005-05-06, 8:47 pm |
| binary-nomad@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> How much overhead is there in processing a symbolic link?
>
Not much, really, a symlink ends up really just being a "pointer" of
sorts to another place. The nice thing about symlinks is that they can
cross filesystems which makes this possible.
In effect the overhead is basically nill.
Where you see overhead come in is if you're pointing to filesystems that
are comparatively slow -- such as ISO9660 filesystems that you have on
CD-ROM or DVD.
- Mike
| |
| Doug Freyburger 2005-05-07, 5:49 pm |
| binary-no...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> How much overhead is there in processing a symbolic link?
Several orders of magnitude less than processing a
mount request. If you're asking aobut overhead
without switching to aq real-time kernel scheduler,
you're running down the wrong corridor. Symlinks
have been built into UNIX filesystems for a long
time and there has been plenty of chance to optimize
their access.
|
|
|
|
|