:
Vmware Workstation, Xen, OpenVZ and Containers. I did a quick summary of the
Containers conclusions: http://blogs.sun.com/JeffV/date/20070510 . That blog
has a link to the paper, too.
I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on this omission: should
Containers have default RM settings
different v12n
solutions: Vmware Workstation, Xen, OpenVZ and Containers. I did a quick
summary of the Containers conclusions:
http://blogs.sun.com/JeffV/date/20070510 . That blog has a link to the
paper, too.
I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on this omission: should
Containers have
Ellard Roush wrote:
Hi Enda,
The cluster BrandZ zone :
1. will use the same kernel.
2. will use the same libs/binaries
3. will use the same patch+packaging commands
4. will use the same upgrade commands
The cluster BrandZ zone uses the BrandZ callbacks to
add value. We actually use all of
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:23:18AM -0400, Jeff Victor wrote:
I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on this omission: should
Containers have default RM settings? Is there a better method to solve
this problem? If not, which settings should have defaults?
I really wouldn't like
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:23:18AM -0400, Jeff Victor wrote:
I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on this omission: should
Containers have default RM settings? Is there a better method to solve
this problem? If not, which settings should have defaults?
I really
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:11:12PM -0400, Jeff Victor wrote:
Currently there isn't a setting which enables (or disables) RM. Are you
suggesting that there should be one 'knob' which enables RM, and chooses
sufficiently large default values until you override them?
Yes.
Perhaps it could
Hi,
I was wondering if that trick of adding an additional directory (mount point?)
that you outlined below, would work more than once?
zonecfg -z
zonecfg add fs
zonecfg:fs set dir=
zonecfg:fs set special=
zonecfg:fs set type=lofs
zonecfg:fs end
I tried to use the dir and special during the
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 13:18 -0700, F.V.(Phil)Porcella wrote:
I tried to use the dir and special during the initial configuration of a zone
and
it only excepted one of them. Also, how many directories can you have
inherited 'initially'
before you install the zone?
I'm sure there's a limit
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 14:11 -0400, Jeff Victor wrote:
However, this model does not solve the problem that is documented in
Clarkson's paper: the out-of-the-box experience does not protect
well-behaved zones from poorly-behaved zones, or a DoS attack.
I see where you are going with this
Bob Netherton wrote:
I see where you are going with this Jeff, and there are some good ideas
behind all of this. I have a great desire to rephrase your question
without the reference to zones - how well is Solaris itself
protected against the various forms of DoS attack ? Do the controls
On Thu 10 May 2007 at 04:21PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
of the other controls is trickier although I think Dan's idea of scaling
these based on the system makes it easier. We might also want to think
about scaling based on the number of running zones.
Another way to look at it (and I think what
I did a quick search of this website, but could not find a definite answer.
when creating a filesystem on the global zone and using lofs to have the zone
see it, do I have to reboot the zone in order for the zone to actually see it.
I am talking about when creating the filesytem via zonecfg..
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 16:02 -0700, DJR wrote:
I did a quick search of this website, but could not find a definite answer.
when creating a filesystem on the global zone and using lofs to have the zone
see it, do
I have to reboot the zone in order for the zone to actually see it.
No. Just
On 5/10/07, Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think fundamentally we hear from two camps: those who want to
proportionally partition whatever resources are available, and those who
want to see the system as virtual 512MB Ultra-2's or virtual 1GB,
1ghz PCs.
The typical scenario I see is that
14 matches
Mail list logo
