181–190 of 296 posts
Pretty much what I predicted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16054674 > Sounds like servers handling lots of small UDP packets would be hit pretty hard.
Gameservers don't handle that many packets because they're limited in the number of player they host. A game a 60hz with 64 players will only receive 3840 packets/sec.
The image didn't show up for me, here is a direct link for anyone with the same problem: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/MwzsHRXQLVbmJ3pusNuGwn0ZQV...
Can someone explain what 1, 2 and 3 series in the plot means? What are we looking at? Why did one of them all of a sudden spiked?
Huge real world performance impact, they didn't say how much but it looks like close to 100%. I smell a class action lawsuit coming.
I've been too focused on the tech that I forgot about the legal part of this. Is this why they've all given wishy-washy responses that take no responsibility and seemingly don't even admit there's a problem? Sounds like they expect massive legal recourse and have no real choice but to listen to their lawyers who are telling them to admit no guilt.
It's not just the cost of the processors, but everything that contains them. Truly 'fixing' all the affected products would bankrupt a county but we should get a refund for the CPU's at the least
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the PS4 and XBone but the Switch uses the Tegra X1, which has 8 ARM cores (4 Cortex-A53 cores, 4 Cortex-A57 cores), 4 of which (the Cortex-A57 cores) are vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Tegra_X1 https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update
Vulnerable to Spectre, yes, like nearly all speculative execution processors. The PS4, XBone and Switch are very likely vulnerable to Spectre all the same but that will probably mostly affect their web browsers. None of these is vulnerable to Meltdown. That is an Intel/Apple/ARM Cortex A75 only thing.
Huge real world performance impact, they didn't say how much but it looks like close to 100%. I smell a class action lawsuit coming.
Hopefully not. Lawsuits are a fine way to stifle innovation. Imagine how hard it would be to push through any idea at Intel. No one saw this coming. Things happen. It's impossible to predict every contingency. They acted in good faith. Also, heh, users are funny: "all other games i have work fin by the way so there must be a problem whit fortnite."
That's new for a company, and it's not indicated by their PR spin right now.
What I think happened : a company produced a product with a problem. Probably not out of malice, but ignorance.
One of two things happened after, which can kill the 'good faith' argument ; the problem was found internally and hushed, or the problem was found externally and minimized to reduce financial burden arising from fixing the problem and the PR related.
We have no way of knowing how well it was known about internally, but we can all see the PR going on from Intel right now, and I hope i'm not the only one who reads into those press releases to establish intent.
I have turned windows updates off so I don’t have to deal with this crap. Screw you intel + Microsoft.
Whilst I sympathise with your frustration, at least with Intel, I can't help feeling like you might be storing up bigger problems for yourself with this course of action.
It’s servers perhaps that are most at risk.
Also I don’t do much on my Windows, mostly gaming, I run an iMac and boot into it only for certain tasks, so it’s extremely unlikely I will ever have an issue.
Any performance hit, even if small is just not worth updating for to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only Spectre CVE-2017-5715 can escape a VM, not Meltdown. Even then, you don't need to trust your co-tenants. Updating the host (which your provider has already done, or which is anyway out of your control) is both necessary and sufficient to protect from VM escapes.
I think it’s the other way around.. and the host updates are what have been introducing these performance hits as well.
If it's helpful, Our Node.js, MongoDB, Python servers all with significant network traffic didn't have any measurable impact after KPTI patches on Amazon Linux on T2.medium(burst), M4.large, T2.large(burst) respectively. Our impact is lesser than the figures suggested by redhat's advisory - https://access.redhat.com/articles/3307751
Would you be able to post some ballpark figures, please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully not. Lawsuits are a fine way to stifle innovation. Imagine how hard it would be to push through any idea at Intel. No one saw this coming. Things happen. It's impossible to predict every contingency. They acted in good faith. Also, heh, users are funny: "all other games i have work fin by the way so there must be a problem whit fortnite."
If you bought a car that needed to go 60mph and a subsequent update to the car from the manufacturer for safety meant it could only go 30mph, there would be legal consequences. Of course you can't predict every contingency, but some of them you pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than a doubling of CPU use, but for consistency's sake: The other percentages we've been offered have been in terms of performance reduction. We were told to expect a range of 5-30%; this is about 60%. Somewhere a sysadmin's hair has started smoldering.
I’d go farther, anybody who is concerned with application performance may soon see/smell their hair smoldering. We write a lot of code that needs to run as fast as possible (processing, post-processing, generating real-time weather/satellite data) and I’m concerned about time windows and whether we’ll be able to meet requirements.