Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 12:12:06 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 14:47:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 16, 2003 at 13:31:39, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>I do more or less the same thing as everybody else, when probing EGTB's, judging >>from the open source programs I've inspected. But I get a severe drop in NPS >>when the tables are probed heavily. Much more than other programs, from what I >>can see on ICC. >> >>What could be the course of this? > >Fast disks. IE I am currently using 15K rpm, ultra-320 scsi drives, with six of >these 36 gig screamers running in a raid-0 (striped) manner, which is _really_ >fast. > >If you are using an EIDE disk, performance is going to die. Particularly if you >are >using 5400 rpm drives. > First of all, I'm not using 5400 rpm drives. Secondly, current IDE disks are not as bad as you think. Thirdly, all of the program I've compared with during games on ICC, where running on IDE disks, I would think. > >>I have the same order of number of probes as other programs as I can see on ICC. >>So my limiting of probes is not the problem. I only probe in the first couple of >>plys and if there have just been a change of material on the board. The harddisk >>I use is very fast. It is a Western Digital 80GB 7200 RPM with 8MB cache. So >>that shouldn't be the problem either. I use NTFS, not FAT, I don't know if that >>makes a difference, or file systems in general. I haven't done any serious >>testing of this on EXT2, EXT3, ReiserFS etc. But as far as I know, people are >>able to do this on Windows, so I must be able to do it too. > >that 7200RPM drive is double the rotational latency of a 15K drive. The >bandwidth >is a small fraction of a hot ultra-320 SCSI drive. > I know it's slower, but very few people are not using disks comparable to mine, and they don't seem to have a problem. Disks such as yours are not strictly necesary, I would think. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, I still think you are underestimating the performance of current IDE drives. I don't believe that fraction is very small. >You might try upping the egtb cache size significantly to avoid some I/O. > To how much, would you say? I tried going from 8MB to 64MB just now, and it didn't help at all. In fact, it was slower. /David
This page took 0 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.