News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by samstave on Sunday July 22, 2018 @07:19PM (#17589416)
extrapolate as you will...

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-instance-history/

    I didn’t have one, but it seemed like a worthwhile thing to have and so I spent a few minutes putting the following list together (these are all announcement dates):
August 2006 – m1.small.

October 2007 – m1.large, m1.xlarge.

May 2008 – c1.medium, c1.xlarge.

October 2009 – m2.2xlarge, m2.4xlarge.

February 2010 – m2.xlarge.

July 2010 – cc1.4xlarge.

September 2010 – t1.micro.

November 2010 – cg1.4xlarge.

November 2011 – cc2.8xlarge.

March 2012 – m1.medium.

July 2012 – hi1.4xlarge.

October 2012 – m3.xlarge, m3.2xlarge.

December 2012 – hs1.8xlarge.

January 2013 – cr1.8xlarge.

November 2013 – c3.large, c3.xlarge, c3.2xlarge, c3.4xlarge, c3.8xlarge.

November 2013 – g2.2xlarge.

December 2013 – i2.xlarge, i2.2xlarge, i2.4xlarge, i2.8xlarge.

January 2014 – m3.medium, m3.large.

April 2014 – r3.large, r3.xlarge, r3.2xlarge, r3.4xlarge, r3.8xlarge.

July 2014 – t2.micro, t2.small, t2.medium.

January 2015 – c4.large, c4.xlarge, c4.2xlarge, c4.4xlarge, c4.8xlarge.

March 2015 – d2.xlarge, d2.2xlarge, d2.4xlarge, d2.8xlarge.

April 2015 – g2.8xlarge.

June 2015 – t2.large.

June 2015 – m4.large, m4.xlarge, m4.2xlarge, m4.4xlarge, m4.10xlarge.

December 2015 – t2.nano.

May 2016 – x1.32xlarge.

September 2016 – m4.16xlarge.

September 2016 – p2.xlarge, p2.8xlarge, p2.16xlarge. October 2016 – x1.16xlarge.

November 2016 – f1.2xlarge, f1.16xlarge.

November 2016 – r4.large, r4.xlarge, r4.2xlarge, r4.4xlarge, r4.8xlarge, r4.16xlarge.

November 2016 – t2.xlarge, t2.2xlarge.

November 2016 – i3.large, i3.xlarge, i3.2xlarge, i3.4xlarge, i3.8xlarge, i3.16xlarge.

November 2016 – c5.large, c5.xlarge, c5.2xlarge, c5.4xlarge, c5.8xlarge, c5.16xlarge.

July 2017 – g3.4xlarge, g3.8xlarge, g3.16xlarge. September 2017 – x1e.32xlarge.

October 2017 – p3.2xlarge, p3.8xlarge, p3.16xlarge.

November 2017 – x1e.xlarge, x1e.2xlarge, x1e.4xlarge, x1e.8xlarge, x1e.16xlarge.

November 2017 – m5.large, m5.xlarge, m5.2xlarge, m5.4xlarge, m5.12xlarge, m5.24xlarge.

November 2017 – h1.2xlarge, h1.4xlarge, h1.8xlarge, h1.16xlarge.

November 2017 – i3.metal.

June 2018 – m5d.large, m5d.xlarge, m5d.2xlarge, m5d.4xlarge, m5d.12xlarge, m5d.24xlarge.

July 2018 – z1d.large, z1d.xlarge, z1d.2xlarge, z1d.3xlarge, z1d.6xlarge, z1d.12xlarge, z1d.metal, r5.large, r5.xlarge, r5.2xlarge, r5.4xlarge, r5.12xlarge, r5.metal, r5.24xlarge, r5d.large, r5d.xlarge, r5d.2xlarge, r5d.4xlarge, r5d.12xlarge, r5d.24xlarge, r5d.metal.

Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by mmt on Sunday July 22, 2018 @09:36PM (#17589915)
Unfortunately, announcement dates only give one endpoint of the timeline. The other endpoint, retirement date (from even previous-generation availability), is crucial to any anlysis.
Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by ec109685 on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @12:58AM (#17598219)
Yeah, exactly. No argument that Intel keeps improving their processors. But at what cycle is the improvement so great, you are throwing money away by not replacing the hardware for the next generation.
Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by mmt on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @01:38AM (#17598371)
It's also never quite as simple as looking at each generation as a discrete unit of upgradability.

Not only can the price:performance spread vary between generations, but this can change over time, particularly because the model availability within a generation broadens over time.

Add to this the dimension of low power versions of certain processor models (whose selection is therefore strictly a cost/longevity decision, presumably invisible to someone like a cloud end user), one can't safely generalize.

The other problem is that the CPU isn't even, necessarily, the majority of the purchase cost of a server.

Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by samstave on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @03:13PM (#17604065)
The intention of my post was to look at the announcement dates as possible relation to the roll-out of new CPU capacity within AWS, which may tie into the retirement of older capacity and compute types. If we had that information, then you could answer some of the questions asked surrounding the deprecation schedules of HW in a DC the size of Amazon.

Specifically as it relates to the resources required to provide the same compute power for any given pool of instance capacity.

I know for a first-hand fact that AWS will not reveal its compute capacity, but in conversations with them, when we were actively monitoring the availability and continual use of all spot prices across every region, we had the data, according to them, to infer what their capacities were.

We had the data at the time, but not the interest/need, to be able to surmise ballpark compute capacity across all instance types in the spot pools - which is to say, what AWS' spare (i.e. non-fully reserved/dedicated) capacity was, and what the demand was for it. Additionally - we could have also bee publishing AWS' hourly revenues, dammit - I wish I would have thought of that - as people would have been interested in that data...

Re:Intel patches new ME vulnerabilities by mmt on Tuesday July 24, 2018 @04:49PM (#17604801)
> If we had that information, then you could answer some of the questions asked surrounding the deprecation schedules of HW in a DC the size of Amazon.

But we still don't, so we still can't infer anything at all from the announcement schedule.

Moreover, assuming AWS is growing fast enough, new instance type announcements could be entirely decoupled from deprecations. Even with both sets of data, it may not tell us anything about overall replacement rate, without also knowing the overall growth rate.