It means mount_nullfs doesn't exist anymore (it's in the attic) and a local NFS mount works. I said nothing about performance. I haven't tested that and don't really care.
Back when nullfs existed, it had serious problems (mtime not updating, etc). I'm sure that's why it went away. I can't call a local NFS mount a perfect solution (there's a *lot* of complexity added there) but it does work at least for my purposes and satisfies everything I used to use null mounts for. -Dan On 4/16/2011 12:18 PM, Robert Halberg wrote: > Does this mean that the performance of a local NFS mount is actually > better than that of mount_nullfs? > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tomas Bodzar <tomas.bod...@gmail.com > <mailto:tomas.bod...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > The question is if implementations still sucks as before years > > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20050527155028 > <http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20050527155028> > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Dan Brosemer > <o...@svartalfheim.net <mailto:o...@svartalfheim.net>> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:08:52AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:59:12AM +0300, Claudiu Pruna wrote: > >> | B B Hi list, > >> | > >> | B B I was wondering, in OpenBSD is there an equivalent to > FreeBSD's > >> | mount_nullfs or to Linux's mount -o bind ? > >> > >> Sure; it's in the attic .. don't wake the spiders! > >> > >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/miscfs/nullfs/Attic/ > > > > I use a local NFS mount when I want to accomplish this. B It > drags in a lot > > of complexity, but it has worked for me for years. > > > > -Dan > > > > > -- > "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get > used to them." - John von Neumann
