Oracle used excuse, that it's current OpenJDK license (GPLv2) is incompatible with license, used by Google's runtime (Apache 2). If Google re-licensed it's Java implementation under GPL, some of arguments, used by Oracle lawyers (code reuse and patent (?) violations), would have been void, and arguing about reuse of APIs would have been a lot harder.
Of course, this does not really matter, because the whole lawsuit is just excuse for power games between corporations. Oracle's goal wasn't about Java licensing, it was about gaining some degree of control over emerging Android ecosystem.
cgroups, Jails, and Zones all suffer from having to cover an immense surface area. Contrast with VMs, which only require managing a few, significantly simpler interfaces. There are definitely differences in quality, but they all use a similar approach.
I am guessing it is to avoid to learn a whole new ecosystem, tools, environments, rules, package system etc. It's just simpler to stick to Linux. But it all depends, let's say if my application on Illumos shows a 60% performance improvement, well I can see spending time learning it and using it as a base. But it would really have to be large benefit to justify switching OSes. Of course how would I even bother benchmarking to start with? I'd probably have to hear other stories or mentions on HN and such...
If you are itching for some slides, http://bhyvecon.org/bhyvecon2018-Gwydir.pdf
We have some work to do before we are ready for widespread use. As those pieces fall in place, we'll announce on [email protected].
Their whole premise is that their containers are equivalent to/better than VMs[0].
0: https://www.joyent.com/blog/understanding-triton-containers
For instance, the directory name lookup cache can greatly impact the performance of file operations. This is what makes it so that when you open /a/b/c/d/e/blah, the OS has a good chance of knowing how to open "blah" directly without first searching /a, /a/b, /a/b/c, /a/b/c/d, and /a/b/c/d/e. I don't have performance numbers handy (left at $job - 1 and $job - 2), but the default size is not great for a system that handles hundreds of thousands of files. If that sounds like a lot of files, count how many files are read as part of a reasonably large build. Then imagine there are dozens of them running concurrently. Or imagine that you are hosting git repos or a bunch of static web content.
The obvious answer is to just increase the size of the DNLC. The problem is that there are other parts of the system that behave poorly with a large DNLC. For instance, whenever anyone tries to unmount a file system, dnlc_purge_vfsp() is called. This walks the cache, looking for entries that are associated with the file system. Who cares, right? We hardly ever unmount file systems. Well, if you use the automounter (by default Solaris uses it for at least /home/*), every few minutes it is trying to unmount all of the automounted file systems. The purge happens before EBUSY can be detected so hot cached entries may be purged while adding contention on dnlc-related locks. What's worse, the automounter doesn't reset its inactivity timer when it hits EBUSY, causing more frequent attempts to unmount than you would otherwise expect. There are other DNLC bottlenecks on a Solaris NFS server when a client removes a file.
And then as you get to larger systems with more NUMA effects, these type of operations become even more expensive.
Operating systems are hard. Making them scale to an infinite number of processes and processors is impossible. At a certain point, it becomes beneficial to use smaller hardware and/or add VMs into the mix.
(Solaris lives on in Illumos et al)