Spawning 0.5kZ/hr (Part 2)
By Jeff Victor-Oracle on Mar 15, 2007
As I said last time, zone-clone/ZFS-clone is time- and space-efficient. And that entry looked briefly at cloning zones. Now let's look at the integration of zone-clones and ZFS-clones.
Enter Z\^2 Clones
Instead of copying every file from the original zone to the new zone, a clone of a zone that 'lives' in a ZFS file system is actually a clone of a snapshot of the original zone's file system. As you might imagine, this is fast and small. When you use zone-clone to install a zone, most of the work is merely copying zone-specific files around. Because all of the files start out identical from one zone to the next, and because each zone is a snapshot of an existing zone, there is very little disk activity, and very little additional disk space is used.
But how fast is the process of cloning, and how small is the new zone?
I asked myself those questions, and then used a Sun Fire X4600 with eight AMD Opeteron 854's and 64GB of RAM to answer them. Unfortunately the system only has its internal disk drives. The disk drive was the bottleneck most of the time. I created a zpool from one disk slice on that drive, which is neither robust nor efficient. But it worked.
Creating the first zone took 150 seconds, including creating the ZFS file system for the zone, and used 131MB in the zpool. Note that this is much smaller than the disk space used by other virtualization solutions. Creating the next nine zones took less than 50 seconds, and used less than 20MB, total, in the zpool.
The length of time to create additional zones gradually increased. Creation of the 200th through 500th zones averaged 8.2 seconds each. Also, the disk space used gradually increased per zone. After booting each zone several times, they each used 6MB-7MB of disk space. The disk space used per zone increased as each zone made its own changes to configuration files. But the final rate of creation was 489 zones per hour.
But will they run? And are they as efficient at memory usage as they are at disk usage?
I booted them from a script, sequentially. This took roughly 10 minutes Using the "memstat" tool of mdb, I found that each zone uses 36MB of RAM. This allowed all 500 zones to run very comfortably in the 64GB on this system. This small amount was due to the model used by sparse-root zones: a program that is running in multiple zones shares the program's text pages.
The scalability of performance was also excellent. A quick check of CPU usage showed that all 500 zones used less than 2% of the eight CPUs in the system. Of course, there weren't any applications running in the zones, but just try to run 500 guest operating systems in your favorite hypervisor-based virtualization product...
But why stop there? 500 zones not enough for you? Nah, me neither. How about 1,000 zones? That sounds like a good reason for a "Part 3."
New features added recently to Solaris zones improve on their excellent efficiency:
- making a copy of a zone was reduced from 30 minutes to 8 seconds
- disk usage of zones decreased from 100MB to 7 MB
- memory usage stayed extremely low - roughly 36MB per zone
- CPU cycles used just by unbooted zones is zero, and by running zones (with no applications) is negligible
So, maybe computers hate me for pushing them out of their comfort zone. Or maybe it's something else.