Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:35:32 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2002 at 17:14:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 18, 2002 at 15:07:52, martin fierz wrote: > >>while i generally agree with your last statement, the OS can never know quite >as well as the programmer what it should or should not be caching. so for best >>performance it's generally a good idea to do the caching yourself if you know >>it's necessary. > >True. It's not strictly necessary, it just improves performance if the OS >is able to do some caching itself. The difference between Linux and Windows >is striking here. actually my experience with win2000 in this respect is just fine. i built the 8-piece endgame database for checkers on my 1GB machine, and for the largest parts of that database i would have needed about 1.2GB - the system started paging and i was rather worried about it but in the end windows caching was sufficient. >>also, i wonder a bit what your bookbuilder does, why do you need disk >>caching at all? shouldnt you just be reading each game in the database just >>once? > >The book itself needs to be updated after each read game. There is already >a simple caching layer in place, but it seems that on Windows it is not >sufficient. so your book doesn't fit into your memory? wow, that thing must be huge! or maybe it's just that i'm spoiled with my GB-machine :-) aloha martin
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.