Post by YTC#1In the non Solaris world, maybe.
Is chroot still a thing in the Solaris world now that zones are common?
Post by YTC#1As above, I was pointing out that the words are used to mean the
same thing. Back when they came out the usage swung one way or
another depending who was talking, and the two phrases are still
used occasionally.
Am I understanding you correctly that in the Solaris parlance, zone ≈
container. Thus Solaris meaning ≠ non-Solaris meaning?
Post by YTC#1Fine, but this is Solaris and it was a Solaris query. However,
zones can be treated in the same way providing you use a decent
installation tool.
Technology can be used a lot of different ways.
How common is it to blow a NGZ a way and ""deploy a new version of it vs
patching (upgrading) said NGZ?
Post by YTC#1Is it not obvious ?
No. Hence my question.
Post by YTC#1Solaris zones are still seen as being way ahead of Linux containers.
Please elaborate on /why/ Solaris zones are seen as being way ahead of
Linux containers. I'm specifically interested in /what/ is different
and /how/ that is significant.
Post by YTC#1There was a shot period of time when docker was mean to appear on
Solaris, and work with containers. But that failed to pass :-(
Interesting, and somewhat unsurprising given how Docker seems to want to
be everywhere. My opinion of Docker not withstanding.
Post by YTC#1The OS separation,
Unfortunately, that's too generic for me to get any value out of.
Post by YTC#1partitioning and isolation of resources, for one thing.
I believe that it's possible to use cgroups to restrict which resources
that a ""container (in non-Solaris parlance) has access too. I believe
there are even ways to control processor affinity to ensure that two
""containers can't interfere with each other. I believe that similar
can be done with other resources.
Post by YTC#1Being able to run branded zones for another.
I know it's a different methodology, but I suspect that User Mode Linux
— which allows running different kernels, older or newer — can provide
similar functionality to branded zones. I expect that this can be
extended to allow running CentOS 6 w/ a 4.x kernel on an Ubuntu host
running a 5.x kernel. (Or vice versa.)
Will it be as easy, or pretty as branded zones, no. Is similar
functionality possible, probably.
Post by YTC#1And have you seen kernel zones ?
I believe that a kernel zone would be quite similar to a UML kernel
running a different Linux distribution than the host.
Post by YTC#1Fair enough, I am a Solaris through and through, and can be a touch
biased.
I have no problem with biases as long as people are aware of the bias
and still willing to have polite discussions. :-)
I know that I'm biased towards Linux, but I'm trying to keep an open
mind and learn about other things. I have respect for Solaris and SPARC
hardware. Despite the last Solaris environment I was in being
administered like it was the late '90s. I see Solaris LDOMs as being
similar in concept to AIX LPARs, particularly with service domains being
analogs to VIOs, especially when there are multiple redundant service
domains / VIOs. I believe there is a LOT of capability there. I wish
more people took advantage of it.
Post by YTC#1I find the concept of the isolation of a zone more likeable to the
way I understand linux containers to work.
Can I ask that you elaborate on what you think each side of that
statement means?
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die