Anon Y Mous wrote:
But this is fairly far from the Zones-discuss topic.
I respectfully disagree, I think this is part of the Zones-discuss topic.
The whole reason people want a minimal OpenSolaris install is to have a global zone with
nothing running in it (except for maybe an SSH server an
> But this is fairly far from the Zones-discuss topic.
I respectfully disagree, I think this is part of the Zones-discuss topic.
The whole reason people want a minimal OpenSolaris install is to have a global
zone with nothing running in it (except for maybe an SSH server and an internal
crossb
Jeff Victor wrote:
> Seriously, it would be helpful for Sun to understand the advantages of
> a release that doesn't have a GUI as an option. In other words, what
> problems are caused by the existence of the GUI software (besides
> wasted disk space)?
>
> Instead of a separate distro, perhaps it
Rats. This post was supposed to be below my other two older posts in the forum,
not above them. My bad.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
I know some of you guys are chuckling at my statements thinking "well, maybe
his postfix and apache and BIND / named servers don't have a windowing
environment, but Oracle needs X-windows". Well, actually it's possible to
install Oracle without using X-windows on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (see li
> Another option: Have you tried using the Automated Installer
> to install OpenSolaris without X, Gnome, etc.?
In regards to using or not using the automated installer, keep in mind that
some network administrators are VERY much against allowing anyone besides
themselves to deploy a DHCP serv
> Instead of a separate distro, perhaps it would be simpler for
> everybody if there was a "no-GUI server" installation option that
> simply doesn't install the GUI tools. Would that meet your needs?
Thanks for the quick response Jeff!
We also already did have a discussion about having a minimal
Thanks Jim. But the context is OpenSolaris, so time-to-patch is much
less relevant. (Instead, time-to-update is relevant.) I strongly doubt
that Solaris 10 will ever have a "server" distro. It's too late in the
life of S10 for that.
And because we're talking about OpenSolaris, disk space usage
sho
In the days of packages and Solaris 10 (i.e., what is used now
and will be for quite a while)...
A) Much less time to install and instantiate whole root zones
if you get rid of a lot of dross. This includes service instantiation.
Less disk space used for the zone. Disk space savings of mo
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Anon Y Mous wrote:
>> One thing I've found to be true though: either a machine is all zoned, or
>> not.
>> It gets horribly confusing to have real activity in the global zone,
>> where you can half see the non-global zones, so if you have zones
>> on a machine the
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Alexander Skwar writes:
>>
>>> What he plans can be done easily using NGZ (non-global zones).
>>> An NGZ also adds just a little bit of overhead (if any at all) to the
>>> system - unlik
> One thing I've found to be true though: either a machine is all zoned, or not.
> It gets horribly confusing to have real activity in the global zone,
> where you can half see the non-global zones, so if you have zones
> on a machine then it's easier to run nothing in the global zone and
> just
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Alexander Skwar writes:
>
>> What he plans can be done easily using NGZ (non-global zones).
>> An NGZ also adds just a little bit of overhead (if any at all) to the
>> system - unlike vbox.
>
> So you're saying a zone to handle all backup work
Alexander Skwar writes:
> What he plans can be done easily using NGZ (non-global zones).
> An NGZ also adds just a little bit of overhead (if any at all) to the
> system - unlike vbox.
So you're saying a zone to handle all backup work is a sensible way to
go at it...
Can you tell me what would
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> After reading only a little about zones.. I doubt I really get the
> expected usage one might put a zone to.
>
> My case is very homespun just a home lan with at most... 6
> machines.
>
> 1 vista(laptop) 3 winXP 1 linux 1 Opensolaris (2009
Why?
What he plans can be done easily using NGZ (non-global zones).
An NGZ also adds just a little bit of overhead (if any at all) to the
system - unlike vbox.
What would be the gain of using a more complex technology like
vbox/xen in comparison to NGZs?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 13:42, Dr Hung-Sh
May be use vbox or xen in opensolarris
--- Original message ---
From: Harry Putnam
Sent: 14/7/'09, 7:35
After reading only a little about zones.. I doubt I really get the
expected usage one might put a zone to.
My case is very homespun just a home lan with at most... 6
machines.
After reading only a little about zones.. I doubt I really get the
expected usage one might put a zone to.
My case is very homespun just a home lan with at most... 6
machines.
1 vista(laptop) 3 winXP 1 linux 1 Opensolaris (2009.6 still using b111)
I've been mainly a linux user until recently
18 matches
Mail list logo
