Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:44:54 10/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 2003 at 17:37:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 29, 2003 at 14:20:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 28, 2003 at 23:21:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 28, 2003 at 18:12:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 28, 2003 at 09:48:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 21:23:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 20:09:55, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 20:00:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:57:12, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:24:10, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:06:51, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I don't think you should be afraid. 500 CPUs is not enough -- you need >>>>>>>>>>>reasonable good program to run on them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>Eugene >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would bet on Crafty with 500 processors. That is for sure. I know it is quite >>>>>>>>>>a capable program :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Peter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Efficiently utilizing 500 CPUs is *very* non-trivial task. I believe Bob can do >>>>>>>>>it, but it will be nor quick nor easy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>Eugene >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If the NUMA stuff doesn't swamp me. And if your continual updates to the >>>>>>>>endgame tables doesn't swamp me. We _might_ see some progress here. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If I can just figure out how to malloc() the hash tables reasonably on your >>>>>>>>NUMA platform, without wrecking everything, that will be a step... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ok, just call the memory allocation function exactly where you are calling it >>>>>>>now, and then let the user issue "mt" command before "hash" and "hashp" if (s)he >>>>>>>want good scaling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>Eugene >>>>>> >>>>>>That's why i'm multiprocessing. All problems solved at once :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>And several added. Duplicate code. Duplicate LRU egtb buffers. Threads >>>> >>>>Duplicate code is good. Duplicate indexation egtb tables is good too (note the >>>>DIEP ones do not require 200MB for 6 men, but a few hundreds of KB only). >>>> >>> >>>wanna compare access speeds for decompression on the fly? If you make >>>the indices smaller, you take a big speed hit. It is a trade-off. >> >>Not really, I need compressed around 500MB for all 5 men. Nalimov 7.5GB. >> >>What's more compact? > >Let's compare apples to apples. You are storing DTM for all 3-4-5 piece >files in 500MB? You just set a new world record for size. > >Aha. You aren't storing DTM, you are storing W/L/draw? Then the comparison >is not equal. > >Either way, my statement stands... It sounds to me like he's storing enough that he can do DTM with some lookahead search. Dave
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.