When a program runs out of memory for hash, I assume it begins to overwrite.
But with the advent of solid-state disks, does it make sense to begin to write to the disk? Does anyone do this?
Thanks in advance,
Walter
But with the advent of solid-state disks, does it make sense to begin to write to the disk? Does anyone do this?
Thanks in advance,
Walter
![[ca]](/mwf/v12/flags/ca.png "Canada")
HASH tables need RAM to be useful as they are flushed and updated constantly,
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I benchtest (read) my (old) Crucial SSD and it was about 435 with SR-2 using SATA lll ports.
I used the same test software and benched my memory (ram) and it was about 4000.
I set up a virtual hard drive on my SSD and loaded the bench software on to the virtual HD and then benched.
Big difference.
I always wondered when is the hash amount set to high?
I have tested my system to see if there is a decrease in kns with larger amounts of hash, but I cannot find one so far.
I always set my hash at 4096 which is 2048 per socket. I have not tried 8192(2x) hash. maybe if I set it this high I would see a decrease in kns, but there is no disc rattle like my old mechanical drive.
With 4096 compared to 1024 or any other, I am not seeing a slow down in kns.
Is the answer, "With more powerful cpus and fast SSDs and larger Ram memory, large hash is ok"?
I have heard several programmers say, the larger the hash the better. I would like more detail, when is more hash too much? If I run my system overnight with 8192 hash and there is no slowdown in kns, what else should I consider? Will there be an advantage in quality of info in hash vs overwriting in smaller hash?
I am not sure of hash setting limits on each program. I think hash limit on Hiarcs and Junior are 2048 because of 32 bit. On other programs I am not sure of limits, if all else is 64 bit.
My post is not referring to egtb. I have my 9 DVD egtb loaded on an SSD and it seems fine.
I used the same test software and benched my memory (ram) and it was about 4000.
I set up a virtual hard drive on my SSD and loaded the bench software on to the virtual HD and then benched.
Big difference.
I always wondered when is the hash amount set to high?
I have tested my system to see if there is a decrease in kns with larger amounts of hash, but I cannot find one so far.
I always set my hash at 4096 which is 2048 per socket. I have not tried 8192(2x) hash. maybe if I set it this high I would see a decrease in kns, but there is no disc rattle like my old mechanical drive.
With 4096 compared to 1024 or any other, I am not seeing a slow down in kns.
Is the answer, "With more powerful cpus and fast SSDs and larger Ram memory, large hash is ok"?
I have heard several programmers say, the larger the hash the better. I would like more detail, when is more hash too much? If I run my system overnight with 8192 hash and there is no slowdown in kns, what else should I consider? Will there be an advantage in quality of info in hash vs overwriting in smaller hash?
I am not sure of hash setting limits on each program. I think hash limit on Hiarcs and Junior are 2048 because of 32 bit. On other programs I am not sure of limits, if all else is 64 bit.
My post is not referring to egtb. I have my 9 DVD egtb loaded on an SSD and it seems fine.
![[ru]](/mwf/v12/flags/ru.png "Russian Federation")
Even if there is indeed slowdown in n/s, engines diving into deeper depths with larger Hashes much more easily.
This is fascinating. Did you mean to say that (in the past) only when your hash setting exceeded some value, you would detect disc rattle in your mechanical drive? This would answer my question (and I will try it myself), as it would indicate that hash was, in fact, being written to the hard drive.
Is it possible that there was simply no room left for functions other than hash, and they were using the hard drive while hash was confined to RAM?
Is it possible that there was simply no room left for functions other than hash, and they were using the hard drive while hash was confined to RAM?
if I set it this high I would see a decrease in kns, but there is no disc rattle like my old mechanical drive.
I meant to say that If there is a memory problem with ram and it has to read/write to disk then with the old mech drive it would hammer.
This same condition with an SSD is not as loud, but that was with egtb.
I am not sure what happens if you set the hash too high and then the OS thinks it needs more memory, does it write to the HD?
I am talking about the upper limits, what are they with what size ram and what are the troubles it causes?
What advantage is crazy amounts of hash for correspondence chess or overnight runs?
I have heard programmers say the more the better but maybe that doesnt apply to todays crazy amounts of ram.
Like the guys that fold. The folders think they have to have 32 gig, 64 gig, of ram. Not sure why they need so much ram with folding.
of course I am talking about with chess, are we using enough hash for larger hardware?
If I set my hash at 4096, 2048 per socket the Shredder GUI shows 100% fill in 2 minutes?
Is this true? Should we have more hash for long games or long analysis?
What if I set a hash amount that fills in 5 minutes, Is that an advantage?
I meant to say that If there is a memory problem with ram and it has to read/write to disk then with the old mech drive it would hammer.
This same condition with an SSD is not as loud, but that was with egtb.
I am not sure what happens if you set the hash too high and then the OS thinks it needs more memory, does it write to the HD?
I am talking about the upper limits, what are they with what size ram and what are the troubles it causes?
What advantage is crazy amounts of hash for correspondence chess or overnight runs?
I have heard programmers say the more the better but maybe that doesnt apply to todays crazy amounts of ram.
Like the guys that fold. The folders think they have to have 32 gig, 64 gig, of ram. Not sure why they need so much ram with folding.
of course I am talking about with chess, are we using enough hash for larger hardware?
If I set my hash at 4096, 2048 per socket the Shredder GUI shows 100% fill in 2 minutes?
Is this true? Should we have more hash for long games or long analysis?
What if I set a hash amount that fills in 5 minutes, Is that an advantage?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill