Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:34:53 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 12:23:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >The only one who you are confusing is yourself. Correct, I'm confused why _you_ think threads doing independent searches needs to communicate all the time. >DIEP runs fine at any latency, but the speedup simply gets a lot less when the >latency goes up. > >There are many practical problems. > >You speak about shipping messages. > >When are you going to receive them. Check each millisecond? > >Or let the OS decide? I think I explained this already in other parts of the thread. You can check as often as you want, it's sending the message that's expensive, not checking for it. >The OS fires at 100Hz, so things like processes that are sleeping because of the >OS putting them to sleep (when locking and for 600 times they can't get the >lock) then you have a latency of 10 ms before the process is awake. > >You are aware of such problems? Yes, but this is concerning spawning and killing searches, not communication between active search threads, don't confuse the issues. >DIEP only can run well parallel at a shitload of cpu's thanks to statistical >chances that a scenario X doesn't happen much. > >That took 1.2 years fulltime work. Still tuning some details. > >There is a lot of communication. It is very easy to test this yourself. So give me an example, don't blow smoke. >Just get a cheap network card. Say 100mbit and connect 2 pc's. Now let them do a >parallel search. > >Please report back to me when you have a speedup > 1.0, because initially you'll >be slower than 1.0 i bet. I bet not ;) -S.
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.