Author: Don Dailey
Date: 12:59:56 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 1998 at 10:52:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 31, 1998 at 08:09:20, Komputer Korner wrote: >>Why do you say that I am upset? I am just pointing out observations.As it turns >>out I think that WIN 95 does about the same job as WIN NT when allocating memory >>to its cache. Because it grabs about 20Mb for itself, this has a large negative >>effect on large hash tables on machines with 64Mb of RAM or less. Because of >>this I recommend that all computer owners have at least 128 Mb of RAM in their >>machines. With that amount you can allocate up to 90 Mb ( maybe only 64 Mb >>because of block hashing) of RAM without swapping. > >Maybe you aren't upset, but the amount of work you've put into your observations >and the tone of voice you use when you talk about this implies (to me) that >you're trying to find some sort of scandal here. > >As for recommending 128 MB RAM to everybody, WHY????? Why in the _world_ do you >need 90 MB of RAM for a hash table?? Isn't the rule of thumb that doubling the >hash table size increases strength by 10 points? Do you think Joe User needs >those 10 points badly enough to spend $80 for them? Are they that sorely missed? > >And what, pray tell, is "block hashing"? > >Cheers, >Tom Hi Tom, I think he probably means "set associative" hash tables but I'm not positive. I have never heard this term block hashing. - Don
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.