|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Thanks guys. I will also adjust Superfetch and cache settings.
I think, as Mike pointed out, that it was 90% probably due to my overclock. I installed some temp sensing software and I saw that the CPU temp climbed from 38C to 91C about 20 min into the workload! That kind of temperature can of course damage the CPU. So I quickly shut down and then rebooted into the BIOS and set everything back to normal.
Now temperature does not exceed 50C, and so far no more crashes.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@xxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Windows memory manager is unfortunatelly not the best on the planet.
> The problem is not the amout of memory, but the fragmentation that occurs
> over time.
> Thats one of the reasons why they rewrote it in Windows 7.
>
> What you may do now on Vista is disabling Superfetch Windows feature as it consumes several
> gigabytes of your RAM.
>
> Also you may go to Tools->Preferences, "Data" tab and adjust caching settings here.
>
> Because of memory manager problems, AmiBroker already uses custom allocators
> for some sensitive parts because without that program would run out of contiguous memory much sooner
> because of fragmentation (and it did before these allocators were implemented) .
> The use of custom allocators will probably be extended in future.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@xxx>
> To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:59 AM
> Subject: [amibroker] Re: OT: Computer recommendation for AB optimizing
>
>
> > Dang! A bit of a false alarm in being able to run 8 instances in parallel. I had assumed (always a mistake) that the runs went
> > smoothly. But when I checked my PC this morning, found out that the runs did not actually complete. The PC must have crashed and
> > rebooted somewhere in between.
> >
> > So I restarted, this time, using only 4 instances, and sat in front of the screen for a few minutes. Indeed, the system crashed
> > with a "Memory management error"!
> >
> > Damn! With 12GB of ram on Vista64 with an i7 processor (seen as 8 processors by the OS), shouldn't I be able to run 4 measly
> > instances of AB, each doing an optimization over 2-years worth of 1-minute data? The total size of my symbol database is only
> > 156mb.
> >
> > It's a new PC with a fresh install, and only Avast anti virus running at startup. The only other programs installed are AB,
> > Firefox, Office 2003 and Thunderbird. And when I run AB, all other programs are closed.
> >
> > Is there some memory management utility I can run that can better allocate memory?
> >
> > Or is Vista64 really no better than plain old WinXP32, as far as being able to run more instances of AB on a single machine? I
> > thought that one of the main advantages of Vista64 over XP32 was precisely the ability to make more RAM available for multiple
> > instances of a program.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I was comparing Vista64 to XP32 (which I was using), not XP64.
> >>
> >> I imagine XP64 would probably allow one to run as many instances of AB as Vista64. But from what I could gather, XP64 seemed less
> >> reliable/stable/supported than Vista64, so I went with the latter.
> >>
> >> Been using Vista64 on an overclocked i7 PC, with 12GB ddr3 ram now for about a week. Certainly a big difference over my XP32
> >> install. Yesterday I ran 8 large walk-forward tests in parallel (1-min databases, several years), no problem. Didn't even come
> >> close to maxing out the system. The XP32 install would tend to hang/crash if I tried 3 such parallel runs.
> >>
> >> Will play around with multiple instances over the next few weeks to see just how far I can push things.
> >>
> >> And once I turned off that annoying UAC thing, haven't noticed any disadvantages yet with Vista. Maybe its bad reputation was
> >> only warranted in the first year it was out - with respect to driver issues and other problems. All that stuff seems to have been
> >> cleared up in the latest service packs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Keith McCombs <kmccombs@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ozzy --
> >> > What makes you think that, given the same hardware, Vista64 allows you
> >> > to run more instances of AB than XP64?
> >> >
> >> > TJ --
> >> > Thanks for your comments on the subject. Admittedly, I didn't
> >> > understand how he was doing the testing.
> >> >
> >> > All --
> >> > Once again I would like to suggest:
> >> > "How about writing some benchmarks in afl? I assume the code wouldn't
> >> > have to be very complex, nor would it have to be for any sort of
> >> > 'winning' system. Just something that everyone could run and we could
> >> > get some comparative speed results." We might also need to make a
> >> > static artificial data base so that everyone was running the same test.
> >> >
> >> > That would help many of us when it comes time to buy a new, or update an
> >> > older, computer.
> >> > -- Keith
> >> >
> >> > ozzyapeman wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for the clarification.
> >> > >
> >> > > My understanding then, based on what I can gather from the net, is
> >> > > that Windows Vista 64-bit will give me the sole advantage of allowing
> >> > > me to run many more instances of AmiBroker, especially with the i7
> >> > > processor and 12 GB of RAM, vs on WinXP.
> >> > >
> >> > > In that way, I can run more large optimizations simultaneously,
> >> > > without running out of memory, thus saving a lot of time overall.
> >> > >
> >> > > I had come across one article that tested as much, with other 32-bit
> >> > > apps running on XP32 vs Vista64, and the difference in multitasking
> >> > > ability was huge.
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> > > "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Those Windows Vista tests were made using Microsoft SQL server.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > AmiBroker does NOT use Microsoft SQL server or any other 3rd party DB.
> >> > > > It uses own original low-level database that is highly specialized
> >> > > > for quote processing is pretty independent from operating system.
