|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Try Process Explorer a freeware from Sysinternals.com
(nowadays Microsoft that bought them).
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.asp
x
It has much more elaborate reporting capabilities.
You can see total CPU usage (performance) for each process
(i.e. double click broker.exe and select performance graph
tab).
Joseph Biran
____________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Dugas
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:56 AM
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: Quad-core test results
Hi - I am not doing anything myself to divide the work. As I
understand it,
the CPU ( and I guess in conjunction with the OS to some
extent ) uses some
sort of "smart algorithm" to determine the best way to
divide up the
workload. When I was running one instance and looking at
Task Manager, it
appears that the one instance does not use 100% of one core
but rather about
25% of all cores. Then all cores go up by another 25% when
additional
instances are started.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "_sdavis" <_sdavis@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:59 PM
Subject: [amibroker] Re: Quad-core test results
> Hi Steve,
>
> Nice results. How are you dividing the optimization work
among the 4
> cores?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Steve Dugas"
<sjdugas@xxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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/
|