Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:42:27 03/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2004 at 14:49:00, Matthew Hull wrote: >On March 11, 2004 at 14:35:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 11, 2004 at 12:38:06, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >> >>>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 ... >>> >>> >> >>People said the same thing about bubble memory when TI was actively working on >>it. > > >The mainframe world once had solid-state disks which were mainly used as page >packs. No one uses these anymore, AFAIK. That tells me that it's either dog >slow or just not cost effective (or both). Disks are fast and dirt cheap now. > > Big iron still does this. IE Cray has had SSDs (solid state disks) for 20+ years. The problem is density. DRAM is dense, but nothing like a mag disk. Ditto for flash devices... > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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.