|
Fred and others
How to setup multiple instances of IO/AB on Quad
Core:
Since this might be of interest to a few. I would post
it here.
This is relatively straight forward, the instructions
below applies to XP and XP64. I dont use Vista so I dont exactly know, but I
expect it to be similar
1. Create multiple users accounts in XP, each user
account will be used for each instance of IO. You might decide to have a
separate database for each user, but it is not necessary. What is necessary is
to setup IO on a different path for each user to avoid overwriting the same
files. I do that with the /IOpath switch as an argument. For others who are
interested in doing that refer to Fred's doc. You can optionally open up task
manager and set process affinity to a particular core. I found that
unnecessary.
2. loggin in. - There are 2 methods of logging
in. Via console or remote desktop connection. For the first user, just login in
as usual, bring up AB and start IO. Once AB/IO is running. You have move onto
the 2nd user. Since XP by default only allows 1 active user at a time. We have
to "log out". If you are at the console. It is important that you log out using
switch user. otherwise all your jobs will be killed. If you are using remote
desktop, you actually dont log out but disconnect by clicking the "x" button at
the top. Alternatively, if you're using XP32, you can download a patch on the
internet that allows multiple log ins, which means no disconnection is
necessary.
3. 2nd and subsequent log in. Similar to the
first.
4. Monitoring multiple instances. if you have
downloaded the patch and are able to run multiple remote desktop connections.
YOu can easily monitor the progress via the connections that you have.
Unfortunately,There is no patch for XP64, So I am left with switching between
users every now and then. But I usually mount the IO directory as a network
drive from another computer. so I'm able to at least monitor two copies of
IOstatus.
Paul,
Interesting and no I
can’t say that I have looked into it.
I would think the
drawback to this approach would be that while this very well might work as you
say, in an intelligent optimization the work being done by each IO / AB / (CPU
/ Core) combination cannot really be cooperative per se. This is because
unlike an exhaustive search there is no way to logically split an intelligent
optimization except on a generation by generation basis which implies there
would have to be communication and/or control between each generation i.e. in
order for it to be cooperative I would think there would need to be a higher
level piece of software controlling what was happening with each IO / AB
combination … or … there would need to be an IOServer like program running for
each CPU / Core beyond the first one that gets treated like a sort of local
server to the client.
From:
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com] On Behalf Of Paul Ho
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:37
AM
To:
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
Subject: [amibroker] Re: Quad-core test
results
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
Fred Tonetti <ftonetti@xx.> wrote:
>
> PS
.
>
>
>
> I have noticed basically the same thing
on dual core and core 2 duo
type
> machines i.e. the same
optimization on a single symbol can be run
> simultaneously on both
cores with no increase in run time .
>
>
>
> This
seems to apply as well to optimizations on hundreds of
symbols ..
>
>
I think it all boils down to L2 Cache size, certainly the more
symbols + the longer the data series, the larger L2 cache size has to
be. Certainly I notice a marked increase in run time with both cores
running when the machine is loaded up with symbols and/or with long
data series vs few symbols and truncated data series.
>
>
While the tests that TJ performed seemed to imply otherwise, the
implication
> of the above would seem to be that it would be
beneficial for AB to
do the
> heavy lifting in terms of getting
multiple cpu's/cores involved in
an
> optimization when they exist
so that results could be combined in
one place.
>
>
I
have been able to run multiple instances of IO, one on each cores
for
about 2 years. All I need to do is to create a separate user
login per
instance. I always thought that it was possible for IO to
treat multiple
users on a single machine as multiple machines and use
TCP/IP services to
communicate. Have you looked into this possibility?
>
> If
this were the case then IO would also take advantage of this on
>
individual machines as well as on multiple machines simultaneously.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com]
On Behalf
> Of Steve Dugas
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:50
PM
> To: Yahoo - AmiBroker
> Subject: [amibroker] Quad-core test
results
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I finished setting up the new quad-core machine and ran my first
tests
> today, so am posting the promised test results. All I can
say is
Wow!
> Really nice improvements, even better than I expected
to see in my
highest
> hopes. I am happy as a pig in sh*t !! 8 -
)
>
>
>
> For background, the test was an
optimization run on a single
ticker, which
> is how I will be
running all my other tests ( ticker was QID, 468
EOD data
> bars ).
All tests used the same code with different param settings,
all
>
tests had about 46,000 opt steps.
>
>
>
> To put
things in perspective and show why I am so happy, the
original
code
> was about 2,400 lines. The first time I ran it, on my old backup
computer
> which I was using as a dedicated optimization machine, it
took 7
1/2 hours
> to run. So then I copied the code and created a
shorter version,
removing
> everything which wasn't absolutley
necessary for the optimizer, and
that
> reduced the run time to 2
1/2 hours. Then I ran this short version
on my
> faster primary
machine and that took 1 1/4 hours, which is about
what I was
>
expecting to see on the new machine.
>
>
>
> So
today I started by running just ran one instance on the quad-
core -
that
> took only 30 mins and Task Manager showed it was using just 25%
of
the total
> processing power! Well to make a long story short, I
kept adding
one
> instance at a time, all instances ran in 30 mins
and each used up an
> additional 25% of the CPU power. In the end, I was
easily running 4
> simultaneous instances. This pretty much kept the CPU
tached at
100% but all
> instances ran fine, all finished in 30 mins
and I didn't experience
any
> problems at all. I was even saving the
first ones to spreadsheets
while the
> final ones were still
finishing, wow everything just worked
flawlessly! So,
> the
quad-core can run 4 seperate opts simultaneously in 30 mins,
which
>
averages out to 7 1/2 minutes per opt, which =
>
>
>
> 10X improvement over running the short code on the fast
machine...
>
> 20X improvement over running the short code on the
old dedicated
> optimization machine...
>
> 60X improvement
over running the original code on the old
optimization
> machine...
Awesome !!!
>
>
>
> To those who were wondering
what is the best machine to get for
running AB,
> it looks to me
like quad is the way to go. ( My machine has an
Intel
> processor,
which TJ mentioned should probably work better than AMD
for this
>
stuff )....
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> I am using the free version of
SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 459 spam emails to
date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>
Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
for free now!
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has
removed 459 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in
their emails. Try SPAMfighter
for free now!
__._,_.___
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
![]()
__,_._,___
|