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 --

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

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to