On Wed, Jan 3, 2018, at 7:53 PM, Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:11:02PM +1000, Arjen Lentz wrote: > > > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ > > > > A nuisance indeed, most hosted VMs will be impacted - with the % performance > > loss, companies may need to scale up or out additionally, incurring extra > > cost. This won't create happiness. > > it won't be too big a deal if you have another VM host (AMD, or an Intel > running the patched kernel) to live-migrate running instances to. > > then reboot (or replace) the machine when it has no VMs left running on > it...and start live-migrating some or all of the VMs back to it. > > migration is still likely to breach any contract requiring five-9s or better > uptime, unless the VMs are running off shared storage like iscsi or drbd (the > bulk of the time required for a live-migration is saving the current state and > copying the VM's disk images). > > A good VM hosting service should, IMO, already by set up for this kind of HA > live migration anyway.
Exactly. The only thing you may notice is the associated performance hit. You do need a new kernel too though, which does mean a reboot has to happen of the VM, but any system needing five-9s uptime has redundancy to handle that in a rolling fashion too. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
