[lustre-discuss] Are there any performance hits with the https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/speculativeexecution?

[E.S. Rosenberg]

The hit is mainly for things that do context switches (which IO is the
biggest thing in.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Arman Khalatyan <arm2arm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, We did some tests with the new lustre clients(no patch on servers)
> I can confirm like Marek: maximum downgrade is about 40% by rsync with
> small files, lfs find on large folders 45% performance penalty:(
> We found terrible performance on the test system with
> zfs+compression+lustre.
> Good news: the compute node flops are about 1% or even none. So only
> IO intensive applications are impacted.
>
> Cheers,
> Arman.
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Marek Magryś <m.magrys at cyfronet.pl>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >> I wonder if any performance impacts on lustre with the new security
> >> patches for the Intel?
> >
> > According to our initial tests on 3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.x86_64 kernel
> > (Centos 7.4) with Lustre 2.10.2, there is a penalty of ca. 10% in nice
> > workloads (1MB IO) up to 40% in 4k IOs. Tested with IOR.
> >
> > It looks bad, however probably we don't need to patch the servers, as
> > Lustre lives in kernelspace anyway. Some kind of advisory from Intel
> > HPDD would be nice here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marek
> >
> > --
> > Marek Magrys
> > ACC Cyfronet AGH-UST
> > _______________________________________________
> > lustre-discuss mailing list
> > lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20180108/af3d914f/attachment.html>