MCO has a provision through a command line option to run it either way . I haven't done enough testing to give a definitive answer but It doesn't seem to matter whether I force it or Windows ( XP X64 ) manages it
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dingo Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization Run Times Are you setting each instance to a unique affinity or letting windows try to balance it? d > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com] On Behalf Of Fred Tonetti > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com > Subject: RE: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & > Optimization Run Times > > Here are some results I got with my new toy . > > This is using a reasonably complex system on ~500 symbols > over 10 years > i.e. ~2500 bars ... > > > > Cores Time Percent > > > > 1 218 > > 2 114 52.29% > > 3 79 36.24% > > 4 62 28.44% > > 5 52 23.85% > > 6 46 21.10% > > 7 41 18.81% > > 8 37 16.97% > > > > As expected the higher you go the more overhead there is . but > improvements like this are still well worth the effort . > Especially on a > single box . > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com] On > Behalf Of Steve Dugas > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & > Optimization Run Times > > > > Very interesting Fred, thanks! This looks encouraging, at > least for us > EOD guys. > > > > One thing I notice - at 32 tickers, it looks like the curve has > "recovered" to what you might expect to see even if there was > no dent at > 16. And also, after 32 the curve seems to get a second wind, i.e. it > "inverts" and the time per symbol decreases *more* rapidly as more > tickers are added. What do you think might account for that? > Is it just > due to the log nature of the chart? Thanks! > > > > Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Fred Tonetti <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ftonetti%40optonline.net> net> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:49 PM > > Subject: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & > Optimization Run Times > > > > Given TJ's comments about: > > > > - The amount of memory utilized in processing symbols > of data > > - Whether or not this would fit in the L2 cache > > - The effect it would have on optimizations when it > didn't > > > > I finally got around to running a little benchmark for Multi > Core Optimization using the program I wrote and posted ( MCO > ) which I' > ll be posting a new version of shortly . > > > > These tests were run under the following conditions: > > > > - A less than state of the art laptop with > > o Core 2 Duo 1.86 Ghz processor > > o 2 MB of L2 Cache > > > > - Watch Lists of symbols each of which > > o Contains the next power of two number of symbols of the > previous i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 > > o Contains Symbols containing ~5000 bars of data . > > > > Given the above: > > > > - Each symbol should require 160,000 bytes i.e. ~5,000 > bars * 32 bytes per bar > > - Loading more than 13 symbols should cause L2 cache > misses to occur > > > > Results: > > > > - See the attached data & chart > > > > There are several interesting things I find regarding the > results . > > > > - The "dent" in the curve looking left to right occurs > right where you'd think it would, between 8 symbols and 16 > symbols i.e. > from the point at which all data can be loaded to and > accessed from the > L2 cache to the point where it no longer can . > > - The "dent" occurs in the same place running either > one or two instances of AB > > - The "dent" while clearly visible is hardly traumatic > in terms of run times > > - The relationship of run times between running one and > two instances of AB is consistent at 40% savings in terms of run times > regardless of the number of symbols. > > - This is also in line when one looks at how much CPU > is utilized when running one instance of AB which on the test > machine is > typically in the 54 - 60% range. > > > > I have a new toy that I'll be trying these benchmarks on again > shortly i.e. a dual core 2 duo quad 3.0 ghz . > > > ________________________________ > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. > It has removed 480 spam emails to date. > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len> for free now! > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release > Date: 6/16/2008 7:20 AM > _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 480 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now!
