|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Try reading my post, Daniel.
NT!
NT!
NT!
NT!
NT!
NT!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Martinez
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:06 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The need for speed
>
>
> That's not quite true. Cacheman 3.8 partially manipulates the
> Disk Cache by
> using SYSTEM.INI. For those of you who don't know, Windows 9x has 2 ways
> dealing with memory: the Swapfile and the Disk Cache. The
> Swapfile is used
> when you don't have enough physical memory and the Disk Cache is
> physical memory
> set aside for tasks which are repeatedly used. On my system,
> Cacheman 3.8 uses
> these 2 commands to set the size of the Disk Cache to 21,000 KB:
> [vcache]
> chunksize=2048
> maxfilecache=21000
>
> BTW, to avoid using an exotic virtual memory program, I tried
> increasing the
> Disk Cache. The maximum you can increase it is to about 55 MB,
> not enough to
> place the entire QP database into memory.
>
> Windows 9x uses numerous other commands in the SYSTEM.INI file to
> customize your
> setup. If you set limits to the Swapfile size, the settings are placed in
> SYSTEM.INI. If you want a DMA memory buffer, when you set the
> DMA size in your
> Device Manager, the setting is placed in your SYSTEM.INI. MANY multimedia
> DLL's, etc..., are placed into SYSTEM.INI.
>
> Daniel.
>
>
> Bob Jagow wrote:
>
> > Nope [since system.ini applies only to 16-bit code].
> > There may be some corresponding registry entries but I'd leave
> them alone.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of jr
> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 1:23 PM
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: The need for speed
> > >
> > >
> > > Very interesting indeed, thanks,
> > > however, that probably doesn't
> > > apply to Win NT / Win2K, does it?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:55 PM
> > > Subject: The need for speed
> > >
> > >
> > > > I believe that, although important, the processor and
> memory speed are
> > > over
> > > > emphasised. The real bottleneck is your hard drive. It runs so
> > > much slower
> > > > than any other part of the system. The key is to have your
> > > entire program
> > > > and data in RAM. There are 2 things required. The first is to
> > > have enough.
> > > > For me this is 512 MB. (This can be decreased by minimising
> > > other programs
> > > > running. The 2nd is to look in the Microsoft Knowledge Base for
> > > an article
> > > > on ConservativeSwapfileUsage. If this is set to =1 in [386Enh] of
> > > SYSTEM.INI
> > > > it forces Windows to use all available RAM before the
> swapfile on your
> > > disk.
> > > > Normally Windows will use 50% of RAM and then start using the
> > > swapfile on
> > > > your disk. This is probably a holdover from when we had
> tiny MBs of RAM.
> > > If
> > > > you have Norton SystemWorks or another program to monitor RAM
> > > and swapfile
> > > > (virtual memory) used you will see the difference at once.
> > > >
> > > > In a recent example, in another program, I had pulled out a
> 128 MB card
> > > and
> > > > the time it took to open a chart went from < 1 second to about
> > > 20 seconds
> > > as
> > > > I saw my hard drive searching for the data.
> > > >
> > > > One other note. I have heard from various sources that programs leak
> > > memory.
> > > > That is, if you use a program all, or part, of it will
> remain in RAM and
> > > not
> > > > be available to other programs. I cannot confirm this. The
> program does
> > > stay
> > > > in memory but I believe it is over written as needed. If this
> > > leak is true
> > > > then it would help to reboot you system from time to time.
> > > >
> > > > Disclaimer: I have been doing this for well over a year
> with Win98 (1st
> > > Ed.)
> > > > and it works great without a single problem. If you do this
> I have no
> > > > responsibility for what might happen to your system. Look at MS's
> > > Knowledge
> > > > Base and try it if YOU decide to. This is only my personal
> information.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rance Nunes
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:13 PM
> > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Real-time screening of multiple stocks possible?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In MetaStock Professional the documentation states that
> (paraphrasing)
> > > > The Explorer's performance is significantly slower on intraday data
> > > > while collecting real-time data.
> > > >
> > > > Can real-time searches be performed in MetaStock Pro?
> > > >
> > > > If so what is the order of magnitude of stocks that can be
> screened in
> > > > real-time? That is, if a real-time Exploration is
> designed, how many
> > > > simultaneous stocks can be screened when using tick by tick
> information
> > > > while
> > > > collecting real-time data? (Say on a 1-Gigahertz Pentium
> III with 256
> > > Megs
> > > > of
> > > > memory).
> > > >
> > > > Any assistance is appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Rance
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
|