Indeed, but keep in mind that blog was using straight lofi. What is described below is leveraging zpool/zfs interfaces. straight lofi was slow and not too useful outside proof of concept. zpool/zfs seems to be running just fine.

Derek McEachern wrote:
If zonecfg determines that the target fs type is nfs it will error and not allow the zone to be configured. You can jump through hoops and do things to hide that fact from zonecfg so it doesn't believe that the zone root is running over nfs but I've got to think that it's not going to be well tested, if tested at all.

Also, the blog you reference has the warning,
/"First let me say this is a workaround hack, we didn't do anything illegal, and all the interfaces we used are regular Solaris interfaces, however it comes dangerously close to the "don't do this at home folks" category. So think twice before you'd use it in a production environment, but it definitely fun to do."/

I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable running anything production critical configured this way.


On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Henrik Johansson < <>> wrote:

    Hello Michael,

    On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Michael Barrett wrote:

    Say you create a zpool based on a file that lives on a NFS mount.
     Then you mount that zpool to a local mount point and give it to
    your zone to live on.  I'm assuming that under the covers this is
    just another version of this loopback method:

    Is there anyone out there running like this?  Any performance
    issues that jumped out at you?

    Since using files as backing store for a pool is not recommended,
    putting them on NFS will probably not make things better. It will
    only be as reliable as the remote filesystem and NFS implementation
    together. People have lost their pools in far less complex
    configurations, talk to the ZFS people but i doubt they will approve.

    I would feel more safe with UFS if I where to put a filesystem on
    files or perhaps


    Henrik <>

    zones-discuss mailing list <>

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to