Re: enabling dnfs when it's not being used
- From: Martin Berger <martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:40:47 +0100
to close this Q (for the records) Kevin Closson told us offline any ODM
code is just not used if not needed.
So no bugs should be added without need.
Martin
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Jeremy Schneider <
jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is where my knowledge of ODM is a little lacking. Once you link
> an ODM library, wouldn't _all_ I/O calls go through the ODM library
> even if it doesn't do anything but pass through to kernel I/O
> functions? In other words, by simply linking in the dNFS ODM library
> could you be exposed to any potential bugs in the ODM library?
> --
> http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Martin Berger <martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > As long as you do not need any other ODM library in those setups I
> assume it
> > just doesn't matter.
> > If the code is not used at all, only the mapped .so in memory might
> differ
> > in size. But I hope you do not need those few kb saved.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Schneider
> > <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> does anyone know any downsides to enabling dnfs when it's not being
> >> used? (i.e. the db is using regular local filesystem and/or ASM.)
> >>
> >> context is that i create standard builds which get cloned to a whole
> >> bunch of environments. i have a few environments that use dNFS and
> >> i'm thinking about just enabling it by default in my standard build
> >> that gets pushed everywhere. my heaviest workload environments don't
> >> use dNFS and currently it's not enabled on those homes; i'm wondering
> >> if there would be any potential risk to enabling it there.
> >>
> >> -Jeremy
>
Other related posts:
