Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:29:18 11/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2005 at 14:23:44, Gregory Owett wrote: >On November 04, 2005 at 07:13:03, Chessfun wrote: > >>On November 04, 2005 at 06:04:34, Greg Simpson wrote: >> >>>Tablebase access can easily saturate the disk IO, so having two engines using >>>them at once could be a problem. You could buy a small second hard disk and >>>store a copy of the tablebases there and avoid this problem by directing one >>>engine to use the tablebases on the main disk and the other the tablebases on >>>the secondary disk. >>> >>>Other than tablebases, there should be some slow down from memory bus contention >>>when two engines are running, mostly from hash table access I guess (hard to >>>cache). I don't think think this would be a big issue for the X2 processors, >>>but like you I would be interested if anyone could provide some real data. >>> >>>If you don't want to run ponder on you could get a bigger benefit from the dual >>>core system by running two matches at once. >> >>That is exactly what I am doing right now x2 4200+. Except with tablebases I >>have identical 5 piece placed on the same drive. C:\Nalimov and C:\Nalimov 1 >>told each program in options where to go and thus far no problem. Originally >>probing the same folder C:\Nalimov was a problem. >> >>Haven't noticed any other problems. If the two interfaces are CB then you need >>to install the path to bases different naturally when installing the software, >>so you'll end up with two locations where the tournaments or matches are taking >>place. >> >>Sarah. > >Hello Sarah, > >In my opinion, in the event of tournament this solution can also not function. >Obviously, always on "ponder on". Don't you think so? > >Gregory Both mine are ponder=off so I'm not exactly sure I see what you are saying? Sarah.
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.