Flemming Danielsen wrote:
> I have found in the past that it is frustrating to find resources
> rctl that is not in sync between projects and zones definitions and
> as a costumer I would like to see them in sync.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by them being 'in sync'? I think
from your remark below that you'd want to have both the zone and the
project version of the max-processes rctl, right?
> It would also enable me to isolate applications in zones that tend to
> blow up the zone where I have other part of the workload running
> (other projects).
> I would like you to consider something more appropriate then a
> unlimited value of processes in global zone. We did an experiment
> where we created about 400-500 zones and we to hit some limits in the
> default kernel when we reached 80000 lwps. This will also affect the
> process limits. I expect there is a kernel structure that needs to
> be tuned, but I have not had the need to build a 500 zones system
> yet :-) But since you put a lower limit you might investigate how o
> put in a upper limit (based on kernel structures)
What would you like to accomplish with the upper limit in the global
zone? Leave more slots available for the zones? Or something else?
Menno Lageman - Sun Microsystems - http://blogs.sun.com/menno
zones-discuss mailing list