In <[🔎] 20090317141915.GA61278@fuchs>, André Berger wrote: >That said, two ext3 filesystems would be absolutely OK with me, as >long as I could merge them virtually, so my movieplayer (dbox2) would >have to access just one directory. You might want to look into unionfs (or other "layered" file systems), that is probably closer to what you want. The "unioned" file system will still become unavailable if you don't have both ext3 file systems, but since the underlying file systems are separate, losing one will not affect the other at all. >Could "mount --bind" come to the rescue? But if I mounted one >directory 'over' another, it would 'cover' the original one, which >wouldn't be accessible any more, would it? That's exactly right. So, it's not as simple as a single mount --bind. If you are using directories/folders to organize the files at all, you might be able to partition the directories between the file systems and just bind mount the directories to one consistent view and avoid using unionfs. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.