Author: Tony Werten
Date: 23:34:22 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 14:26:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 11, 2003 at 14:06:23, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On April 11, 2003 at 07:56:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2003 at 17:14:21, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On April 10, 2003 at 15:26:24, Johan Hutting wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2003 at 13:56:29, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is the 500 >>>>>>processor box running Windows? Linux? >>>>> >>>>>Operating system: Irix >>>>>(http://www.sara.nl/userinfo/teras/usage/progavail/irix/index.html) >>>>> >>>>>other stats: http://www.sara.nl/userinfo/teras/description/index.html >>>> >>>>Vincent are you able to run the same code on an SMP PC and on a 500 CPU CC-NUMA >>>>machine? >>> >>>yes 100% the same code compiles. i do not modify a byte in fact. >>> >>>the makefile in irix has litterary: >>> >>>-DIRIX >>> >>>and the windows file doesn't have that one. >>> >>>in my diep.h: >>> >>>#if IRIX >>> #define MAXPROCESSES 512 >>>#else >>> #define MAXPROCESSES 16 // right now, used to be 8 ;) >>> >>>>Curious, >>>>Keith >> >>Cool. >> >>Pardon my ignorance, but when is the big competition again? >> >>Will you publish some technical info after the comp? Like what sort of speedup >>you're getting from 512 processors? >> >>Regards, >>Keith > >Everything will be published including logfiles with numbers in it. > >i never play unfair. everything will be posted on the diep speedups also in the >ICGA journal with url where you can find the logfiles (or i'll email them at >request). > >maximum number of addressable cpu's is 508 then some need to be used by other >dudes who continuesly do stuff. so i hope that isn't 300 cpu's during the >tournament as then only 200 are left to get used. > >I can only do those 500 processor tests probably during the rounds at world >champs 2003. > >The only thing i cannot garantuee is when the logfiles get posted. It will be >probably around or after the world champs. Not before, but directly after sure. > >Most likely the logfiles while playing get posted while it plays. Except perhaps >the game against the junior team the logfiles will not be posted live, because i >do know what they do if they see a brilliant line from DIEP in the logfile... > >I would be very happy with around 10% speedup. I've needed a little thought about about your numbers. Am I correct in assuming 10% means: 10% of the max speedup of 500 processors ? So Diep searches about 50 x faster on this machine ? Nice ! Is that time to solution ? BTW, how is your branching factor holding ? I assume it's not possible to stay below 3, those last few (3-4) plies ? Tony > >But never forget that's actual speedup. that's with a program which also runs >well at a single cpu machine. zugzwang claimed for example 50% speedup. > >but that was with 512 processors and in total 5 ply searches fullwidth were >performed. he calculated speedup based upon number of nodes at a 5 ply fullwidth >search. > >Imagine that i create a bug in diep that only 1 cpu searches and the rest idles. >Then my speedup in number of nodes is of course 100%. But my speedup in time is >1.0 out of 512. > >They concluded 50% from that, which is very poor if you consider how little >nodes a second a single cpu also got with them. I do not see how they could do >that. Their way of measuring sucked. Deep Blue guessed with a wet finger that it >was 8% without any evidence at around 30 nodes. Not even their output shows >number of searches searched. > >Hyatt on the other hand claims on a shared memory machine 11.x out of 16 cpu's >or so. He did not slow down his program 30 times like the zugzwang team did, but >did some modification to his search results as i have proven in august 2002. you >still can get the data in a table and look for yourself. All he tried to cover >up for is probably a factor 2 which he lost somewhere. Still considering the >fact that he didn't slow down his thing 30 times, it is a very good speed. > >Then we have many poor researches. Without exception they managed all to get >great results, without showing any logfile. > >DIEP's output however shows everything. In logfiles are all statistics >available. local hashhits,globalhashhits, number of nodes needed for each ply >and for each mainline. number of searches done. number of failhighaborts (1 cpu >aborting possibly other cpu's as well), how many nodes were done during >nullmove, etcetera. In short nothing amateuristic where by not showing anything >you can cover up for having a sucking program. > >I have no statistics to hide in that respect. To my sponsor NWO i have already >written down in the 400 pages or so i wrote to get system time (that doesn't >only involve nwo but another 6 other organisations), that it is my intention to >publish all logfiles open and fair. No bad science there. > >The NWO of course is an organisation that appreciates this. > >Best regards, >Vincent
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.