Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Tablebases and tablebase depth (Dr. Hyatt)

Author: Adam Oellermann

Date: 01:42:57 06/14/01

Go up one level in this thread


>>raid 5 was really designed for fail-safe data storage.  raid 0 (striping) can
>>be faster, but really only if you have a lot of memory bandwidth to access the
>>data in memory quick enough.  I haven't seen any cases where raid is
>>significantly faster on the PC platforms I have tested.  The hot-swap stuff is
>>nice for replacing a failed drive, and hot spares are even cuter, of course.
>
>
>Hmm, this computer had 768 megs RAM, which is a lot for PCs, but I don't know if
>that is what you mean by a lot or not.  When you say it doesn't really benefit
>though, are you talking about only in chess or in all applications? Basically,
>is raid-0 (or seperate HDs) worth anywhere near $200 in your opinion?

Bob's post mentions memory bandwidth, not quantity. 768MB may be lots of RAM,
but when you're moving these vast chunks of data around, access speed and
bottlenecks are certainly important.

As for the value of raid-0 or separate HD's, it depends on your application and
configuration (wow, another definitive, categorical statement...)

Regards
Adam



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.