Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: hash table size - is a power of 2 still an advantage these days?

Author: Russell Reagan

Date: 20:39:44 09/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


On September 24, 2003 at 19:57:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>However, I've never had a system where I could not use 3/4 of memory _at least_
>for hashing.  IE for a 512mb system, that is 384mb.  That still leaves 128mb
>for the OS and the program itself, and filesystem cache, and egtb cache, and
>pawn hash, and whatever else...

I have a 512 MB system here. Under Windows 2000, with only a firewall and
antivirus running (which only consume ~8MB of memory), 156 MB of physical memory
is in use. That "128 MB for everything else" is nonexistant. Even if I got rid
of the firewall and antivirus, and killed off a few other nonvital OS processes,
we're pushing it to even get to the point where the OS is using 128 MB.

Now, runnning linux, we're talking about a whole different ball game. My (more
or less) default install of Redhat 9 consumes 160MB when running Gnome, and 113
MB in single user mode (I was a bit suprised by this). I suspect that you could
minimize the linux OS memory usage to virtually nothing, if you really wanted
to, and use 99% of it for your program. I remember reading newsgroup archives of
people saying you could run linux on a machine with less than 1MB of memory.

There is a difference between you, a _very_ experienced linux/unix user, saying
that you try to use all of the memory in linux, and the casual Crafty user
running windows trying to use all of the memory based upon your recommendation
:)



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.