Peter Tribble wrote:
The key advantage of using sparse-root is that there's only one OS to manage.
With whole-root zones, and other heavier solutions, there's an extra OS image
to manage with each virtual system. From an admin perspective, whole-root
zones offer no real advantage over xen/vmware,
Solaris 10 with sparse root zones provides an excellent virtualization solution.
If you want systems that are largely identical (but perhaps with different
applications) then it's pretty much optimal, and very resource efficient.
Agreed. The most efficient form of application stacking with
c
Exactly the question I'm trying to answer. My current solution is
multiple OpenBSD instanced in VMWare, and it works great, just wish I
could get more instances per physical host.
- devin
On May 18, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jerry Jelinek
wro
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> I don't think anyone ever thought installing a zone with
> SVr4 pkging was fast.
Last time I did the measurement the svr4 bit for a sparse root zone was
about 3 minutes; I have managed to optimize that down to a minute or so.
Typically I've
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> I don't know what "single" binary you are talking
> about. If all of the sparse zones are running the same
> applications then there would sharing. If they are
> running different applications or even running common
> apps at different ti
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> Since software management for zones on OpenSolaris is still
> evolving, it would be helpful for us if you could describe
> what problems the lack of a sparse zone will cause you.
Solaris 10 with sparse root zones provides an excellent virt
On 05/18/09 12:38, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Steffen Weiberle wrote:
I originally could only imagine the reason for not doing the mounts
when the zone is not booted is to avoid a huge set of ZFS mounts for
zones that are not running. However, I see three ZFS file systems for
a zone, and this is wit
Steffen Weiberle wrote:
I originally could only imagine the reason for not doing the mounts when
the zone is not booted is to avoid a huge set of ZFS mounts for zones
that are not running. However, I see three ZFS file systems for a zone,
and this is without any Live Upgrade (beadm) operation.
On 05/18/09 11:31, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Steffen Weiberle wrote:
I have been doing all on Solaris next testing using Nevada, as all the
tools I know work, and my understanding of installation and
configuration applies to that as well as Solaris 10. Now I am playing
with 2009.06 and some 'simple
> Installing from a repo is orthogonal to the sparse
> vs. whole root discussion. That is tracked as:
>
> 1947 Offline zone creation is impossible
I'm not complaining, just describing what's important to me (and my
shop) re:zones going forward. This thread started out as "no sparse
zone on OS",
Christine Tran wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Thanks for the write-up. It is helpful for us to
know what peoples concerns are for the sparse vs. whole
root configurations.
Our application make and destroy zones as needed. We've built up a
set of tools to creat
Steffen Weiberle wrote:
I have been doing all on Solaris next testing using Nevada, as all the
tools I know work, and my understanding of installation and
configuration applies to that as well as Solaris 10. Now I am playing
with 2009.06 and some 'simple' things don't work as expected. I couldn
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> Thanks for the write-up. It is helpful for us to
> know what peoples concerns are for the sparse vs. whole
> root configurations.
Our application make and destroy zones as needed. We've built up a
set of tools to create, clone, and tear d
>I don't know what "single" binary you are talking
>about. If all of the sparse zones are running the same
>applications then there would sharing. If they are
>running different applications or even running common
>apps at different times, then there would be little
>sharing. The core OS daemo
On 05/18/09 09:59, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Devin Ceartas wrote:
The problems this may cause me are largely theoretical at this point,
as I'm just beginning to ramp my OpenSolaris use up.
My concern is conserving RAM, which full vs. sparse zones may or may
not effect, I don't know, and with ease
Hung-Sheng Tsao wrote:
>guess is that the memory sharing benefits of sparse zones
>are relatively small in most cases.
May be I am wrong here, it seems that with sparse zone and "single"
binary for all zone
there must be same memory sharing!!!
I don't know what "single" binary you are talki
>guess is that the memory sharing benefits of sparse zones
>are relatively small in most cases.
May be I am wrong here, it seems that with sparse zone and "single"
binary for all zone
there must be same memory sharing!!!
On 05/18/09 09:59, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Devin Ceartas wrote:
The problems
Devin Ceartas wrote:
The problems this may cause me are largely theoretical at this point, as
I'm just beginning to ramp my OpenSolaris use up.
My concern is conserving RAM, which full vs. sparse zones may or may not
effect, I don't know, and with ease of management. My use case is
running mu
The problems this may cause me are largely theoretical at this point,
as I'm just beginning to ramp my OpenSolaris use up.
My concern is conserving RAM, which full vs. sparse zones may or may
not effect, I don't know, and with ease of management. My use case is
running multiple instances of
gz wrote:
Double Yiekes!!.
All my customers use an SOE of sparce zones (With Solaris 10 of course)
so if that is really the case it will be a problem for them to migrate
to OpenSolaris if/when that becomes neccessary.
Something like this could have serious concequences down the track and
shoul
Devin Ceartas wrote:
Yikes! Seriously, no sparse zones? That wasn't in the Bible book I don't
think. This is a pretty big deal! Is this list the best place to follow
to learn such things?
Yes, this has been discussed on this alias in the past.
Also, Dan Price blogged about this here:
http://b
Double Yiekes!!.
All my customers use an SOE of sparce zones (With Solaris 10 of course)
so if that is really the case it will be a problem for them to migrate
to OpenSolaris if/when that becomes neccessary.
Something like this could have serious concequences down the track and
should be commun
Yikes! Seriously, no sparse zones? That wasn't in the Bible book I
don't think. This is a pretty big deal! Is this list the best place to
follow to learn such things?
-- devin
On May 17, 2009, at 11:50 PM, Dan Price wrote:
On Sat 16 May 2009 at 07:02PM, Julien Beauviala wrote:
Hello,
In
On Sat 16 May 2009 at 07:02PM, Julien Beauviala wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Installing the AMP stack (as in `pfexec pkg install AMP`)
> in a sparse zone (osol 111a) will fail, because /usr isn't
> available.
>
> Is there a way get around that, short of compiling
> everything by hand to some other plac
Devin Ceartas wrote:
Is it possible to install into root zone and just have individual
config files in several sparse zones for different instances of
Apache, MySQL?
yes,
opensolaris put amp binary in /usr/apacheY /usr/mysql /usr/php etc but
the configuration files and htdocs are in /etc/
Is it possible to install into root zone and just have individual
config files in several sparse zones for different instances of
Apache, MySQL?
-- devin
On May 16, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Julien Beauviala wrote:
Hello,
Installing the AMP stack (as in `pfexec pkg install AMP`)
in a sparse zone
Hello,
Installing the AMP stack (as in `pfexec pkg install AMP`)
in a sparse zone (osol 111a) will fail, because /usr isn't
available.
Is there a way get around that, short of compiling
everything by hand to some other place within the
sparse zone ?
Thanks.
j.
27 matches
Mail list logo
