> Are both Zones running on the same storage? Maybe
> you've moved your DB
> to faster storage?
no, same file system
> Or maybe you've been playing with routing tables?
no at all.
gino
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zones-discuss mai
Shawn LEE C. H. wrote:
Hi
Quick question:
I have a few sparse root container created with its own individual
/var mount in different devices. During patching, I had shutdown the
system to single user mode. Files under /var/sadm in global would have
been updated to reflect the patch info and
Brad,
sorry for taking so long to answer - christmas time ;-)
That problem is exactly Bug 6449301. The workaround is to "add fs" after the zones
installation.
Detlef
On 12/21/06 22:21, Brad Diggs wrote:
Hello Detlef,
What I want to do is add a new non-gobal zone where the
initial zone config
Gino Ruopolo wrote:
Are both Zones running on the same storage? Maybe
you've moved your DB
to faster storage?
no, same file system
Or maybe you've been playing with routing tables?
no at all.
gino
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Gino Ruopolo wrote:
I have attempted to measure CPU overhead due to inter-zone networking using
various tools, including DTrace and an internal network benchmark tool. Any
overhead was so small that it could not be measured,
and was always less than 1%.
Could be present a "very high" networ
Jeff Victor writes:
> 1. Global zone to global zone using 127.0.0.1: 125 Mbytes/s
> 2. Global zone to global zone using 192.x.y.z: 124 Mbytes/s
> 3. Global zone to non-global zone: 124 Mbytes/s
> 4. Non-global zone to itself: 118 Mbytes/s
> 5. Non-global zone to another
> Just grasping at straws, but is there any chance that
> the application
> uses a different interprocess communication (not
> TCP/IP) when in the
> same zone and the interacting processes can 'see' one
> another?
>
> regards, Jeff (not the first Jeff, a different
> one...)
Hi Jeff,
I'm absolutel
> I would not read too much into those values, but I
> think that it is safe to
> conclude that there is little difference in network
> performance among those
> situations. The two situations you have described
> are (4) and (5).
In my setup I have about 1000 connection/s, not a single connect
When I get a chance, I'll reproduce many connections/s (instead of
bytes/s) across zones, compared to intra-zone, using Apache's 'ab' tool,
and report what I get. -- Jeff
Gino Ruopolo wrote:
I would not read too much into those values, but I
think that it is safe to
conclude that there is li
> When I get a chance, I'll reproduce many
> connections/s (instead of
> bytes/s) across zones, compared to intra-zone, using
> Apache's 'ab'
> tool, and report what I get. -- Jeff
that would be very similar to my setup.
thankyou
gino
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
I look forward to seeing JeffS's results. Other tests I have done with
multiple connections between multiple zones also showed no overhead. But
those tests did not include large numbers of connection creations per second.
But there really isn't any extra code if the packet is traveling betwee
James Carlson wrote:
Jeff Victor writes:
1. Global zone to global zone using 127.0.0.1: 125 Mbytes/s
2. Global zone to global zone using 192.x.y.z: 124 Mbytes/s
3. Global zone to non-global zone: 124 Mbytes/s
4. Non-global zone to itself: 118 Mbytes/s
5. Non-global z
Jeff Victor writes:
> Yes, I did. As I said in that msg, "don't read too much into those numbers."
>
> You went and read too much into them, didn't you? :-)
Yeah, ok, I'm like that. ;-}
--
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive
Hi Enda
Thanks for the reply...
Would you be able to explain how the patching is done on halted zone
specifically how the /var which is not mounted in the halted zone is
being updated. Thanks!
rgds
shawn
Enda O'Connor wrote:
Shawn LEE C. H. wrote:
Hi
Quick question:
I have a few spars
Hi
I'm flamboozled with something that doesn't seem like it should be so hard on a
Solaris 10 11/06 webserver with sparse zones...
I have 4 different subnets:
A.B.C.0/29, D.E.F.0/29, G.H.I.0/29 etc.
...
Only one of them currently has a gateway address, and I put the global's IP
there leaving
15 matches
Mail list logo
