Re: [computer-go] Data Mining

[Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxx>]

So awaiting the future for you to get 256 terabyte,
we must assume your 'learning' works well?

Your last name is rather dutch.

There is a government nation wide organisation called NWO.

They are the owner of *all* supercomputing hardware, except for 1 xfile
supercomputer of 12288 processors (yes it's practical a few lightyears
faster than the japanese Earth for chess & go).

However all others they own. The executing organisation is NCF.

Right now some 1024 processor supercomputer (TERAS) must be near idling.

It produces 1 Tflop on the paper and it has a scratch size of 1 Terabyte
for its 512 processor partition, but you can stream endless terabytes to tape.

A request you can write to any university institute which will forward it
to NCF. Then all you need to do is write a 200 page report or so to
convince them to get system time. Be sure to write 3 reports of 60 pages.

As there is another 3 other watching organisations you must convince to get
system time.

However, i write 25 pages a day, hands down. So with a week or 2 writing,
you can save out years of calculation at your machine.

Then running your software there is done very quickly after you get system
time.

In the meantime excuses are not a good idea.

If you lack system time, well make it a project such as GIMPS.

Only cost is 20 euro a month or so for a tcp/ip server.

Note that a cheapo diskarray can stream at about 400MB/s very easily
(raid5), which a single cpu harddisk cannot do.

And no you don't need hundreds of terabyte in order to create 8 million
patterns.

At 22:30 14-11-2004 -0800, Frank de Groot wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vincent Diepeveen" <diep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "computer-go" <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "computer-go"
><computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 1:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [computer-go] Data Mining
>
>
>> It's not a good excuse to say that your thing can't learn well thanks to a
>> lack of harddisk space.
>
>Vincent, 256 TB would still be well over hundred thousand USD.
>I just don't have that kind of cash.
>
>Besides, I have already said that I found a solution, and that this solution
>is not so much slower than having a 256 TB disk array, as writing 256 TB a
>few thousand times with random access takes a lot of time as well.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/