[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Bug-gnubg] Benchmarks on server class machines and resulting change

From: Ingo Macherius
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Benchmarks on server class machines and resulting change requests
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:27:24 +0200

see below. In addition I'll send you the OpenOffice Calc sheet used in private mail, unfortunately I can't send it to this list as it has bounced due to size in the past.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Petch [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 3:36 AM
To: Ingo Macherius; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Benchmarks on server class machines and resulting change requests

Ingo, regarding your original cache test, would it be possible to send me your matches that you analyzed for this test. These 5 matches must have been pretty short.  
It were real word FIBS 7pt matches I played around the time of the benchmark, randomly chosen with a bit of a focus on "long" 7pt matches.
 I am wondering if the way you use Gnugb from the command line with the types of matches you are running result in cache performance that differs significantly from me. 
Command line, I've also attached the scripts used. Please note that they are not polished and I've edited them during benching so the number of loops in the scripts may just do apartial test when used as-is. Use with care and a brain. Otherwise that's exactly what I did. 

My normal usage from the command line  is to load a Match play match, usually between 5 and 15pts run an analysis and save the sgf file along with html. This is done in batch or individually. Having cache on makes considerable difference. If I can get your matches and run them in your experiment I’d like to see what I get. 
Would be great to hear about the results. 


Attachment: gnubgbench20090801.zip
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]