11–20 of 72 posts
Anyone has more info on the performance recovery today? We experienced similar performance issues over the last few days with a seemingly complete recovery today (on a cluster of ~2500 HVM T-1s).
My team saw a 40% CPU usage increase on all of our EC2 instances and even our RDS instances. We were shocked since the media was downplaying the performance impact. I tried to start a poll but it seems as though my team was just the unlucky one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16109036
Not sure about RDS
On an unrelated note, kind of wish Meltdown had been discovered and exposed separately from Spectre. Intel has managed to weasel its way of out of taking responsibility by implying that this is not a bug and all the other CPUs have similar issues. If they had to respond to Meltdown only, it would have made it a bit harder for their PR and legal department to deny the security and performance implications.
Pardon this likely naive question, but I haven’t seen it addressed yet in all the coverage: what’s the cost in electricity of patching this vulnerability? Does a company like amazon running a massive cloud infrastructure see a non-negligible increase in their cost of doing business?
Pardon this likely naive question, but I haven’t seen it addressed yet in all the coverage: what’s the cost in electricity of patching this vulnerability? Does a company like amazon running a massive cloud infrastructure see a non-negligible increase in their cost of doing business?
It may impact the AWS control plane and amazon.com, but as far as AWS services go, it just means customers will be paying for more instances.
You can patch various tiers of servers at your own leisure, depending on threat levels and exposure. Measure the impact, capacity plan, etc. Rather than it being forced on you across all tiers because cloud.
It would be nice if AWS could write something official about what they are doing. I've been noticing major performance changes in our instances and have no idea if it is related to Meltdown or something else. Google released a blog post specifically on performance: https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/protecting-our-googl... It would be nice to have similar transparency from AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may impact the AWS control plane and amazon.com, but as far as AWS services go, it just means customers will be paying for more instances.
But for VM, do customers pay by CPU usage or runtime? I am sure the Netflix of this world optimise their CPU usage but I also suspect the majority of VMs are mostly idle or have little traffic as their task are either intermittent or are sized for peak usage.
Can see the appeal of AWS for scaling, redundancy, cross region availability, etc., but for long lived services it seems you pay a high price compared to services like Digital Ocean where the per VM cost is significantly lower.
"Why I like to run my own hardware for $100, Alex" You can patch various tiers of servers at your own leisure, depending on threat levels and exposure. Measure the impact, capacity plan, etc. Rather than it being forced on you across all tiers because cloud.
My team saw a 40% CPU usage increase on all of our EC2 instances and even our RDS instances. We were shocked since the media was downplaying the performance impact. I tried to start a poll but it seems as though my team was just the unlucky one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16109036
How are you trying to measure the performance impact? Are you checking the cloudwatch data or running any specific test?
I am interested to assess the baseline statistics (unpatched so far) and after patching. Any suggestions?