Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 20:37:43 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 23:00:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 22:48:47, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 22:44:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Aha. OK. I just ran a test with (a) no egtables, (b) no compiled in threads >>>and I get a running size of about 5.75mb, with 3.75mb for the hash/hashp tables, >> >>>Who looks like an idiot??? >> >>You. > >Me? For running a full-blown crafty version? > >That's what I thought. No, you're not an idiot for that. (Duh.) You're an idiot for not knowing if your program takes ~1MB of memory or ~16MB of memory. I mean, seriously, you're off by more than an order of magnitude here. You're also an idiot for giving me a hard time about this: "Again, do you believe that the default code, with 4 megs of hash/phash, _really_ runs in 5M of RAM? I don't. I did run it under linux and got something that seems more reasonable, namely 20M. ... Who looks like an idiot??? ... The one who really _knows_ the program or the one who makes wild guesses about the program???" Yeah, you really KNOW your program when you FORGET that 3/4 of the memory you use is devoted to endgame database caches and thread structures. And I'm really making "wild guesses" about your program by looking at numbers in the Windows Task Manager. -Tom
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.