On 10/10/07, Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be nice to have some zones 'or a group' which are
> independent of the global zone and can be patches/updated together.
> Is this a good idea or is there another way of achieving the same
> goals.

I would be especially fond of full-root zone that was patched
independently from the global zone and a mechanism existed to just be
sure that the minimum set of dependencies were met.  For example, be
sure that there is not a libc vs. kernel mismatch.  This seems likely
to be a branded zone, but I haven't looked into it much.

Use case:

Consider a group of machines with the following characteristics:

- Minimized global zone (just enough to manage server and boot zones)
- Zonepaths on shared storage (e.g. iSCSI, QFS, or similar)
- A framework to manage where the zones run

Things that could be done:

- Zones could easily migrate to another machine so long as
dependencies are met (or to meet new dependencies)
- A tool substantially similar to live upgrade could be used to patch zones.
- The global zones across the various machines could be patched,
upgraded, or replaced as a rolling operation with only one short
outage to each zone.
- Patching and upgrades can be done to one or many zones at a time.
That is, we would no longer be stuck with the current method that
forces all zones on a box to be patched serially during one long
outage to all zones on that box.

Mike Gerdts
zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to