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:
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
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
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 talking
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 daemons
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jerry Jelinek gerald.jeli...@sun.com 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
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
Christine Tran wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jerry Jelinek gerald.jeli...@sun.com 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
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, sorry
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
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.
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
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
I've been spending some time researching ideas for how we could upgrade
Solaris 10 once its installed in a solaris10 branded zone on S.next.
We won't need this capability until S10u9 is released, but I want to make
sure we do whatever we need to do now in order to enable this for the future.
I
14 matches
Mail list logo
