Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 10:46:13 09/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 1999 at 18:18:46, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On September 14, 1999 at 09:39:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 14, 1999 at 09:26:28, James Flanagan wrote: > >>>How big should the cache be with 64Mb of RAM? >>> >>>Are there any other critical parameters that I need to set to get optimum >>>performance? >>> >> >> >>the best you can do is probably hash=48m, hashp=8m. and if you are using >>compressed tablebases, that won't work. Then you will have to try >>hash=24m, hashp=8m and cache=8m and see how that does... > >With Win98, I wouldn't suggest setting hash=48m, especially if you are running >ANYTHING else. The OS just eats up way too much memory, and you'll get disk >paging, which will slow you down a lot. With 64MB on my machine, I usually use >hash=12m and hashp=4m. It's possible to set hash=24m...Sometimes it works ok >and sometimes not. Either way, there will be VERY LITTLE difference in >strength/speed/etc. Bob did an experiment with different hash sizes a while >back to see the performance impact...Perhaps I can dig it up a little later and >post it. IIRC, there was no significant difference anywhere between a small >hash (4m, even?) and a very large one (384m). > >Jeremiah NPS is not the way to compare crafty's performance with different hashtable sizes in the same machine. Actually, crafty scores a higher number of nodes with smaller hash tables, but does less useful work as many of them are repeated. The search depth reached in the same amount of time is more significative. As long as you do not swap to disc, the bigger hashtables allow crafty to search deeper in the same amount of time (or to search to the same depth in less time). José.
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.