Would this be good enough for Syzygy 3, 4, 5 tablebases?
Or should I go faster?
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
myfish wrote:An interesting idea. I know some have stored databases on cards.
I'm not sure how intensive the data transfer would need to be to make the concept workable?
Yeah, and I meant 3,4,5 and 6 piece tablebases.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
myfish wrote:An interesting idea. I know some have stored databases on cards.
I'm not sure how intensive the data transfer would need to be to make the concept workable?
Yeah, and I meant 3,4,5 and 6 piece tablebases.
Then get an SSD for best performance.
I have a SSD external hooked up already. Wanted something smaller for when I take my laptop on the road.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
My $02., provided you have enough RAM, just put the rtbw on a ram disk. Perfect application for use of a Ram Disk. I have the system auto create ram disk and copy the rtbw files on startup to RAM Disk- takes less than 1GB of RAMand 100x faster than solid state. Also do the same for EGTBS. No slow down at all using Stockfish or Crafty.
This is all on a Mac.
edit: Only using 5 man table bases. I could put 6 on RAM if wasn't using the RAM for EGTBs so elected to go with 5 instead since I can fit Syzygy, EGTB and Crafty opening book on an 8GB Ramdisk.
MikeB wrote:My $02., provided you have enough RAM, just put the rtbw on a ram disk.
Not a good idea. Better leave them on hdd and let the system swap into RAM those parts that are actually needed. If you put them in a RAM disk, they'll eat memory twice (once in the RAM disk, once in the page cache).
AdminX wrote:Yeah, and I meant 3,4,5 and 6 piece tablebases.
That makes more sense.
Since the files are compressed the CPU has to do some work, which slows things down. I would expect the slower one would be almost as good as the faster one, as long as there are no problems like slowing down from getting too hot.