News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by coldtea on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @03:53AM (#21522203)
>No I don't give a fuck about the 'risk' this introduces

Well, let's hope you're not powned because of this and get dragged into giving some fucks, for a 5-10% of performance hit you wouldn't notice anyway...

Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by systemcluster on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @04:44AM (#21522459)
Anecdotally, the performance hit from the security mitigations since the Spectre/Meltdown publication has been very noticeable.
Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by ageofwant on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @05:47AM (#21522738)
More anecdata: On my workloads, which involves moving large discrete image frames as part of a video inference ML pipeline through a message broker and other processing pipelines, de-mitigating decreased system loads ~25% on average. Some workloads up to 30% depending on inference model. So yes noticeable.
Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by ageofwant on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @05:34AM (#21522679)
Pray, why do you think I would expend the effort of deliberately increasing my 'exposure' if I did not notice the effects of these mitigation on my workloads ? And they are not particularly unique.

Do you understand my risk and load requirements better than I do ?

Have you entertained the possibility that the decision to de-mitigate was the result of considered risk and resource management modeling ?

But thanks for your concern and all.

Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by coldtea on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @07:37AM (#21523357)
>Pray, why do you think I would expend the effort of deliberately increasing my 'exposure' if I did not notice the effects of these mitigation on my workloads ?

You'd be surprised what people would do. Could be just out of some spite ("fuck Intel"). Could not even include any measurable workloads ("I want my machine to go ultra fast").

>Do you understand my risk and load requirements better than I do ?

For you particularly probably not, but you'd be surprised how many times a third party can "understand the risk and load requirements" of someone else (even a business) better than they do.

E.g. the "No, you don't need a Hadoop cluster for doing "ML" on a 1GB file", phenomenon.

>Have you entertained the possibility that the decision to de-mitigate was the result of considered risk and resource management modeling ?

Only briefly, cause the tone of the comment made it sound more of a knee jerk reaction ("No I don't give a fuck about the 'risk' this introduces", "until everything is swapped to AMD") doesn't sound like the fruits of rational analysis...

Re:More Intel speculative execution vulnerabilities by lsofzz on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @10:17AM (#21525027)
> Have you entertained the possibility that the decision to de-mitigate was the result of considered risk and resource management modeling ?

What do you mean by `resource management modeling` in this context? Do you mean `capacity planning` or `system scaling planning` or something else altogether?