Author: Slater Wold
Date: 21:11:54 03/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2004 at 00:07:10, William Penn wrote: >On March 08, 2004 at 23:52:53, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On March 08, 2004 at 23:49:58, William Penn wrote: >> >>>Pretty simple. Reduce hash size. That's the only thing I've found to have a >>>significant effect when tablebase access starts to churn the hard drive >>>constantly. Engine speed (kN/s) falls dramatically at that point, perhaps to 10% >>>or less of normal speed, and never recovers. However using smaller hash size >>>appears to fix this problem. >>> >>>For example my computer has 1G RAM installed. I can run Shredder 8 with 768MB >>>hash normally, although I often use 512MB which the op system prefers a bit >>>more. Now one would think that 512MB hash would be OK in any situation with 1G >>>RAM, but not so. It's too much hash when tablebase access starts to crank up >>>heavy in endgame situations. At that point, reducing hash size to 256MB usually >>>fixes this problem, restoring engine speed to a reasonable kN/s. I haven't yet >>>found it necessary to goto 128MB hash. >>> >>>[Windows XP Home, Athlon XP 2400+/2.0GHz, 1G RAM] >>>WP >> >>Your HD is 'churning' because it is access a database on your hard drive. >> >>Your nps drop because the engine has to wait on info from your hard drives. >> >>The 'churning' is not a problem. Your HDs are. >> >>Go SCSI. Or at the very least, 10k SATA. > >Churning IS a persistent problem! How can you say it is not the problem? Of >course it is the problem! All you have to do is sit here and watch the hard >drive activity light, and listen to the drive churning constantly. Access never >stops. That's what TBs do! That's not the problem! >My hard drives are NOT a problem! There is nothing wrong with them nor my >computer. I have two 7200rpm Maxtor drives, 120G and 80G. And the windows >pagefile is also optimized on its own dedicated partition. The average seek time on a Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 is about 9.3ms. The average seek time on a Seagate U320 15k RPM SCSI drive is about 3.6ms. Effectively 3x faster. >Sorry but I know nothing about SCSI. If that would require buying different hard >drives, then it's not an option for me. >WP You would have very little drop in nps with the SCSI drive. But the 'churning' would persist. The 'churning' is part of HD access.
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.