Darren Reed writes: > Darren J Moffat wrote: > > > Darren Reed wrote: > > > >> Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> > >>> Darren Reed wrote: > >>> > >>>> If I'm running two different inetd's, one in a chroot'd directory > >>>> and one in /, > >>>> I want to have two different smtp services, each with a different > >>>> bind_addr. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> So a Zone ? > >> > >> > >> > >> No. Zones are too heavey weight in terms of running processes. > > > > > > Really ? Zones are not heavy weight at all in terms of the process > > impact. They also don't need to be heavy weight in terms of disk either. > > > By heavy weight I mean in terms of "ps -ef" output. > Also, fewer processes, less risk.
The 'lots of processes' aspect of zones isn't a design constraint, it's a deployment consideration... Dan Price and I have chatted numerous times about severely-minimized zones. Specifically, zones deployed to run just one service, running only that service. It's certainly possible by glomming SMF and Zones together in the right way. It requires someone to actually pick up and carefully design the administrative interactions, which isn't officially on either the Zones or SMF teams' schedules right now. If you're particularly interested, please do raise it on zones-discuss. But, I think the concept is agreed upon enough that anything short of starting on prototyping, design, and implementation is preaching to the choir. :) But, there's nothing intrinsic to zones that require them to run lots of processes. (That's similarly true for standalone Solaris.) liane -- Liane Praza, Solaris Kernel Development liane.praza at sun.com - http://blogs.sun.com/lianep
