On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:19:53PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> However, I have not heard of any formal analysis that tries to quantify
> these benefits. My guess is that although there is some benefit, it
> is not a huge percentage of the overall administrative cost of managing
> each zone vs. managing individual systems.
I can't give you a formal anylysis on the time difference in managing
zones rather than seperate machines, but I can share a bit of personal
experience showing quite significant benefits in the zone model:
>From the admin point of view, I've not really got much more work than I
would have for a single server, and all the simple tasks of managing
processes and accounts can be distributed to the individual projects.
There's also the whole case of hardware administration - that's totally
shielded from those who manage inside zones. So from my perspective,
there's pretty much the same amount of work with no zones and with 100
zones, with the exception of the little time it takes to set up a new
zone and the rare cases where someone does something silly inside their
zone and need help picking up the pieces.
> This is an area where we
> would like to do more work going forward to improve this.
Improved (faster) patching and support for Live Upgrade with zones would
be nice improvements. The option to globally manage accounts (without
NIS) might also prove very useful.
zones-discuss mailing list