Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:58:24 08/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 1999 at 14:11:09, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On August 06, 1999 at 08:47:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 06, 1999 at 06:28:55, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>I am wondering how (and if) to use the TB caching offered by Eugene's >>>interface. >>>I assume that almost all chess programs use one or more >>>transposition hash tables, this way caching the results of table base >>>probes anyway. Isn't it redundant to use the caching of the TB module >>>(FTbSetCacheSize() call) too ? >>> >>>If not, what values for the cache size can be suggested ? >>> >>>Thanks in advance, Uli >> >> >>It's pretty important, unless you run a system like Linux that really does well >>caching on its own. However, Eugene's LRU cache is very efficient and can >>speed things up significantly. >> >>In the case of Crafty, I generally do this: >> >>hash = 3/4 of all memory. >>pawn hash = 1/2 of what is left, up to 16mb. >>cache = whatever is left, leaving enough room to prevent paging. > >Based on your own experiments, larger TB cache speeds up probing on a Linux, >too. My guess it's because there is no necessity to go to OS, switch protection >levels, and copy 8Kb of data to program's space... > >Eugene Definitely right. I didn't mean to imply cache was unneeded in Linux... although linux seems to handle this better than windows 95/98 (I haven't fiddled with testing NT, which is probably much better than 95/98 with respect to disk cache). That was why I suggested 3/4 of memory for hash, up to 16mb for pawn hash, and the rest for cache...
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.