Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:22:39 02/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2005 at 18:36:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 03, 2005 at 13:57:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 03, 2005 at 13:37:09, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On February 03, 2005 at 11:47:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Nor do you know anyone that said someone did. That's your lack of reading >>>>comprehension, not anything else. who exactly said someone uses "all" of them? >>> >>>I have used them all at one point, but just like you I have run out of hard >>>drive space in my beast. Now all total I use 523.71gb of tablebases when playing >>>online. I use Hiarcs and Crafty, and I believe those are the only two that >>>support 6man bases at this time. >>> >>>The start up time for each program is considerable. In fact just last night I >>>saw a position where Hiarcs thought it was up +2.35 then the 6man tbs clicked in >>>and suddenly it found a mate in 42 moves. I will find the exact game and >>>position and post it here. >>> >>>>>In fact i don't even know anyone who has them all besides you. But well, you >>>>>don't even know how to back them up seemingly :) >>> >>>I have them all. Either on my hard drives, or backed up on DVD. I do have them >>>all though. Just ask my provider who cried over the bandwidth I used :) >>> >>>I downloaded roughly 10.5GB nightly until I had them all. Depending on the ftp's >>>speed, I seen a high of downloading 38.94GB in one night. >>> >>>Peter >> >> >>For the record, crafty takes about 25 seconds to "start up" on my dual xeon, >>with nearly 600 gigs of "stuff" in the TB folder. About 500 gigs is on 146gig >>10K U320 scsi drives, the rest is on 36gig 15K U320 scsi drives. I have 3x146 >>in raid-0 (striping for performance) and 3x36 in raid-0 as well.. > >Bob considering all the problems you had in the past, why not use Raid5. It is >the same READ speed like raid0, it can stripe too, but if a harddrive fails then >your entire RAID array isn't complete dead. If you have three drives in a raid-5 array, you lose one to the "parity" data. My ftp server is raid-5, but I don't want to give up 1/3 of my disk space on my office box. > >Raid5 is pretty safe way to do things... > >Note you lose 1 disk with RAID5. > >So getting for example a s-ata array of 8 cheap disks of say 300GB offers higher >reliability than raid0-scsi and is a lot cheaper than those U320 disks. I am after access time, and bandwidth. Your sata cheap drives don't offer either. > >READ speed of U320 is of course higher than s-ata ever will get. > the point, of course. >Though a 400 dollar raid card hands down delivers > 400MB there. > >Note that there is also raid5 for scsi. we have raid-5 using the AMI megaraid cards. In fact, our dell poweredge 2600's come with on-board scsi that supports raid 0 through 5 in hardware. > >>I don't consider that unacceptable...
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.