4 ms·
My initial guess would be to align pricing with expected performance, which has now degraded, right? I don’t expect it to happen, but I can see customers like m
by bobwaycott 9y ago
My initial guess would be to align pricing with expected performance, which has now degraded, right? I don’t expect it to happen, but I can see customers like myself being unhappy with paying—just for example—for an 8-core VPS whose performance now matches what previously was 4-core performance. So, I don’t think anyone would expect them to charge less for a higher core count than lower core count, but adjusting prices downward to match performance wouldn’t be upsetting.
- jondubois 9y agoYes exactly. To clarify my point; this vulnerability only affects you if you're sharing a physical machine/CPU with other users (isolated by a virtualization layer)... So if you choose not to share your physical machines/CPUs with other users then you are not exposed to that vulnerability and ideally you also shouldn't need to get these patches and their associated performance overheads. Virtualization already has some known minor performance overheads but now these patches will add even more overheads. Can cloud providers keep pretending that 4x 2-core virtual instances are as performant as a single physical 8-core instance?