Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:57:19 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2004 at 16:51:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2004 at 16:28:53, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On April 30, 2004 at 16:25:29, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >> >>>>Current egtb cache caches compressed blocks. So this is a moot point. >>> >>>Unfortunately no. That is in my "TODO" list. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Eugene >>> >>>>Decompression is _not_ the bottleneck. From actual testing rather than >>>>guessing... >> >>I would have to figure the biggest bottleneck would be the hard drive speed, and >>cpu speed. >> >>I know when I switched to 10,000 rpm drives I noticed quite an improvement over >>the 7200 rpm. When I got my 15k rpm drive it was even better. >> >>Peter > >For 10K to 15K all you see is reduced average rotational latency.. Max transfer >speed doesn't change. Of course the drives are not as "dense" either, usually >being 1/4 (or worse) the size of the biggest 10K drives. There is 3.4 ms SCSI drives. Hard to beat :)
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.