[CRTech] Christian Radio Tech [MSG 81645]
[Thread Prev] [-- Thread Index --] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [-- Date Index --] [Date Next]
RE: Re: CPU security vulnerability
To: CRTech <crtech@crtech.org>
Subject: RE: Re: CPU security vulnerability
From: "Gullikson, Brian F" <bfgullikson@unwsp.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:50:45 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=bfgullikson@unwsp.edu;
Content-language: en-US
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=unweagles.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-unwsp-edu; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=AXIfiVCZx28IvznGwkwdvSRx3RboVrb7MW1fyLeKtjg=; b=QMSiqn1RMjjcX862JlZjfjCffn/2atmndNYwi5L8c/E1A48d7YOopXE9tZyRmRHxJZIayuUD0ZgnDc7pvcgmc9TPhKZnsb+zrF8xr1AvDRkwsCBswlyUn+QQW9+N+wzIolZwFvyor4prp9FHg58Y2IF1ZCTUj6gYnMOjHUYE7cQ=
In-reply-to: <CAOkhgWqy2to-JUQuJg=a0b5Djyg2YXBBJxKiCCzk1MD1RoEThg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOkhgWoMjjwszWXySMMGr=B=tDwe7xi2JHMBw0LsArEhLawk+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOkhgWqy2to-JUQuJg=a0b5Djyg2YXBBJxKiCCzk1MD1RoEThg@mail.gmail.com>
Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Thread-index: AQHTiKSrq8qE6iPn7kKJ5ouOiawW/KNqOD7g
Thread-topic: [CRTech] Re: CPU security vulnerability

Personal opinion here:

 

·         I'm going to keep using my CPUs whether the vulnerability gets patched or not… No choice to stop.

·         I'm going to apply all security patches the hardware and OS manufacturers recommend… It'd be silly to do otherwise.

·         I'm not going to fret about a 30% performance hit, because if I've done my job and specced enough headroom into the computers I'm deploying, then a computer should be able to run my OS and applications just as successfully at 70% performance as it did at 100%...  However, what this will look like for real-world applications is still completely unknown.  I understand that for high-CPU usage such as video or animation rendering, this could very well be a huge industry-wide problem… but for 99.9% of the stuff I do on a daily basis, folks wouldn't even notice things running 30% "slower" as long as it was stable and functional. 

·         Willie, I can, however, understand how this performance hit could certainly be a bigger deal if you're trying to squeeze the last bit of juice out of that "perfectly adequate" P4…  Assuming it's a Northwood core, that's a chip whose architecture was first released to the retail market in January, 2002…  16 years ago…  Perhaps this performance-decreasing patch is simply the tipping point that makes your P4's no longer "perfectly adequate", and It might just be time to move on… 

 

In the end… God is on his throne, and the sky is not falling…

 

Brian

 

 

 

Brian Gullikson, CBRE               98.5 KTIS-FM | Faith 900 KTIS

                                            Life 97.3 KDNW | Faith 90.5 KDNI

Chief Engineer                                     3003 Snelling Ave. North

KTIS, KDNW, KDNI                                       St. Paul, MN  55113

bfgullikson@unwsp.edu                        Phone:  (651) 631-5094

 

From: Willie Barnett [mailto:wbradiolists@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 11:18 AM
To: CRTech <crtech@crtech.org>
Subject: [CRTech] Re: CPU security vulnerability

 

​Based on some Google research I've been doing, today, it looks like the chips that use this "speculative execution"​ date back to 2001 or possibly earlier. :( So, we're basically all in the cross-hairs of this vulnerability.

So now we can "look forward" to reducing the performance of our 3Ghz CPU's to about 2Ghz, to implement the current fixes... if they are even available for these machines or for WIN XP. :(

Cell phones are also affected... Apple & Droid. This looks like a real "winner" here. :(

 

As we all know, we wrestle not against flesh and blood... Keep the prayer warriors armed and praying!

 

Willie...

Follow-Ups: Re: Re: CPU security vulnerability
(Willie Barnett <wbradiolists@gmail.com>, 8 Jan 2018 18:03:40 -0000)
References: CPU security vulnerability
(Willie Barnett <wbradiolists@gmail.com>, 8 Jan 2018 15:33:48 -0000)
Re: CPU security vulnerability
(Willie Barnett <wbradiolists@gmail.com>, 8 Jan 2018 17:18:04 -0000)
Prev by date: Re: CPU security vulnerability
(Fred Gleason, 8 Jan 2018 17:40:10 -0000)
Next by date: Re: CPU security vulnerability
(Willie Barnett, 8 Jan 2018 17:52:14 -0000)
Prev by thread: Re: CPU security vulnerability
(sjm, 9 Jan 2018 03:35:58 -0000)
Next by thread: Re: Re: CPU security vulnerability
(Willie Barnett, 8 Jan 2018 18:03:40 -0000)
CRTech.org