Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alberto Ruiz wrote: >> 2007/7/5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >> SMF is not overkill for indiana. >> >> it might be overkill to instantiate quite the number of SMF services >> that >> a full-blown solaris installation does at first-boot, but SMF itself is >> incredibly useful. ;) >> >> I think that a lot of people find SMF frustrating because they think >> it's slow due to the prohibitive number of services that Solaris and >> Solaris Express boot by default. Maybe we should try to keep as less as >> possible services for Indiana? Does that makes sense? > > Is this something we should add to the list, i.e., investigate > the services started at boot time to determine which aren't > necessary and can be removed? I haven't noticed a problem > with speed here aside from the first boot (which does take an > inordinately long time--what on earth is it doing exactly?).
The biggest complaint I've seen related to SMF and performance is regarding the initial manifest import (and further imports after patching/upgrade). The number of services _enabled_ has no impact on this, only the number that exist on the installed system. Rather than artificially limiting that (which seems dubious, if you intend to deliver services, they should be SMF-ized, per the policies), the better fix would be to make manifest import substantially faster. This has been brought up on smf-discuss a number of times, but I'm currently forgetting the specifics, beyond it currently being done serially (I can't even recall if that's by necessity...) -- Rich _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
