Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 12:29:39 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 1998 at 10:52:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 31, 1998 at 08:09:20, Komputer Korner wrote: >>Why do you say that I am upset? I am just pointing out observations.As it turns >>out I think that WIN 95 does about the same job as WIN NT when allocating memory >>to its cache. Because it grabs about 20Mb for itself, this has a large negative >>effect on large hash tables on machines with 64Mb of RAM or less. Because of >>this I recommend that all computer owners have at least 128 Mb of RAM in their >>machines. With that amount you can allocate up to 90 Mb ( maybe only 64 Mb >>because of block hashing) of RAM without swapping. > >Maybe you aren't upset, but the amount of work you've put into your observations >and the tone of voice you use when you talk about this implies (to me) that >you're trying to find some sort of scandal here. > >As for recommending 128 MB RAM to everybody, WHY????? Why in the _world_ do you >need 90 MB of RAM for a hash table?? Isn't the rule of thumb that doubling the >hash table size increases strength by 10 points? Do you think Joe User needs >those 10 points badly enough to spend $80 for them? Are they that sorely missed? > >And what, pray tell, is "block hashing"? > >Cheers, >Tom Block hashing is the fact that hash tables are constructed in powers of 2. BTW can you explain to me why some programs allow blocks of hash tables in amounts such as 16, 32,64, and 128 Mb wheres others allow you to put in whatever figure you want? I am not trying to create a scandal here. I am defending WIN 95. Any long analysis causes the hash table to fill up and once it is filled the engine search decreases in speed by as much as 50%. This is significant. So for long analysis times you can never have a big enough hash table. You know all this. -- Komputer Korner
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.