Steve Lawrence wrote:
>
> We have a generic rctl/global-zone safety issue that needs to be addressed.
> It would seem simple enough to just make project 0 processes in the global
> zone exempt from zone rctls. This would allow apps in the global zone to
> be capped without affecting system daemon
Steve Lawrence wrote:
> Hey Menno,
>
> Do you have any source code or arc materials for review? I'd also be
> interested in your latest archives.
>
> Have you run any functional or stress tests on this? I can probally dig
> up additional tests if you want. I'm guessing you really want to bang
Flemming Danielsen wrote:
> I have found in the past that it is frustrating to find resources
> rctl that is not in sync between projects and zones definitions and
> as a costumer I would like to see them in sync.
>
> It would also enable me to isolate applications in zones that tend to
> bl
Yes please. This is a common request for the scenerios you describe and to me
seems a logical addtion to the existing lwps control at a zone granularity.
Applying the control on the global zone is interesting, but not as important as
having the control per non-global zones.
/jason
This me
Flemming Danielsen wrote:
> I have found in the past that it is frustrating to find resources
> rctl that is not in sync between projects and zones definitions and
> as a costumer I would like to see them in sync.
Flemming,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by them being 'in sync'? I th
Steve Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Menno Lageman wrote:
>> Steve Lawrence wrote:
>>> Have you considered also implementing project.max-processes? This would
>>> give a zone admin some control over workloads within the zone. I would
>>> follow suit and make project 0
Hi
I have found in the past that it is frustrating to find resources
rctl that is not in sync between projects and zones definitions and
as a costumer I would like to see them in sync.
It would also enable me to isolate applications in zones that tend to
blow up the zone where I have other
Steve Lawrence wrote:
> Have you considered also implementing project.max-processes? This would
> give a zone admin some control over workloads within the zone. I would
> follow suit and make project 0 in the global zone exempt from its
> project.max-processes rctl.
I hadn't considered project.
One of the items listed as 'future work' is the zone.max-processes
resource control to limit the number of process slots a zone may have.
I have prototyped this and would like to solicit feedback.
The goal of the zone.max-processes resource control is to protect the
global zone and other non-gl
