Good morning, Just to share some experience in Optimizing the Speed... Mainly in compiling of data with the ATC instruction with loops...
1) Created a RAM Disk of 1G. Copy the Data Folder to the RAM Disk and then use the Data in the RAM Disk do the compiling. (Only worth doing if compile a couple of times a day.. It cut down from 16 mins to 11 mins. ) 2) MOVE the Data Folder to another physical drive. Then perform the disk defragmenter on the Amibroker Drive a couple of times. Then MOVE the Data Folder back to the original position. 3) Chop Down the number of bars in Data Base. The Current system is Intel Core 2 @2.13GHz with 4G RAM. Yet to try is to upgrade the system with RAID4 with 4 Disks and Q9450. Is there any one can comment on the experience with RAID5 system? Best Regards KH Tang --- In [email protected], Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It also makes me wonder if there is another possibility for speed > optimization. I run more than 1 RT chart at the same time to get > multi-timeframe results that are not possible in a single chart -- then > pass results between the charts. It seems as though parallel > processing would be possible between multiple "live" indicator mode > charts. Maybe I will have to get the 8 core system next time :) > > Best regards, > Dennis > > On May 14, 2008, at 10:13 AM, dloyer123 wrote: > > > Interesting result. It is reasonable to expect newer and future > > processors to have even larger caches. 6MB on the E8400 > > > > So, there may be an opportunity to get useful work out of the other > > cores during long optimization runs. Maybe large "work units" such > > as symbols lists or entire optimization passes to minimize sync > > overhead? > > > > That also implies that user formula code could be optimized if we > > group array access together, ie use a result right after it is > > created, so it can be pulled out of cache, rather than wait until > > later in the code. I will have to try this... > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I just run the same code on my relatively new notebook (Core 2 Duo > > 2GHz (T7250)) > >> and the loop takes less than 2ns per iteration (3x speedup). So it > > looks like the data sits entirely inside the cache. > >> This core 2 has 2MB of cache and thats 4 times more than on Athlon > > x2 I got. > >> > >>> If what you say is true, and one core alone fills the memory > >>> bandwidth, then there should be a net loss of performance while > >>> running two copies of ami. > >> > >> It depends on complexity of the formula and the amount of data per > > symbol > >> you are using. As each array element has 4 bytes, to fill 4 MB of > > cache > >> you would need 1 million array elements or 100 arrays each having > > 10000 elements > >> or 10 arrays each having 100K elements. Generally speaking people > > testing > >> on EOD data where 10 years is just 2600 bars should see speed up. > >> People using very very long intraday data sets may see degradation, > > but > >> rather unnoticeable. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Tomasz Janeczko > >> amibroker.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only. > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > > > For other support material please check also: > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
