Microsoft's 'Meltdown' Patch Has Little Impact On Storage

[Guest]

Microsoft patched one of two new security vulnerabilities, and early reports show storage performance taking a larger performance hit. However, the impact is less significant than first thought.

Microsoft's 'Meltdown' Patch Has Little Impact On Storage : Read more

 

[ScrewySqrl]

looks like MS's patch is better than the Linux one in real-world applications, unless the Linux patch testing was all pure synthetics.

 

[marcelo_vidal]

make a dpc test latency =) and you find the truth!

 

[marcelo_vidal]

When the Intel scam start: https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-to-acquire-mcafee/

And now what we got ?

 

[nitrium]

I've been running numerous benchmarks on my two PCs (a work desktop PC and a MCPC) and it really does look like this is a bit of "mountain out of a molehill" for average users like myself. Most of the performance impacts I've measured (so far) post-patch were well under 1% (but up to 5% for a few very specific tasks, which is obviously significant if that's your business). That said, it's all negative though - so there are no positive things you can say about it. Intel really dropped the ball on this, and I'll be looking very closely at AMD for my next build.

 

[AlistairAB]

Asus Aisuite is busted now after the patch. Thanks Intel and Microsoft and Asus. No more fan profiles and easy overclocking.

 

[Blitz Hacker]

https://twitter.com/CCP_SnowedIn/status/948980181577875456?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3 this tweet from mmo game Eve-Online shows a little different picture about performance issues

 

[linuxovios]

Microsoft's patch is the 1/3 of the proper patching that should be done... Please retest your systems after 2 moths when bios, os, browser etc. will be fully patched... Then you will realize the performance hit you are dealing with...

Also see performance here: https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7obokl/performance_impact_of_windows_patch_and_bios/

 

[martin-barker]

Yeah sorry, i work in Web & Software Development and my Softwares have taken a Massive Hit, MariaDB, Dreamweaver, Git & Visual Studios all noticeably slower. and my Machine running an SSD when from about 5 second ready to use to about 8 seconds due to all the services starting that are memory jumping and syscalling

 

[humorific]

Yeah, but have you tested if the patch actually is effective on spectre and meltdown?

 

[marcelo_vidal]

Now my q9550 will be alot better than i3 and i5

 

[stngrby]

So you think this is the last and final pach from Microsoft for Meltdown issues, really?

 

[cryoburner]

I kind of get the impression that someone at Tom's might have a lot of stock invested in Intel by the way they've spammed ten or so articles trying to downplay the effects of these "not flaws" in their processors over the last few days. Maybe the effects really will be minimal for most uses, but I'd like to see them take a more objective viewpoint going into tests like this, and actually look for cases where performance is affected.

I would also like to see much more thorough testing being done, including with a variety of storage devices that people actually use (HDD, SATA SSD, NVME) rather than just a $600 Optane drive that may or may not be affected by the patches in the same way that far more common devices and their drivers are. And of course, the tests should be performed with all software and firmware patched (and unpatched), not just the Windows patch alone, and maybe with a variety of builds with hardware from different manufacturers and budget ranges. I don't even see any mention of what hardware configuration was used for these benchmarks, outside of the extremely uncommon storage device from Intel themselves. And PCMark 8 isn't likely to reflect changes that are being made to software to work around this exploit, so for example the disabled performance features in web browsers won't be represented by it. How about also testing things like virtual machines and databases, where it's expected that the performance hit will be larger? This rushed set of benchmarks seems to be here just to dismiss any claims that there could be a problem.

 

[redgarl]

This is sounding like some Intel PR damage control disguise with pseudo objectivity.

Remember how fast you were to publish this without any evidences?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-adrenalin-issue-dx9-games,36203.html

You did exactly the same thing however, this time, instead of bashing AMD, you are doing damage control for Intel... CMON!!!!???

Also, all of a sudden, benches from software are irrelevant, but when you are benching AMD CPU in 1080p with a 1080 TI, these benches are relevant.

I am an electrical engineer doing a master and I find your behaviours disturbing to say the less.

 

[aquielisunari]

It's okay. Intel won't come out unscathed from the multiple class action suits. This goes back years. This error on their part will cost millions. Some say these patches aren't complete fixes and only a hardware change can fix it. And Tom's is one of the few downplaying the significance of these security issues.

 

[CRamseyer]

Tests are running on more products as I type. Sadly, I also leave for CES in the morning. I'm trying to gather as much data on premium and mainstream SATA SSDs as well as a HDD test before I walk out of the door.

 

[alextheblue]

[quotemsg=20563740,0,1666740]Asus Aisuite is busted now after the patch. Thanks Intel and Microsoft and Asus. No more fan profiles and easy overclocking.[/quotemsg]
I'm having the same issue but don't blame MS and Asus. This is Intel's fault. MS did what they had to in order to keep us as secure as possible in the face of hardware flaws. With that being said, the ball is now in Asus' court to fix it, and I don't have a lot of faith in them fixing it in a timely fashion. I like their hardware but their software side has a history of being kind of mehhhh....

 

[alextheblue]

[quotemsg=20565614,0,481389]It's okay. Intel won't come out unscathed from the multiple class action suits. This goes back years. This error on their part will cost millions. Some say these patches aren't complete fixes and only a hardware change can fix it. And Tom's is one of the few downplaying the significance of these security issues. [/quotemsg]
Look, I think Intel deserves all the legit criticism they get. But Tom's is less downplaying it, and more just being rational. People were screeching about 20-30% performance regressions, but that turned out to be sensationalism. It's better to wait and report the facts, that to whip up a frenzy with clickbait articles that don't have the hard data and legit real-world tests. Real-world performance loss in consumer applications is minimal on the past few Windows versions.

