--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
Fred Tonetti <ftonetti@xx.>
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@xxxxxxxxxps.com
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com]
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!
>