Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Brian Kolaci
I gave a simplistic example. In reality they have systems that are mostly idle and want to be able to allocate fractional CPU values to zones so for that FSS would be ideal. Using pools/psrsets the smallest value you can allocate is 1, however thats not realistic for a production environment -

[zones-discuss] zones and packages

2006-10-20 Thread Patrick Mauritz
Hi, After we didn't find some useful consensus on #opensolaris, I'm posting my issues with packaging in combination with zones here. Reading the various packaging guides, it seems as if they're written for a pre-zones world and require setups that made sense then, but may not make sense

[zones-discuss] Re: [install-discuss] SUNWmlib - no deps - purpose?

2006-10-20 Thread Dave Miner
Jens Elkner wrote: ... PS: Why are your replies to jive threads not listed in http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa*? This way I guess, a lot of useful information gets lost, since legacy discussion list archives don't seem to exist :( That problem's been reported to the

Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Jeff Victor
This thread confused me at first, so I'll try to re-phrase the core issues to check my current understanding. One issue is a general piece of confusion that Solaris hands us, the other is a conflict of assumptions. 1) pset_getloadavg() (mentioned earlier in this thread) reports the load avg

Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Brian Kolaci
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

Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Jeff Victor
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 more CPU. Why would

Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Brian Kolaci
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

Re: [zones-discuss] CPU load values in a zone

2006-10-20 Thread Steffen Weiberle
Brian Kolaci wrote On 10/20/06 13:41,: 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

Re: [zones-discuss] [Fwd: Reminder: Design review of IP Instances part of Crossbow]]

2006-10-20 Thread Edward Pilatowicz
hey erik, some questions after reading the interface document. (and i apologize in advance if some of the questions seem silly because i'm not a networking expert.) - what will happen in zonecfg if the administrator sets ip-type=exclusive and then also configures networking parameters