Yes, I do that all the time.
On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Günther Schmidt wrote:
Hi all,
is it possible to run a vncserver in a non-global zone?
Günther
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've had success for zones update on attach in the past, but now ran into a
problem.
I'm using Solaris x86 and just built a new system. Since it has a CD drive (no
DVD), I had to use the U7 disks to install, then I put the recommended patches,
then used the U8 image to update the live
Anon Y Mous wrote:
I hate to crash the party. But it looks like Linux already makes it possible to run an
NFS server inside of a Linux OpenVZ zone / container with most of the same
advantages that you would get from a Solaris non-global zone NFS server implementation.
For those of of you who
Hi,
I wanted to check the availability of putting the zonepath
on NFS. Is this now supported? Are there issues with Live Upgrade?
Any constraints or gotchas?
Thanks,
Brian
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Is there a way to get the actual memory swap usage of zones?
You can't sum the RSS values of the processes in zones since
processes like oracle show shared memory segments separate for
each LWP and proc as well as separate for shared text segments for
things like libc.so. So if you summed the
Jason A. Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Brian Kolaci wrote:
Is there a way to get the actual memory swap usage of zones?
You can't sum the RSS values of the processes in zones since
processes like oracle show shared memory segments separate for
each LWP and proc as well
with a total calculation
accounting for this. If anything else is using shared memory, you would
also need to account for this.
Lou
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Is there a way to get the actual memory swap usage of zones?
You can't sum the RSS values of the processes in zones since
processes
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Thanks Lou.
Is there anything in the works that you know of? rcapd also doesn't work
properly due to this issue. The customer has several other systems
with zones that also do alot of shared memory that aren't oracle. They
were actually looking
as required but never do exceed that number. If there is a way to stop
allocation at the application level for sendmail, then that is really
not a zone resource issue.
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Yes, but the amount used by the global zone should be negligible as
the policy is that no applications
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Thats how I came to the conclusion with the current implementation of
getting load averages coming from processor sets rather than the load
running within a zone prohibits the sole use of FSS to consolidate
sendmail servers. The only feasible solution
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I think you've captured the issues well here.
I do think that regardless of FSS preventing one zone from
consuming all the CPU, sendmail will still need to be able
to throttle itself until an SA comes in to re-provision the
resources and give the zone
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I've been discussing about how to chop up a machine. An possible example
configuration would have 8 cpus, 3 local zones. They would possibly be
divided up as 50%, 25% and 25%. Its clear how to do this with pools,
however FSS is a great fit for when
a minimum, but not a max.
Depending on CPU use by other threads in the class, a given thread may
get more than it's alloted CPU shares, but it will never get less.
/jim
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I've been discussing about how to chop up a machine. An possible
Dan Price wrote:
On Fri 13 Oct 2006 at 02:04PM, Brian Kolaci wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose that zlogin be split into two different programs, one
for console access and one for running programs and/or shell.
A simple way to do this (and would be backward compatible) would
IHAC that is looking to split out zone management roles.
The zone administrator creates and manages the local zones
however that person should not be able to see the data
in the zone for security purposes. They should only be able
to manipulate the resources assigned to the zone, as well
as
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
IHAC that is looking to split out zone management roles.
The zone administrator creates and manages the local zones
however that person should not be able to see the data
in the zone for security purposes. They should only be able
to manipulate
of functionality.
g
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Its more of a separation of duties. The zone management admin is
not necessarily the same person as the application admin in a local
zone (however it could be the same person, then this particular item
would be moot). The management is bad, but thats just the way
and compare them.
eg.
# find /var/sadm/pkg/SUNWcsr -type f -exec /usr/xpg4/bin/grep -q
pam.conf {} \; -print
-- Renaud
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Hi,
I'm still having zone creation issues where my /etc/pam.conf is corrupt.
I have 2 machines, one works fine, the other always creates the
zone
Hi,
I'm still having zone creation issues where my /etc/pam.conf is corrupt.
I have 2 machines, one works fine, the other always creates the
zone with a bad /etc/pam.conf.
I used the Dtrace toolkit opensnoop program to watch on both machines.
I see on the good machine, where it creates the
/SUNWcsr/save/pspool/SUNWcsr/reloc/etc/pam.conf
from the global zone. Are they identical?
-- Renaud
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I had an issue in the past with patches when a zone couldn't boot
to have the patches install properly. The zonepath got blown away.
I then destroyed the zones and retried
to your zone-creation script which copies
the GZ's /etc/pam.conf file to $zonepath/root/etc/pam.conf .
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I had an issue in the past with patches when a zone couldn't boot
to have the patches install properly. The zonepath got blown away.
I then destroyed the zones
With the performance boosts included in recent solaris versions I'm
told that there's not much of a difference between handing the database
raw devices vs. using a filesystem anymore.
To test this out, my customer would like to try both ufs and vxfs
filesystems in the global zone and lofs mount
Peter Wilk wrote:
All,
IHAC that created zones and wants the users to be able to reboot the
zones.they put the following in their password file:
bounce:x:0:1:Bounce Account:/:/usr/sbin/reboot
this way a user can 'su bounce ' and reboot the zone..The zone hangs
while coming down and customer
Carisdad wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:52:29AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Brian,
Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 8:31:06 PM, you wrote:
BK With the performance boosts included in recent solaris versions I'm
BK told that there's not much of a difference
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Carisdad wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:52:29AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Brian,
Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 8:31:06 PM, you wrote:
BK With the performance boosts included in recent solaris
versions I'm
BK
IHAC installing Sybase ASE in a container and is raising the
max-shm-memory setting. The box has 2G on it and he'd like
to have 1G reserved for ASE.
Looking in the local zone's /etc/project he has:
sybase.sundw:100::sybase::project.max-shm-memory=(priv,1073741824,deny)
In his log he sees:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
IHAC installing Sybase ASE in a container and is raising the
max-shm-memory setting. The box has 2G on it and he'd like
to have 1G reserved for ASE.
Looking in the local zone's /etc/project he has:
sybase.sundw:100::sybase::project.max-shm-memory=(priv,1073741824,deny
IHAC that needs proof that traffic between local zones on the same system
will not in fact hit the NIC card. There's two scenarios.
First, if one does FTP or scp to transfer files between the zones,
how can I prove it doesn't hit the NIC or wire? What function in
the IP driver would I look
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
IHAC that needs proof that traffic between local zones on the same
system
will not in fact hit the NIC card. There's two scenarios.
An interesting demand. I wonder if this person has ever asked for
proof of other proper computer operation. Do
James Carlson wrote:
Brian Kolaci writes:
How is 'snoop' insufficient?
The question came up as to whether snoop sees all NIC traffic or just
wire traffic.
He noted that some NIC's still process the packet but just pass it back
to the
driver rather than
With the performance boosts included in recent solaris versions I'm
told that there's not much of a difference between handing the database
raw devices vs. using a filesystem anymore.
To test this out, my customer would like to try both ufs and vxfs
filesystems in the global zone and lofs mount
31 matches
Mail list logo
