This is a quad core? I am suprised that you continue
to get
improvment beyound 4.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
Fred Tonetti <ftonetti@xx.>
wrote:
>
> Here are some results I got with my new toy .
>
> This is using a reasonably complex system on ~500 symbols over 10
years i.e.
> ~2500 bars ...
>
>
>
> Cores Time Percent
>
>
>
> 1 218
>
> 2 114 52.29%
>
> 3 79 36.24%
>
> 4 62 28.44%
>
> 5 52 23.85%
>
> 6 46 21.10%
>
> 7 41 18.81%
>
> 8 37 16.97%
>
>
>
> As expected the higher you go the more overhead there is . but
improvements
> like this are still well worth the effort . Especially on a single
box .
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com]
On Behalf
> Of Steve Dugas
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:00 PM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache &
Optimization
> Run Times
>
>
>
> Very interesting Fred, thanks! This looks encouraging, at least
for us EOD
> guys.
>
>
>
> One thing I notice - at 32 tickers, it looks like the curve
has "recovered"
> to what you might expect to see even if there was no dent at 16.
And also,
> after 32 the curve seems to get a second wind, i.e. it "inverts"
and the
> time per symbol decreases *more* rapidly as more tickers are added.
What do
> you think might account for that? Is it just due to the log nature
of the
> chart? Thanks!
>
>
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Fred <mailto:ftonetti@...> Tonetti
>
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com>
ps.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:49 PM
>
> Subject: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache &
Optimization Run
> Times
>
>
>
> Given TJ's comments about:
>
>
>
> - The amount of memory utilized in processing symbols of
data
>
> - Whether or not this would fit in the L2 cache
>
> - The effect it would have on optimizations when it didn't
>
>
>
> I finally got around to running a little benchmark for Multi Core
> Optimization using the program I wrote and posted ( MCO ) which
I'll be
> posting a new version of shortly .
>
>
>
> These tests were run under the following conditions:
>
>
>
> - A less than state of the art laptop with
>
> o Core 2 Duo 1.86 Ghz processor
>
> o 2 MB of L2 Cache
>
>
>
> - Watch Lists of symbols each of which
>
> o Contains the next power of two number of symbols of the
previous
> i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256
>
> o Contains Symbols containing ~5000 bars of data .
>
>
>
> Given the above:
>
>
>
> - Each symbol should require 160,000 bytes i.e. ~5,000
bars * 32
> bytes per bar
>
> - Loading more than 13 symbols should cause L2 cache
misses to
> occur
>
>
>
> Results:
>
>
>
> - See the attached data & chart
>
>
>
> There are several interesting things I find regarding the results .
>
>
>
> - The "dent" in the curve looking left to right occurs
right where
> you'd think it would, between 8 symbols and 16 symbols i.e. from
the point
> at which all data can be loaded to and accessed from the L2 cache
to the
> point where it no longer can .
>
> - The "dent" occurs in the same place running either one
or two
> instances of AB
>
> - The "dent" while clearly visible is hardly traumatic in
terms of
> run times
>
> - The relationship of run times between running one and two
> instances of AB is consistent at 40% savings in terms of run times
> regardless of the number of symbols.
>
> - This is also in line when one looks at how much CPU is
utilized
> when running one instance of AB which on the test machine is
typically in
> the 54 - 60% range.
>
>
>
> I have a new toy that I'll be trying these benchmarks on again
shortly i.e.
> a dual core 2 duo quad 3.0 ghz .
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 480 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
for free now!
>