Re: [zones-discuss] maxuproc
Be aware of one caveat here, defunct/zombies processes not attached to a LWP won't be accounted for ... and it does hurt badly when happening in production with a broken application ... :( On 2/14/08, Dan Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI: In S10U4 and higher, you can simply do: zonecfg:zone1 set max-lwps=15000 (Thanks to Steve and Jerry!) -dp -- Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Gael Martinez ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
[zones-discuss] zones on iSCSI LUNs
I have three (hopefully) quick questions: - Are there any current (S10) or future incompatibilities with zone roots on iscsi? - Are there any current (S10) or future incompatibilities with zone roots on SVM disk sets? - Are there any current (Nevada) or future incompatibilities with having one zfs pool per zone? Zone cloning with zfs clones will be broken - anything else? And here's why I ask... I'm working on some improvements to my existing zone configuration and management methodology. As much as possible I am looking to have the improvements be future looking enough that as future improvements come about I have to do the minimal rework. My understanding is that: - Today each zonepath must exist on a UFS (or VxFS or possibly QFS) file system. Read another way, ZFS is not supported for zones today. The key reason for this is the lack of support for upgrade and sporadic support for patching of zones on ZFS. - In the next release of Solaris, zones will have to be on ZFS due to expected changes in packaging, patching, and installation. - There will be a transition period between zfs not supported and zfs required that will likely start with the release of S10U6. My anticipated direction is to discontinue the use of local (within the server chassis) storage for zone roots and transition to using (likely) one or more iSCSI LUNs per zone. Initially, the iSCSI LUNs would either have UFS file systems on them directly or use SVM disksets to allow soft partitions. When the time is right, new LUNs would be allocated for ZFS and data will be migrated. Any SVM disk sets will be destroyed in favor of using ZFS. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] zones on iSCSI LUNs
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Ben Rockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Gerdts wrote: My understanding is that: [...] - In the next release of Solaris, zones will have to be on ZFS due to expected changes in packaging, patching, and installation. I am aware of no such change. - There will be a transition period between zfs not supported and zfs required that will likely start with the release of S10U6. Same here, I'm not aware of this change and would by highly skeptical. Nevada hasn't taken this turn, and again, even if it did that would be imposed simply by the configuration tools and easy to bypass. This is the best reference I can find right now. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/Snap_Upgrade/Notes/Snap_Containers/ There have been several discussions on one or more installation related lists (pkg-discuss, install-discuss, caiman-discuss) that have confirmed that the next generation installation and packaging commands will have ZFS as a prerequisite (for global zone root as well). -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
