Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:32:12 04/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 23:37:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 15:31:02, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>I would not tell "However to all standards, programming of DIEP is very >>professionally done" about the programmer who needlessly duplicates tens of >>megabytes of data only because he did not figured out how to efficiently use >>threads instead of processes. > >this is bloody nonsense. Every idiot can proof that multiprocessing >is faster and easier to implement! > Easier, not necessarily faster. And you _are_ wasting a _bunch_ of memory. All the TB indices are replicated N times. The TB cache is replicated. You are doing 4x the I/O you need to do if you were using a shared EGTB cache. The list goes on and on... It's ok to say you like the way you do it. It is not ok to say your way is _the_ best way. Threads are simply better. >I added just sharing memory to DIEP and i was multiprocessor already >(of course the algorithm to do so harder). Using threads i would >have need to rewrite the entire program and evaluation and get >slower everywhere. 10% slower i would estimate it at. > >>Or about the programmer who included others' code into his program without the >>permission. >>Eugene
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.