|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
How disappointing Pierre. You're analysis here falls fall short of your
usual precision. Perhaps a little time spent investigating the subject
under discussion before commenting would help?
> This is a low budget and high consuming CPU solution vs. the
> real thing.
False. A TS4 user running OmegaUpdater and updating their workspaces
once per minute, with each update taking two seconds (typical) will have
their CPU maxed out for approximately 3.3% of their operating time.
Compare this to the "real thing", the TS4 Server running at close to
100% CPU utilization *all the time*.
> Anyone who use intraday ASCII data may know that this format
> take a lot of time to load.
False. It used to be true that ASCII data took relatively longer to load
on a computer powered by a 386DX Intel processor, but most users today
would never notice the difference between loading 1000 bars of ASCII
data and building the same 1000 bars from the Omega tick database.
> More, each time you close / reopen your workspaces, you
> restrart from scratch, ie that you reload the data from a non
> optimized database ( ASCII),
> rebuild the ALL charts ( nothing remains in memory or on the
> HD excepted the workspace file structure) and recalculate ALL
> the indicators and stategies from the begining!
I'll give you 1 point for restating what I had already described, but
why the exclamation point? This isn't a big deal for a modern computer
running TS4.
>
> If this solution was made to avoid 100% CPU usage ( what is
> not the case in real world with the SP Comstock subserver
> that I use), this is a stupid solution.
Wrong again, see above. The purpose was not to avoid 100% CPU usage, but
that is one of the agreeable side effects. The purpose was and is to
offer an alternative data source to people who are fed up with having to
run their Omega Server day and night just so they won't miss a tick, and
fed up with not being able to chart a symbol unless they plan for it a
day in advance. As I said, it's not for everyone, but some people are
very happy with it.
And since you brought it up, please tell us just what the CPU usage is
for your late-to-the-market and now-all-but-obsolete SP Comstock
subserver?
> When TS2000 updates the charts it takes microseconds of CPU.
> Only the last bar is updated and in no case we reload the workspace.
Irrelevant remark because a.) TS2000i isn't even under discussion here,
the solution proposed is for TS4 and SuperCharts only, and b.) you've
failed to consider how the Omega server continues to soak up CPU cycles
even while the bar is being updated.
> This solution has probably one advantage: to collect
> historical ASCII intraday data.
> That's aside, it's not a professional solution vs the real
> Omega server.
A professional solution being one that doesn't compete with your "SP
Comstock subserver"?
Dave
>
> PO
>
|