|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I kept a different computer for that stuff, but I can't complain about how
fast this works.
I want RS to work better.
Jim Bronke
Phoenix, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Pope" <gene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> The reason I still have my twin Xeon is just for what you speak, running
> lots of different applications at once. I can run RealTick, Ravenquote,
> eSignal, Outlook, Lotus Organizer, IE, OmniTrader, Paltalk, and write a
> paper at the same time, so it makes for a good "all round" system. Your
> Global Server and RadarScreen should also run as different "processes" so
> you may be OK. (at least, I hope... ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Gene Pope" <gene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Mark
Cerar"
> <marQc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:17 PM
> Subject: Re: XEON Processor better for TS ?
>
>
> > Its only running at 50%. so that answers that. I wasted some money on
that
> > extra processor I guess. I'm sure if I run something else it is handy to
> > have that extra processor. I wonder of the Global Server or the
> Radarscreen
> > can use the other. Wishful thinking. I'll watch these closer when the
> market
> > is open.
> > thanks
> >
> > Jim Bronke
> > Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gene Pope" <gene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Mark
> Cerar"
> > <marQc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> >
> >
> > > There is a simple way to test whether both CPU's are being used, if
> using
> > > Win2000 or NT.
> > >
> > > Start a decent length backtest with nothing else running.
> > >
> > > Press <ctrl><alt><delete> and then select Task Manager.
> > >
> > > Select the "Processes" tab and click on the CPU column to sort it high
> to
> > > low.
> > >
> > > You'll see the TS task running. If it is maxing out at 50% CPU, then
it
> is
> > > not using both CPU's. It will only go above 50% if it can thread
between
> > the
> > > two. Also tab over to "Performance"... if TS is using both processors,
> > > you'll get a number much higher than 50%, otherwise you'll get the 50%
> > plus
> > > the OS overhead only on the other cpu.
> > >
> > > I'd do this test myself, but unfortunately, my TS Pro license isn't on
> my
> > > twin Xeon machine... sorry.
> > >
> > > Let us know the results. Programs like Seti@xxxx will take over 99% or
> > more
> > > of the CPU time on a multiprocessor system, showing that it is getting
> max
> > > use of the system.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Gene
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Mark Cerar" <marQc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> > >
> > >
> > > > My impression of the TS2000i with more than one processor is that it
> > > didn't
> > > > have to be designed with multiple processors in mind. The processors
> > just
> > > > shre the tasks that appear on the bus. I am no processor expert,
> > however,
> > > > but my dual P does scream compared to the AMD 333 that I was running
> > Win98
> > > > on. Someday I'll run a benchmark with two and then just remove one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim Bronke
> > > > Phoenix, AZ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Mark Cerar" <marQc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:29 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I believe that TS2000i can take advantage of up to 8 cpu's at
least
> > > > > according to the information I once read on the OR website.
Whether
> > > it's
> > > > > true or not however is another story. I understand that the issue
> of
> > > > > multi-threading is somewhat complex and it has to be implemented
> very
> > > > > carefully in order to work properly. I have never read any post
on
> > this
> > > > > list where a contributor mentions using more than 2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Gene Pope [mailto:gene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: June 5, 2001 3:23 PM
> > > > > To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is whether TS2K is "multi-cpu" aware... if not, then
> > you're
> > > > not
> > > > > doing diddly with that second CPU. Because of that, I went to max
> out
> > a
> > > > > single CPU system over what I had previous which was twin-Xeon.
> Mostly
> > > all
> > > > > my other financial softs only take advantage of 1 cpu as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Gene
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Ian MacAuslan" <imacauslan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:55 PM
> > > > > Subject: XEON Processor better for TS ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone had experience running TS2K or TS4 on a Xeon processor?
Am
> > > > > > considering getting a new computer to replace my Pentium
III-550,
> > and
> > > > > > have read the Pentium III XEON 850 MHz processor (with 1024 MB
of
> > L-2
> > > > > > cache on the chip die) will still run rings around a Pentium 4
1.5
> > GHz
> > > > > > chip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xeons are used primarily in servers--I presume for the heavy I/O
> and
> > > > > > number-crunching requirements...both of which seem very relevant
> to
> > my
> > > > > > TS setup, in which I'm collecting real-time tick data on the
> entire
> > > NYSE
> > > > > > and having about 80 charts open, with indicators and strategies
> > > applied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > -Ian MacAuslan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > imacauslan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
|