Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:43:32 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 23:37:43, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 23:00:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 22:48:47, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2004 at 22:44:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Aha. OK. I just ran a test with (a) no egtables, (b) no compiled in threads >>>>and I get a running size of about 5.75mb, with 3.75mb for the hash/hashp tables, >>> >>>>Who looks like an idiot??? >>> >>>You. >> >>Me? For running a full-blown crafty version? >> >>That's what I thought. > >No, you're not an idiot for that. (Duh.) You're an idiot for not knowing if your >program takes ~1MB of memory or ~16MB of memory. I mean, seriously, you're off >by more than an order of magnitude here. No I'm not. I simply _always_ run a full version, supporting threads, endgame tables, everything. Never occurs to me to test with something that I don't actually use in real games... > >You're also an idiot for giving me a hard time about this: > >"Again, do you believe that the default code, with 4 megs of hash/phash, >_really_ runs in 5M of RAM? I don't. I did run it under linux and got >something that seems more reasonable, namely 20M. ... Who looks like an idiot??? >... The one who really _knows_ the program or the one who makes wild guesses >about the program???" > >Yeah, you really KNOW your program when you FORGET that 3/4 of the memory you >use is devoted to endgame database caches and thread structures. And I'm really >making "wild guesses" about your program by looking at numbers in the Windows >Task Manager. the "thread data" is definitely a part of the program's working set. It uses it like crazy. I mentioned it more than once, never thinking anyone was running on a version without it. As I never do that until I thought about trying it to see if it would get closer to your numbers. BTW 3/4 is wrong. On my box I use 300 megs for the endgame decompression indices. I was _hardly_ counting that in my calculations. Now, unless something further comes up, I'll leave the last word to you. I don't see much point in continuing to argue about working set size without some _real_ data. > >-Tom
This page took 0.01 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.