MT4 in a virtual machine ? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Damn! Just as well lots is an extern variable and you can tweak it up to 0.1 without needing to recompile.
Oh, the shame of not checking it against MODE_MINLOT.
30secs start to finish including making the fxt file . . . 13% CPU used (1 virtual core) 12,438 trades PF 0.67
This was all run on my RAID array, 4 x 1TB drives RAID 0
30secs start to finish including making the fxt file . . . 13% CPU used (1 virtual core) 12,438 trades PF 0.67
This was all run on my RAID array, 4 x 1TB drives RAID 0
So turbo machine is 4x faster. Not bad. Thanks for that :-)
What about the PF prediction (=calculation), pretty damn spot on.
So turbo machine is 4x faster. Not bad. Thanks for that :-)
What about the PF prediction (=calculation), pretty damn spot on.
My "turbo" machine is 3 years old ;-)
Yep, PF very cool calc. :-)
My "turbo" machine is 3 years old ;-)
Ok, so who has a better one?
You will get better . . but not a whole lot better, my CPU is a i7 965 3.2 Ghz, they go up to 3.6GHz now.
I was thinking more in terms of Solid State Drives. Given that the CPU is not being stretched (13% usage), the bottleneck seems to be in the hard drive interface and/or RAM cache.
Nope, the bottleneck is that MT4 is not multithreaded where it matters. My C: drive is a SSD, even if I use that it doesn't help . . . my RAM is triple channel and plenty fast enough. The only time I max out my CPU is when I run properly mutithreaded apps . . . for example, panorama picture stitching . . . I can take a panorama that is made up of 12 pictures and each pseudo core works on it's own picture . . . then all the cores run at 100% CPU. Your CPU runs at 50% overall as it is using one core of the two available . . . it might not use one of the cores for all that time . . it can switch back and forth between them.
Excellent info! I was thinking of getting an SSD. Saved me money and disappointment :-)
Actually when my CPU is running at 50% it is actually half way up on both cores at the same time.
Excellent info! I was thinking of getting an SSD. Saved me money and disappointment :-) [...]
The cheap alternative would be to take some of your RAM and allocate it to a RAM disk. I'm sure I've done tests of this before and that it's yielded modest but non-trivial gains. My current machine has an SSD, and it slightly outperforms a RAM disk with Windows file compression turned on (which surprises me slightly). On that basis, I'd expect a RAM disk to offer a decent improvement in backtesting speed over a magnetic drive. The trouble, of course, is allocating a RAM disk large enough to hold an FXT file, even with compression turned on.
Excellent info! I was thinking of getting an SSD. Saved me money and disappointment :-)
Actually when my CPU is running at 50% it is actually half way up on both cores at the same time.
It might just be that my RAID array is performing just as well as my SSD.
It's actually using one of your cores for more than 50% and the other less than 50% . . . the point is this . . . IMO ;-) . MT4 is multi-threaded but not in the most important task that it is doing in the Strategy Tester . . . and it may well be very very difficult to actually make the ST properly multi-threaded . . . so this means it can only utilise one core (or pseudo core) . . so your CPU maxes out at approx 50% for MT4, mine at just over 12.5%. So if you have the option to get more cores or fewer cores but faster cores, given the same cores . . . get faster cores.
When I get the opportunity I'll run the same test on my laptop, it is an i7 2640M, 2.8 GHz but will overclock itself to 3.4GHz it's only 2 core (4 pseudo core) . . . no SSD just one hard drive. If any of what I have said above is correct it should be similar, if not a bit quicker, than my desktop.