I''ve created a zone which should mount the /pool1/flexlm.ulo zfs via lofs: + zfs create pool1/flexlm.ulo + zfs set atime=off pool1/flexlm.ulo + zfs set sharenfs=off pool1/flexlm.ulo + zonecfg -z flexlm ... add fs set dir=/usr/local set special=/pool1/flexlm.ulo set type=lofs add options rw,nodevices end ... This seems to work. However the manual zfs(5) say, that the mountpoint property has to be set to legacy. 1) why ? 2) if one sets the zfs property to legacy, the manual does not say, how an /etc/vfstab entry should look like (and a mount_zfs man page doesn''t exist)... 3) the /pool1/flexlm.ulo property is set to atime=off. Do I need to specifiy this option or something similar, when creating the zone? 4) Wrt. best performance, only , what should one prefer: add fs:dir or add fs:dataset ? This message posted from opensolaris.org
Hello Jens, Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:15:39 PM, you wrote: JE> 3) the /pool1/flexlm.ulo property is set to atime=off. Do I need JE> to specifiy this option or something similar, when creating the zone? no, you don''t. JE> 4) Wrt. best performance, only , what should one prefer: add fs:dir or add fs:dataset ? The performance should be the same in both cases - only a difference in features. ps. of course you do realize that mounting a filesystem over lofs will degrade performance -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
''Robert Milkowski wrote:''>Hi Robert,> > Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:15:39 PM, you wrote: > JE> 3) the /pool1/flexlm.ulo property is set to atime=off. Do I need > JE> to specifiy this option or something similar, when creating the zone? > > no, you don''t.OK.> JE> 4) Wrt. best performance, only , what should one prefer: add fs:dir or add fs:dataset ? > > The performance should be the same in both cases - only a difference > in features. > ps. of course you do realize that mounting a filesystem over lofs will > degrade performanceYes, I guessed that, but hopefully not that much ... Thinking about it, it would suggest to me (if I need abs. max. perf): the best thing to do is, to create a pool inside the zone and to use zfs on it ? Regards, jens. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Jens Elkner wrote:> Yes, I guessed that, but hopefully not that much ... > Thinking about it, it would suggest to me (if I need abs. max. perf): the best > thing to do is, to create a pool inside the zone and to use zfs on it ?Using a ZFS filesystem within a zone will go just as fast as in the global zone, so there''s no need to create multiple pools. --matt
> Using a ZFS filesystem within a zone will go just as > fast as in the > global zone, so there''s no need to create multiple > pools.So, Robert is actually wrong (at least in theory): using a zfs via add:fs:dir..,type=lofs gives probably less performances than using it via add:dataset:name. Correct? This message posted from opensolaris.org
Robert Milkowski
2006-Oct-24 07:15 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: zone with lofs zfs - why legacy
Hello Jens, Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 5:09:38 AM, you wrote:>> Using a ZFS filesystem within a zone will go just as >> fast as in the >> global zone, so there''s no need to create multiple >> pools.JE> So, Robert is actually wrong (at least in theory): using a zfs JE> via add:fs:dir..,type=lofs gives probably less performances than JE> using it via add:dataset:name. Correct? JE> Adding just ZFS file system into a zone should give the same performance as delegating entire dataset. Now exposing ZFS file system over LOFS into a zone should give you less performance - how much? I don''t know. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
Robert Milkowski
2006-Oct-24 07:20 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: zone with lofs zfs - why legacy
Hello Robert, Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 9:15:57 AM, you wrote: RM> Hello Jens, RM> Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 5:09:38 AM, you wrote:>>> Using a ZFS filesystem within a zone will go just as >>> fast as in the >>> global zone, so there''s no need to create multiple >>> pools.JE>> So, Robert is actually wrong (at least in theory): using a zfs JE>> via add:fs:dir..,type=lofs gives probably less performances than JE>> using it via add:dataset:name. Correct? JE>> RM> Adding just ZFS file system into a zone should give the same RM> performance as delegating entire dataset. Now exposing ZFS file system RM> over LOFS into a zone should give you less performance - how much? I RM> don''t know. To be clear: 1. add fs; set type=zfs; set special=pool/fs; set dir=/opt/fs; end 2. add dataset; set name=pool/fs; end Both should give the same performance. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com