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

[amibroker] Re: Quad-core test results



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links



--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Fred Tonetti <ftonetti@xxx> wrote:
>
> PS .
> 
>  
> 
> I have noticed basically the same thing on dual core and core 2 duo 
type
> machines i.e. the same optimization on a single symbol can be run
> simultaneously on both cores with no increase in run time .
> 
>  
> 
> This seems to apply as well to optimizations on hundreds of 
symbols .
> 
> 
 I think it all boils down to L2 Cache size, certainly the more 
symbols + the longer the data series, the larger L2 cache size has to 
be. Certainly I notice a marked increase in run time with both cores 
running when the machine is loaded up with symbols and/or with long 
data series vs few symbols and truncated data series.
 
> 
> While the tests that TJ performed seemed to imply otherwise, the 
implication
> of the above would seem to be that it would be beneficial for AB to 
do the
> heavy lifting in terms of getting multiple cpu's/cores involved in 
an
> optimization when they exist so that results could be combined in 
one place.
> 
> 
I have been able to run multiple instances of IO, one on each cores 
for about 2 years. All I need to do is to create a separate user 
login per instance. I always thought that it was possible for IO to 
treat multiple users on a single machine as multiple machines and use 
TCP/IP services to communicate. Have you looked into this possibility?
 
> 
> If this were the case then IO would also take advantage of this on
> individual machines as well as on multiple machines simultaneously.
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf
> Of Steve Dugas
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:50 PM
> To: Yahoo - AmiBroker
> Subject: [amibroker] Quad-core test results
> 
>  
> 
> Hi All,
> 
>  
> 
> I finished setting up the new quad-core machine and ran my first 
tests
> today, so am posting the promised test results. All I can say is 
Wow!
> Really nice improvements, even better than I expected to see in my 
highest
> hopes. I am happy as a pig in sh*t !!     8 - )
> 
>  
> 
> For background, the test was an optimization run on a single 
ticker, which
> is how I will be running all my other tests ( ticker was QID, 468 
EOD data
> bars ). All tests used the same code with different param settings, 
all
> tests had about 46,000 opt steps.
> 
>  
> 
> To put things in perspective and show why I am so happy, the 
original code
> was about 2,400 lines. The first time I ran it, on my old backup 
computer
> which I was using as a dedicated optimization machine, it took 7 
1/2 hours
> to run. So then I copied the code and created a shorter version, 
removing
> everything which wasn't absolutley necessary for the optimizer, and 
that
> reduced the run time to 2 1/2 hours. Then I ran this short version 
on my
> faster primary machine and that took 1 1/4 hours, which is about 
what I was
> expecting to see on the new machine.
> 
>  
> 
> So today I started by running just ran one instance on the quad-
core - that
> took only 30 mins and Task Manager showed it was using just 25% of 
the total
> processing power!  Well to make a long story short, I kept adding 
one
> instance at a time, all instances ran in 30 mins and each used up an
> additional 25% of the CPU power. In the end, I was easily running 4
> simultaneous instances. This pretty much kept the CPU tached at 
100% but all
> instances ran fine, all finished in 30 mins and I didn't experience 
any
> problems at all. I was even saving the first ones to spreadsheets 
while the
> final ones were still finishing, wow everything just worked 
flawlessly!  So,
> the quad-core can run 4 seperate opts simultaneously in 30 mins, 
which
> averages out to 7 1/2 minutes per opt, which = 
> 
>  
> 
> 10X improvement over running the short code on the fast machine...
> 
> 20X improvement over running the short code on the old dedicated
> optimization machine...
> 
> 60X improvement over running the original code on the old 
optimization
> machine...  Awesome !!!
> 
>  
> 
> To those who were wondering what is the best machine to get for 
running AB,
> it looks to me like quad is the way to go.  ( My machine has an 
Intel
> processor, which TJ mentioned should probably work better than AMD 
for this
> stuff )....
> 
>  
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 459 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>  for free now!
>



------------------------------------

Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.

To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to 
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com

For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/

For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/