| |||||||||||||
Zones vs Full VirtulisationZones vs Full VirtulisationPosted Sep 26, 2008 10:54 UTC (Fri) by alex (subscriber, #1355)In reply to: Not overly helpful by k3ninho Parent article: Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed? (New York Times)
Zones and Branded Zones are indeed a useful feature for getting multiple separate lightweight partitions in your system. They are probably directly analogous to Linux's OpenVZ and the Containers namespace solutions which are slowly trickling into the mainline kernel.
However I'm not sure how much real traction they have. They do allow better resource utilisation that full virtualisation but I suspect the margin is being chipped away. The market seems to have bought into full virtualisation a lot faster than these container based approached.
(Log in to post comments)
Zones vs Full Virtulisation Posted Sep 26, 2008 13:49 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Container-style approach is very popular in the webhosting industry. It's especially useful for folks that are doing variations on the 'Linux + Apache + MySQL + PHP' theme. Like using postgresql or Ruby or whatever, sinec it's difficult to find places that support that sort of thing.
Or if they want to run other types of services, like email or whatever.
People will run hundreds of virtual Linux systems on a single computer. They tend to be quite a bit cheaper then a full Xen-based environment..
|
|||||||||||||