Don't get me wrong, any performance regression is a negative, and this mess is primarily Intel's fault. But the ones who should be the most pissed are companies that rely on non-consumer software that is more substantially impacted. I think this will definitely drum up more business for AMD, especially in the server market, for Epyc. I hope they can keep up with demand.

 

[alextheblue]

[quotemsg=20563753,0,2036703]https://twitter.com/CCP_SnowedIn/status/948980181577875456?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3 this tweet from mmo game Eve-Online shows a little different picture about performance issues[/quotemsg]
That's for the server software. So yeah... that doesn't dispute the claim that RW consumer software isn't getting impacted much. But like I said above, I think companies will start shopping with AMD more for their server clusters after this debacle. Especially since with most nix servers you aren't applying the patches to architectures that don't need it. Go Epyc!

 

[Nintendork]

So we got purch media (intel's bit*ch) so anand and toms act like shields for intel.

 

[Zaporro]

Did author even apply bios fix or called it a day after installing windows patch?

 

[jwho-spam]

[quotemsg=20562503,0,1]Microsoft patched one of two new security vulnerabilities, and early reports show storage performance taking a larger performance hit. However, the impact is less significant than first thought.

Microsoft's 'Meltdown' Patch Has Little Impact On Storage : Read more [/quotemsg]

Not entirely true in everyones case... in mine as an example, I Am having endless issues with my CPU temperatures after the patch as my ASUS Ai Suite 3 will not launch. as i used this for case and cpu fan control, now that it won't boot, I can't find anything that works. I have a stock no load temp of 45-65c and under load it hovers around 95-105c. Any one who can offer a solution, please do!

 

[alextheblue]

[quotemsg=20568274,0,2632970][quotemsg=20562503,0,1]Microsoft patched one of two new security vulnerabilities, and early reports show storage performance taking a larger performance hit. However, the impact is less significant than first thought.[/quotemsg]Not entirely true in everyones case... in mine as an example, I Am having endless issues with my CPU temperatures after the patch as my ASUS Ai Suite 3 will not launch. as i used this for case and cpu fan control, now that it won't boot, I can't find anything that works. I have a stock no load temp of 45-65c and under load it hovers around 95-105c. Any one who can offer a solution, please do! [/quotemsg]That has nothing to do with the performance issues the article is talking about. They're testing for performance impact, not whether or not some fan control software is working. I should know, I have an Asus board and I use AI Suite. I made sure the BIOS PWM fan control was set to a high enough setting to handle things if there was ever an issue with the software-based fan control.

My BIOS fan settings are more aggressive than my AI Suite curve at idle, thus when AI Suite was working, my idle fan speeds dropped a little bit when it was loaded. I only use AI Suite for final "fine tuning". I always want my BIOS fan settings aggressive enough so the system is guaranteed to stay cool even when I'm outside of Windows and no fan control software is running.

So for a solution you can either:

A) Go into your BIOS and kick the fan profile up a notch (or two - if you're running all PWM fans, set it to Turbo). You can leave it this way, too. It won't affect things once you get AI Suite operational again.

B) Install the AI Suite beta.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-releases-ai-suite-3-beta-compatible-with-meltdown-spectre-windows-patch.html

Personally I'm not a big fan of beta versions of software that controls mission-critical things like fan speed under load and CPU voltage. But it's there if you want it now.

 

[kinney]

[quotemsg=20563759,0,2631982]Microsoft's patch is the 1/3 of the proper patching that should be done... Please retest your systems after 2 moths when bios, os, browser etc. will be fully patched... Then you will realize the performance hit you are dealing with...

Also see performance here: https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7obokl/performance_impact_of_windows_patch_and_bios/[/quotemsg]

This is correct. Everything isn't even patched yet.

Sites like THG are jumping the gun (to assist Intel with PR).
See https://gist.github.com/woachk/2f86755260f2fee1baf71c90cd6533e9 for updates on each vulnerability.

Remember that Intel Meltdown is the one with the big performance hit. Spectre is more difficult to exploit, and has a negligible performance hit.

[quotemsg=20566455,0,5190][quotemsg=20565614,0,481389]It's okay. Intel won't come out unscathed from the multiple class action suits. This goes back years. This error on their part will cost millions. Some say these patches aren't complete fixes and only a hardware change can fix it. And Tom's is one of the few downplaying the significance of these security issues. [/quotemsg]
Look, I think Intel deserves all the legit criticism they get. But Tom's is less downplaying it, and more just being rational. People were screeching about 20-30% performance regressions, but that turned out to be sensationalism. It's better to wait and report the facts, that to whip up a frenzy with clickbait articles that don't have the hard data and legit real-world tests. Real-world performance loss in consumer applications is minimal on the past few Windows versions.

Don't get me wrong, any performance regression is a negative, and this mess is primarily Intel's fault. But the ones who should be the most pissed are companies that rely on non-consumer software that is more substantially impacted. I think this will definitely drum up more business for AMD, especially in the server market, for Epyc. I hope they can keep up with demand.[/quotemsg]

30% was an estimate but it was more or less accurate. It's worse than 30% in some cases.

See some test results here. Fortnite servers are one example where it breaches 30% performance loss post-Intel Meltdown patch. https://imgur.com/a/zYRap#HGvuXnc

In sum, if you bought Ryzen, you made a good decision. Stick with AM4. If you bought Kaby/Coffeelake, this is all very unfortunate.

 

[bjornl]

The issue was not about storage. Using storage to test it will in fact mask the problem since I/O to storage is relatively slow, even with a p900. The issue is kernel calls. A test should run in memory only to measure the CPU performance hit from kernel calls.

Something based off of this maybe:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/nt-kernel-logger-trace-session