Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 09:38:06 03/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2004 at 11:19:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 10, 2004 at 13:49:01, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>Try this ATA flash disk, their access time is way more efficient than classical >>HD :o) >> >> >>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14635 > > >Not very big, _way_ expensive. And still slower than SCSI on transfer rate... This product is way younger than SCSI too as i wrote in the follow up message ( http://www.m-systems.com/content/Products/product.asp?pid=34 ) _Access time: <0.04 ms_ : so to read tablebase it should 100 times faster than SCSI disk I still to think this system will replace mechanical harddisk in some years ... > > > > >> >>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
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.