Carisdad wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:52:29AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Brian,

Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 8:31:06 PM, you wrote:

BK> With the performance boosts included in recent solaris versions I'm
BK> told that there's not much of a difference between handing the database
BK> raw devices vs. using a filesystem anymore.

BK> To test this out, my customer would like to try both ufs and vxfs
BK> filesystems in the global zone and lofs mount them to a local zone
BK> and test the database on that lofs mount.

BK> Are there any options that should be supplied for the lofs mount and
BK> are there any options for the ufs and/or vxfs mounts that should be
BK> employed to assure the performance should be close to raw devices?


1. lofs is probably a bad idea - mount them directly into a zone


lofs is the only supported option for vxfs.

przemol
_______________________________________________

While lofs is the only officially supported option, mounting directly in the zone can be accomplished with a work-around. see: http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/276134.htm

That's interesting. Do you know if there is also a work-around that allows you to assign a VxVM device into a non-global zone, and then mount it with VxFS when the zone boots?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff VICTOR              Sun Microsystems            jeff.victor @ sun.com
OS Ambassador            Sr. Technical Specialist
Solaris 10 Zones FAQ:    http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to