From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mon Feb 5 13:37:33 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C13BEF0F90 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [217.72.192.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.kundenserver.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEFFF73A0F for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r56.edvax.de ([92.195.213.55]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue105 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Mb9Nj-1ePdk11JKl-00KhOj; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:37:22 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:37:20 +0100 From: Polytropon To: galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Response to Meltdown and Spectre Message-Id: <20180205143720.d4d98011.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <53029.108.68.160.114.1517707316.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> References: <23154.11945.856955.523027@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <5A726B60.7040606@gmail.com> <92120E50-19A7-4A44-90DF-505243D77259@kreme.com> <044e62f7-69ca-71fe-34a8-5c5cafc06f08@yahoo.com> <0520dd84-c00c-fbf2-da1c-f6ff4c63739d@yahoo.com> <20180203224612.GA10517@milliways.localdomain> <51178.108.68.160.114.1517699531.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <53029.108.68.160.114.1517707316.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zzM+0MNXpU403LB0xzMgRgcb1CdYyeYOW0LNTX33CWnD0BIw6d/ tDz31iG5u6o2bjz8KJyLRsixgosA10GkjBlJeIn/58eACMCCW4dPHrFrxJGZHUvQKYk2bjz nZeNbHkdNu+uZ95XYd56/BF4JHDT/UPIGpM5o9Kcci9Ibmz47g5zTXNztlO5gC89Rg+NB1Y 4jK+lqrmvLqk1v/EzYKLg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Ybzy41njxIY=:VfsP6t5/djfGi74ZT2XK7b 5mujCJogI+cu3WDlJhUx9z/G/K/jM2BzvipOFFzl7J/gWCBQsBI8OlQ0csqNbqMPpCP8nt2Vi rBE9/idaZdltMyA4zzqtnnUMvuLienEhU6ZLJZKMFGFTmMlTlc28pSMjHmJSwoRTDT+KXw4oi wiefZyDu/hMDO+Ea1mz0gFF0ljN0XPpfss/k8jQaePwmahjlbJUepUcHdc7o8o1TTkWlVs81S Ek1QLjd9pAtOe1RZVZYpCMGqQdrGpsHP9Muy9rS5cuRTqTjUwP2ZJtmJMWoOmTs5kn1fCMKQU BBFM5M4+423dbqSejLLxICzCe/HS9/ii78nQ3zMeAPTlftqtqLtTD+KD9eFuc1fBfAUkceK9u 8IcB5q1w1EFS+CJnm9KYUuzFNrqCl1vsXxUiVuK9WcIFyDPySG77N3mrfQP0riJnQwvTK9s1W nBCD9ymn21qkUK4WDKYtLcbMCWFYVRQLQTOedjMSkJKgRchrRSOrZ1C9m+R3XNuCVXUIkmkVu WnRzLYrpLF92guTeTcrlxBAGZBuWIGTHDT8AOTLjfFPAD47ZWwetfT97iTKYUycW45nngDFHB 1tBIL3HBdyEa6Gc1MSP1+9pw7QE5A3SDj4ZyGH0tty2gbqOnvGOjil2MHhiBxXjUfNPDh+SHP wIr/rUM+J0KDn2rjj8K1GqjTfr8vnzRSbMf2UTIqra0bLLaDW0YHtj2P4hytF5+UHa4X0JTBb ylJdDIqXrwMysFQ72/DJyctjuGqAcgMjNh0e4YaSg7ygJqEU3eGOsmODRTo= X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:37:33 -0000 On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 19:21:56 -0600 (CST), Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Sat, February 3, 2018 7:00 pm, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > On 2018-02-03, "Valeri Galtsev" wrote: > > > >> With all due respect, one person saying, it didn't affect me, doesn't > >> prove it is not disastrous for somebody else. Even if it is one machine > >> out of thousand that is "bricked" for some time, it is a disaster for > >> sysadmin who has that machine as a production server > > > > Of course, but who at all is saying that Intel's microcode updates > > have "bricked" any machines? This appears to be an entirely spurious > > claim, based on nothing other than grievous exaggeration that turns > > "higher system reboots" into "bricked". You guys are talking each > > other into a frenzy of fear over nothing. > > For all production server I run any reboot that is not scheduled by admins > is ultimate disaster, so it is equivalent to "bricked" machine. That > hardware can not be further used as production server, but "mere" fact or > reboot is ultimate disaster itself. While this is not the established meaning of "bricked", it it definitely an understandable (!) interpretation of the term. Allow me to explain: After a device gets bricked, for example by a firmware update gone bad (bricked by software), or by a power surge coming from a malfunctioning power supply (bricked by hardware), it cannot be used for anything anymore. It's like a brick. Usually, it will be disposed of. In this specific case, I can fully understand that if an update (here: CPU microcode) renders a server-class (!) device unpredicatable, this is often the same as unusable (!) for use as a server. Many sysadmins will agree that if you cannot rely on a system, it's not a good fit for a production machine. In this specific case, it doesn't actually matter if the problem was in there from the beginning, or added later by an upgrade. This problem doesn't just occur in CPU or system board firmware upgrades, but can also affect hard disk firmware or whole appliances. Basically, any unscheduled downtime (for whatever "accidental" maintenance reason) is bad in general, and definitely not a sign of quality for server hardware. On the other hand, I know many businesses where rebooting servers is quite common ("Windows"-based installations, of course), which if often due to software problems, wrongly configured hardware, broken hardware, or missing technical skills of the "professional consultants" and "solution experts" - that's what you find out in the many post mortems. In such settings, rebooting and then accepting a decrease in performance simply doesn't matter. The costs will be relayed to the customers, of course, and the final consumer will pay the costs added on all levels of the trade chain. This is a typical thing here in Germany - nobody cares. > I bet I am not the only sysadmin with this point of view. That is why I > said production server is by no means comparable to sobody's home > workstation. But I bet many people have the same attitude to their home > workstations as I have to servers I am responsible for. Well, I for one > have the same attitude to all my computers, including laptops, and as a > sysadmin - to all computers of people I support. You are definitely not alone with that mindset. You probably also get the gears in your brain working for the next important (and logical) question: What to buy instead? Which manufacturer can I trust? Will more money prevent such problems in the future, or will it just be money spent for marketing BS? Actually, most users who have experience in professional settings will want a system that is reliable and secure, for a reasonable price. Home users, on the other hand, do not care, and they will buy whatever is on the shelf, in the shiny box, with the "SALE" tag above it. They have "learned" that permanently rebooting computers is normal, and usage speed doesn't increase, even though computing power increases. In our throw-away society, replacing stuff (with similar stuff to do the same things as before) is socially accepted and a requirement for technical evolution, and the "free market" needs that attitude, because without growth there will be no growth, and no growth is bad for everyone... > Of course, some people may have different point of view on this, which > does not deprive me of expecting from my hardware to work without > "glitches". This specific mentality is present among those who are not personally responsible for systems and their reliability (i. e., home consumers and typical office drones who are paid for being present and visible in the office, not for getting work done, and surely not for using their brains). > My apologies for being edgy. These things make me such. Working in IT is not fun anymore... ;-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...