| |
Main
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
|
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2007 08:20:10
From: George
Subject: Re: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
On 25 May 2007 00:53:43 -0700, tin Brown
<
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2007 17:08:58
From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Subject: Re: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
George wrote:
> If you have abundant memory, make a ram drive...nothing is faster.
>
> I have 3g RAM, and run a 512mb RAM drive at boot up.
>
> Remember though, RAM is volatile...you will lose any data stored there
> when powered down.
RAM drives are a very bad idea for storing tablebases. The memory used
up by the RAM drive would be much better spent caching the tablebases
by the operating system.
--
GCP
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2007 14:36:57
From: George
Subject: Re: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:08:58 GMT, Gian-Carlo Pascutto
<[email protected] > wrote:
>RAM drives are a very bad idea for storing tablebases.
My Fritz 8 runs much faster with the tablebases in RAM.
>The memory used
>up by the RAM drive would be much better spent caching the tablebases
>by the operating system.
That would depend on how much memory you have. I have 3 gig, so RAM
driving 512 mb does not hinder performance.
Now if you've got 128 mb... :)
-George
|
| |
Date: 25 May 2007 15:28:57
From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Subject: Re: Tablebases on USB Flash Drive
|
tin Brown wrote:
> Has anybody tried putting the most commonly accessed tablebases on a
> USB flash drive?
>
> A quick test showed that a software striped RAID array plugged into a
> hub can get almost the same read performance as a hard disk but with
> zero seek time latency. I don't at present have a pair of 4GB flash
> driver to try the experiment in full, but I was wondering if anyone
> had already done this. And if it works...
>
> It might even be worthwhile with a single USB flash drive - since it
> isn't worth having KXXXk on high speed media.
>
> The half speed datarate may well be adequately compensated for by the
> zero seek time.
>
> Has anyone tried this out already ?
Yes. The results are positive.
"Zero seek time" is not true. Typical HD access time is around
10ms. Typical USB stick access time is 0.5 to 1ms (or if you are
unlucky, 100ms). So this is a factor of 10 advantage. The datarate is
almost irrelevant.
RAM is another factor 10000 faster, though.
--
GCP
|
|
