|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Qcom Boston servers consistently deliver more ticks (several thousand more,
in fact) than either the Esignal servers or Sunnyvale servers...both are
crummy if you use tick bars (2000 less ticks means 40 less bars each day).
But if you download the data from the Esignal servers at night, all the
data is there. What does that mean? Well, given that I'm getting a low DSL
bandwidth rate, then it looks like Esignal's tick transmission is
incomplete/filtered during RTH. Sure, it looks good because you're
comparing Esignal with Sunnyvale (which consistently transmits the least
number of ticks in the Qcom network). Also, the Boston servers deliver data
in a steadily streaming manner unlike the bursts and switched server
dropouts that I've observed with Esignal over the past 3 months. Both feed
have similar tick lags when compared to phone floor broker bid/offer market
calls.
So why do I keep DS/Esignal? Well, it's more stable than DS/Qcom. That's
pretty much it. Esignal has more negatives than I care to deal with
(incomplete tick transmission for one, no concurrent delayed/RT
transmission for another), so I'll drop it in a heartbeat when a more
suitable i-net feed comes along.
Tony
Score: Qcom 1 Esignal 0 in the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, and nobody on
base.... :-)
>1. I did not detect any relative time lag in receipt of data between
>the two systems, except as described in #2 below.
>
>2. While the eSignal data appeared to be received at a more or less
>steady rate, the Quote.com data occasionally appeared to come in
>"bursts" --- specifically, receipt of Quote.com data would occasionally
>stop for several seconds and then, as if a dam had broken, the chart
>would print a sudden stream of rapidly-charting data, which, within a
>few seconds, would catch up with the data received by the eSignal
>system. I was consistently using the Sunnyvale Quote.com data servers
>(I am in Seattle and have consistently observed the least delay in
>Quote.com data receipt on its Sunnyvale servers.)
>
>4. At the end of both days, the eSignal computer collected a few
>hundred more NQ ticks than had the Quote.com computer (total ticks of
>approximately 40K daily); I did not check this for the other data.
>
>I would be interested in hearing anyone else's
>observations or comments about these issues.
|