Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:39:47 09/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2005 at 18:16:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 15, 2005 at 17:01:37, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 15, 2005 at 16:23:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 15, 2005 at 15:17:13, Michael Yee wrote: >>> >>>>On September 15, 2005 at 15:13:22, Joshua Shriver wrote: >>>> >>>>>Has anyone tried writing an engine that uses PVM, MPI, or Mosix? >>>>> >>>>>If you had gigabit, or even fibre wire would the latency still be a problem? >>>>> >>>>>Josh >>>> >>>>The chessbrain project actually used a distributed beowulf over the internet: >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbrain.net/ >>> >>>And they never published any serious result or test. >> >>This is interesting: >>http://www.chessbrain.net/docs/chessbrain-discc.pdf >> >>Additional overviews: >>http://www.chessbrain.net/docs/thechessbrainproject.pdf >>http://www.chessbrain.net/docs/cblinuxjournal0903.pdf > >There is nothing interesting in there. In fact these reports don't do much more >than say "we connected a lot of computers and had them play chess". > >No single performance metric. 5.3 Game Statistics The total number of useful nodes processed was 84,771,654,525; that is the number of nodes calculated for work units that were accepted by the central server. Many more nodes were processed in work units that were never delivered due to server connection issues, as well as those nodes that were aborted before a result was returned. ChessBrain used a total of 2 hours, 15 minutes of thinking time. Using just the useful returned data, this gives an average of 10.5 million nodes per second. By contrast, Beowulf analyses approximately 100,000 nodes per second in an average position on a single P4/2.8GHz machine. This means, in terms of raw node processing, that ChessBrain performed at the level of a single 280 GHz CPU. These figures also tell us that ChessBrain’s efficiency in terms of converting connected machines to raw processing power was approximately 100 / 2,070 = 5%. Improving the central server architecture so that the connection problems are resolved would improve this figure dramatically. We are working on a server redesign to overcome this challenge before we enter any more high-profile matches. >Why? > >Was the speedup on 1000 machines <=1 ? They got 5% efficiency. >-- >GCP
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.