Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:33:32 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 01:18:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 19:16:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>here is your old email. > >You claim to look at the crafty code all the time. Do you _really_ do that >or just claim you do? The email shows how you flip-flop, from he copies too >much to I copy too much. This is but one of several emails that we exchanged >about the subject. I certainly cleared up the 44k as being "max" later on. Show me the email. I never received. It is a lie. Your memory is simply very bad on numbers. I do no longer believe any number you quote if it can be used in your advantage. Last month 9 out of 10 numbers you mention are not true. >But you could have found that yourself had you looked... > >And I kept pointing out that I was _still_ getting better speedups than you >were "in spite" of all the copying I do... > >Guess it is time to change threads again??? > >Since this one takes a turn you don't want to get into? I'd much rather >talk about your nonsensical statements about Crafty, since those can _easily_ >be disproven. But that's not on your agenda since you never responded to my >real data on the smp vs non-smp post from a few days back. > >Again, _so_ typical... > >BTW the private email you posted has comments by _others_. I assume you >asked for their permission (you didn't mine). That's an actionable offense >as you should know because of copyright. You _should_ always ask. I don't >object, but I can't speak for others that were in there. > >But don't let minor details about "proper behavior" deter you... > > > >> >>Return-Path: <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> >>X-Authentication-Warning: crafty.cis.uab.edu: hyatt owned process doing -bs >>Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:39:49 -0500 (CDT) >>From: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> >>X-X-Sender: <hyatt@crafty> >>To: Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xs4all.nl> >>cc: Gian-Carlo Pascutto <gcp@sjeng.org>, >> Thorsten Greiner <thorsten.greiner@web.de>, <brucemo@seanet.com>, >> FransMorsch <fmorsch@xs4all.nl>, <Rudolf.Huber@gmx.net>, >> <sgasch@hotmail.com>, <stefan@meyer-kahlen.de>, <tckerrigan@attbi.com>, >> <weilljc@club-internet.fr> >>Subject: Re: Some results with ABDADA >> >>On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>> Crafty doesn't copy even 1/10 of the data you are copying!! >>> >> >> >>How much is he copying? I copy about 44K bytes (the TREE >>structure) to split. With 4 processors, I copy it 4 times >>when I split from 1 to 4 in the tree... >> >> >> >> >> >>> At 11:01 AM 7/28/2002 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Robert M. Hyatt wrote: >>> > >>> >> I disagree there. It is a fraction of a percent, overall, during any >>> >> search I have measured it on. I don't copy a lot of data, since I >>> >> can be selective... >>> > >>> >Does anyone have some concrete data on how evil it is to be copying >>> >over lots of tree-state data on the common current x86 SMP architectures? >>> > >>> >(Assuming a design similar to DTS or PVS) >>> > >>> >Vincent has been trying to convince me this is a Very Evil Thing, >>> >but I'm trying to assess what the impact is going from 4k to 1k or even to >>> >+- 150 bytes. >>> > >>> >I've already done the first, but this includes quite a bit of >>> >int->char->int conversions which I assume are also evil on current CPUs. >>> > >>> >The second would require a more through redesign. >>> > >>> >-- >>> >GCP >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>-- >>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences >>hyatt@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham >>(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station >>(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On September 03, 2002 at 16:33:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 16:25:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On September 03, 2002 at 16:23:20, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 03, 2002 at 16:10:33, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 03, 2002 at 15:56:10, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Wrong. Please re-read Vincent's message. "64k on Cray" *probably* was Bob's >>>>>>>number, but "44k in Crafty" not -- at least I cannot deduce that from Vincent's >>>>>>>message. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have it in personal email :) >>>>> >>>>>Does it says that all 44k are always copied? Because code definitely copies much >>>>>less. >>>> >>>>I think that's what Robert implied (sorry, email is on another machine). >>>> >>>>But I agree with you that's not what looks like the code does. >>>> >>>>I just wanted to point out Vincent never made up the 44k number, it was >>>>Robert that told Vincent that was his overhead. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>> >>>Again, "max overhead". Which might on rare occasions actually be hit. Perhaps >>>in fine 70 after several minutes, it might have to copy most of that stuff... >>> >>>This was when vincent was telling you your split overhead was too high, and >>>I pointed out mine _could_ be significantly higher with no ill effects since >>>fine 70 runs just "fine" on my box.. :)
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.