> >> > > > It works equally well on every Windows version
> >> > > > (starting from Win95 and ending at Windows 7).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > Tomasz Janeczko
> >> > > > amibroker.com
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@>
> >> > > > To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:17 AM
> >> > > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: OT: Computer recommendation for AB optimizing
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Whoa. Just read that article. Seems that WinXP 64 makes better
> >> > > sense by far to drive my new Intel i7 PC. The speed difference is
> >> > > > > quite significant. I might have just wasted money shelling out on
> >> > > a Vista 64-bit installation disk.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Is Amibroker 32-bit pretty stable on WinXP 64? I only have
> >> > > experience running it on WinXP 32.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If I only plan on running AmiBroker 5.24, TWS 892, and other basic
> >> > > 32-bit trading tools on the PC (and maybe Firefox and Outlook),
> >> > > > > would WinXP 64 be the way to go, or are there hidden disadvantages
> >> > > in going with that OS?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am aiming for the fastest backtesting platform possible.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, Keith McCombs <kmccombs@> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Dingo --
> >> > > > >> Please read
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/03TC-windows-multicore_3.html
> >> > > <http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/03TC-windows-multicore_3.html>
> >> > > > >> for some comparisons between Vista64 and XP64.
> >> > > > >> -- Keith
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> dingo wrote:
> >> > > > >> > 50% longer for AB to run - hardly believable.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > d
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Keith McCombs <kmccombs@
> >> > > > >> > <mailto:kmccombs@>> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > A few personal thoughts:
> >> > > > >> > 1. The 2.93GHz costs $470 more than 2.66. I doubt that very many
> >> > > > >> > of us can tell the difference without a stopwatch.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > 2. I don't know about running AB, but in many published speed
> >> > > > >> > tests, Vista64 takes about 50% longer than XP64.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > -- Keith
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > ozzyapeman wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> Thanks. I was looking into i7 based-PCs. But aren't all i7's
> >> > > > >> >> quad-cores to begin with? And apparently the OS sees an i7 as
> >> > > > >> >> 8-core due to the way it's designed.
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> Dell seems to have a good deal on i7 XPS desktops at 2.93 Ghz
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > > >> >> <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, dingo <waledingo@> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > Intel dual core i7 with fast clock - AB only uses 1 core. 3gig
> >> > > > >> >> mem. Intel
> >> > > > >> >> > SLC flash (if you've got the money otherwise WD Raptor). Medium
> >> > > > >> >> video card.
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > d
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:57 AM, ozzyapeman <zoopfree@> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > > I should add that I need to run exhaustive optimizations, as
> >> > > > >> >> opposed to
> >> > > > >> >> > > CMAE or using Fred's IO, as my variables are discontinuous -
> >> > > > >> >> not traditional
> >> > > > >> >> > > indicator-type variables.
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > In my parallel dream life, I run AB Ultra Professional 7.0 on
> >> > > > >> >> 8 state of
> >> > > > >> >> > > the art graphics cards, with thousands of processors, 500,000
> >> > > > >> >> times faster
> >> > > > >> >> > > than good old AB 5.24.
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > But I digress. ;-)
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > In the real world, what is the best I can do?
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > > > >> >> <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, "ozzyapeman" <zoopfree@>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > Now that I am just about trading full time, my main PC has
> >> > > > >> >> become a
> >> > > > >> >> > > dedicated trading computer. That only leaves me with a clunky
> >> > > > >> >> second PC
> >> > > > >> >> > > (6-years old) for doing offline optimizing. And it's waaay
> >> > > > >> >> too slow.
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > So I am in the market for a new PC, and want to get
> >> > > > >> >> something powerful,
> >> > > > >> >> > > but don't want to overpay for stuff that won't be used. For
> >> > > > >> >> example, 8GB of
> >> > > > >> >> > > RAM sounds great, but if WinXP only uses 4GB (or 3?) then I
> >> > > > >> >> imagine the
> >> > > > >> >> > > other 4 GB just goes to waste?
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > If I plan to use this PC mainly for offline optimizing and
> >> > > > >> >> backtesting,
> >> > > > >> >> > > what are the recommended specs? I want as much speed as I can
> >> > > > >> >> possibly get.
> >> > > > >> >> > > My optimizations tend to be humongous, taking days on a quad
> >> > > > >> >> core.
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > Any hardware gurus please feel free to chime in:
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > - RAM?
> >> > > > >> >> > > > - Quad-core vs Eight-core?
> >> > > > >> >> > > > - OS?
> >> > > > >> >> > > > - HD type (flash vs mechanical)?
> >> > > > >> >> > > > - any other hardware/software suggestions for increasing
> >> > > speed?
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > ------------------------------------
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> >> > > > >> >> > > This group is for the discussion between users only.
> >> > > > >> >> > > This is *NOT* technical support channel.
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> >> > > > >> >> > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com <http://amibroker.com/
> >> > > <http://amibroker.com/>>
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> >> > > > >> >> > > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> >> > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/>
> >> > > > >> >> <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> >> > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/>>
> >> > > > >> >> > > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check
> >> > > DEVLOG:
> >> > > > >> >> > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> >> > > <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/>
> >> > > > >> >> <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> >> > > <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/>>
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ------------------------------------
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> >> > > > > This group is for the discussion between users only.
> >> > > > > This is *NOT* technical support channel.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> >> > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> >> > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> >> > > <http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/>
> >> > > > > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> >> > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> > This group is for the discussion between users only.
> > This is *NOT* technical support channel.
> >
> > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> >
> > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
> >
> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
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/
|