Mark, Here's what my organisation did with zones.
We basically gave administrative privileges to the respective groups to manage their own zones. This turns out a lot cleaner since there is less overlap of responsibility and really improved turnaroud time launching new services. So the groups are now creating their own accounts and handling their own software/installs instead of bugging the infrastructure guys to do the job (spends about the same time -- really). Decisions on where to house what is also greatly simplified. We used to have n machines with m services, m >> n/2 and m is ever increasing. We had to consider a lot of things like security, port conflicts, etc. Now, we simply have m zones. I do think there is an overall saving at least on my side although I really need to ask the guys from the other groups to know for sure. At least they really enjoy the autonomy they are getting now. -- Just me, Wire ... On 9/22/06, Mark Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Community, I was wondering if any customers had done an evaluation on the administrative time or cost (same thing really) improved by using the efficiencies of Solaris Containers vs. managing individual servers with just one Solaris 10 global zone or one Solaris 8/9 instance. This is a hot topic at one of my customer's site right now where some think that the costs are about the same, i.e., one Solaris Container = one Solaris 8/9 instance or S10 global zone only....taking that further, ten Solaris Containers = cost of managing ten Solaris 8/9 instances or S10 global zones only. Any thoughts, opinions, studies are appreciated. Thank you. -- _______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list email@example.com
_______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org