>guess is that the memory sharing benefits of sparse zones
>are relatively small in most cases.
May be I am wrong here, it seems that with sparse zone and "single" binary for all zone
there must be same memory sharing!!!

On 05/18/09 09:59, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Devin Ceartas wrote:
The problems this may cause me are largely theoretical at this point, as I'm just beginning to ramp my OpenSolaris use up.

My concern is conserving RAM, which full vs. sparse zones may or may not effect, I don't know, and with ease of management. My use case is running multiple instances of the same underlying web application for multiple clients. Keeping the core portions of the web app in common should help in maintaining it. Using sparse zones seemed like an easier solution than re-architecting the app to refactor the common parts into a webservices component.

The webapp components are relatively small, so I'm not overly worried about storage space.

Overall the idea of stable, secure containment which is lighter weight than full virtualization is attracting me to OpenSolaris, so I imagine it will be a win in efficiency regardless f the sparse/full question.

Thanks for the write-up.  It is helpful for us to
know what peoples concerns are for the sparse vs. whole
root configurations.  As you point out, even with
whole root zones, you do realize all of the other
efficiencies of the zones model.  I don't think we've
collected any data on the memory sharing differences
of sparse vs. whole root.  It would depend on how many
common pages there were across the zones.  I think our
guess is that the memory sharing benefits of sparse zones
are relatively small in most cases.

zones-discuss mailing list

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to