Dan Price wrote: >On Wed 02 Aug 2006 at 03:54PM, Darren Reed wrote: > >>>>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. >> > >On my system, a freshly installed zone has the following running: > ># ps -z foo | wc -l >23 > >If I disable some services I know I won't need, I can get down to: > ># ps -z foo | wc -l >14 > >One could reduce more: I didn't disable sshd, cron, etc. If I >want to use the zone solely as a container for running a specific >process, I can disable those, too, and get down to: > >snowdog # ps -f -z foo | wc -l >10 >
So to run 1 process in a zone, I need 10 other support processes. To me that seems like "heavy weight". If I have 2 processes I want to confine, that's 20 extra processes. But the extra output in "ps -z foo" isn't what concerns me, so much as the extra output of "ps -ef" in the global zone. >... >Another possibility to pursue is launching your process in place of init using >the new support for -i which is in snv_44 and later. With some >effort I was able to successfully demonstrate running a zone with just apache; >however in that case, you lose out on the ability of SMF to restart your >process if it dies. > This is getting more interesting :) So if SMF in the local zone can't restart the process, can we have a zone restarter in the global zone that would take care of this? And then have zone management also manage SMF instances of this restarter so that each one is individually visible through SMF? Darren
