On Thursday, 4 January 2018 12:13:14 PM AEDT Arjen Lentz via luv-main wrote: > On 4 January 2018 11:58:40 am AEST, Andrew Pam <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 04/01/18 12:12, Arjen Lentz via luv-main wrote: > >> Reportedly up to 30%, which has consequences for online capacity and > > > >thus will incur extra cost to mitigate. > > > >Postgres benchmarks with KPTI: > >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180102222354.qikjmf7dvnjgbkxe@alap3 > >.anarazel.de > Ya i saw, useful. So those show 7-17% performance loss, depending on use > scenario, and connecting method. > > That will require adjustments in capacity for online environments.
That message doesn't mention the complexity of the operations and how they might compare with other operations. Ideally a database server will have indexes that match all queries and everything should complete with little CPU time. But if you have some CPU intensive operations then the performance loss will be decreased. A server running seriously CPU intensive tasks like BOINC or coin mining probably won't have any measurable overhead. I wonder what the overhead will be for gaming? If you have the video memory mapped then there shouldn't be many system calls so the cost might be minimal. I wonder how many online games have security issues anyway... -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
