CPU Being Hammered!

[cpatte7372]

You know what I think its one of the the two efs's.

Garth, I added the ComputeOnClose(true) in the attached efs but it wouldn't work. I do believe that this efs is the culprit of my anguish.

Thx.

Carlton

[cpatte7372]

Garth,

I'm running Windows XP Professional.

Carlton

[cpatte7372]

Esignal is now ripping into my cpu so hard that I can't even turn it off. Its actually quicker writing this message to you than it is to turn off esignal.

Carlton

[ACM]

Carlton
The command is setComputeOnClose() with nothing in the brackets
Alex

[ACM]

Garth
I am the one who is running win98. BTW have twin setup (except for double the memory) under win2k and have no problems with that one either
Alex

[gspiker]

Sorry for the mix up re: Win98. Alex you must be running with setComputeOnClose set...Win98 is such a dog on its own I can't imagine it running well with all of that and on a less than 1GHz CPU.

G

[ACM]

Garth
FWIW out the 20 plus efs running on the various charts only 4 use setComputeOnClose.
Alex

[cpatte7372]

Alex,

I have added the setComputeOnClose() command. It appears to be running a little better now.

Oh well, it looks like today has been a washout.

I going to take Bob's advice and I see how I get on.

Thanks

Carlton

[Bob A.]

CPU Being Hammered

Carlton,

Suggest you keep investigating to determine any EFS culprits. If you haven't already done so, go to TOOLS: EFS: and click on Performance Monitor and Formula Output Window. Watch the Monitor over a half hour or so and the heavy users will percolate to the top. It was suggested to me that clearing the Output Window periodically helps too FWIW.

If you've exhausted all this type of tuning then you may conclude as I did that you've no choice but to upgrade. I certainly didn't get any resolution from eSignal and I wrestled with Tech Support for almost a month and $100 in phone bills. While I was running considerably more indicators per chart than you (about 10 in my case ) I was regularly pegging at "100% CPU" a 1.6 GHz with 1 GB RAM. I did all the uninstall/ reinstall stuff as directed by eSig but could still redline the CPU just using standard and ADV. GET indicators (i.e. no EFSs at all).

So, basically I gave up and bought my way out of the problem. I now have a P4 3.0 GHz with Hyperthreading and an 800 Front Side Bus and 2 GB RAM (I think the second GB RAM is of marginal value but it was only $150) with an Appian Rushmore 4-Head Graphics Card. And voila, only two months and $3000 later, my problems have vanished (for the moment anyway).

All that to suggest that you first add memory up to a total of 1GB on an approval basis form your local computer store so you don't buy memory that you have to write off if you subsequently decide you need to upgrade the processor too.

Regards,

Bob A.

[cpatte7372]

Bob,

That sounds like the way to go.

I'm just a little disappointed because I was kinda like all geared up to start doing some real trading today for the first time.

Anyway, theres always another day.

Cheers mate.


Carlton

[cpatte7372]

Guys,

Just wanna say thanks for all your help today.

Hopefully, my next trading experience will be a better one.

Cheers

Carlton

[ScottJ]

As an FYI here, we've updated our System Requirements to include specs for "power users". Between adding the power of EFS, tick and volume charts and the increased market activity, a powerful PC is becoming all the more a must we're finding.

We'll keep updating these specs as we gain experience and information from power users like those on this board.

Thanks.

[spamula]

I have got a Pentium 2 333MHZ, with 256M pf ram, no probs here
running efs stratagies on win 98 SE

Regards
Spam

[Bob A.]

CPU Being Hammered

Scott,

I reviewed the new Power User Requirements which call for a "2.6 MHz Pentium III" (which I believe should read 2.6 GHz Pentium IV). By your definition, I am clearly a Power User. In light of this, I would appreciate it if you would personnally review Incident #s 1652819 and 1501615.

As requested, I provided Tech Support with all the particulars of my system (1.6 GHz P IV) and Layout from mid to late November, even having them take control of it via Webex. They claimed that they were unable to reproduce the high load they observed me experiencing in real-time and that my system should be more than adequate to do what I was doing. At my insistance my situation was escalated to Tech Support management but they did nothing further about it. In fact, you will see that, on Dec. 26, eSignal closed this latest Incident as being "resolved". This was done unilaterally without my being informed.

Now, I read that December's more than adequate CPU needs to be over 60% more powerful to meet your requirements.
I'm sure you can imagine the various conclusions I can come to on this situation, all of which reflect badly on eSignal. Bottom line, since early Nov., I have been unable to make productive use of eSignal or Advanced Get. Small consolation is the fact that, in desperation, in early Dec. I went ahead and bought a "meets new specs" computer thus saving me another month of downtime. Regarding my specific Incidents, I'd appreciate your response by PM.

My purpose in airing this in this Forum is to encourage eSignal to be more exhaustive in performance design and stress testing and more proactive in alerting us to processing requirements and helping us resolve performance related issues. For example, having an eSignal performance engineer backing up Tech Support in real-time and moderating a separate Category on this Board dedicated to performance requirements and issues (rather than Threads scattered throughout) would have been extremely helpful in my situation.

Regards,

Bob Atkinson

[ScottJ]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for you comments and feedback. We do try to conduct fairly intensive testing in-house for all new releases but it's a big challenge to mirror all the possible PC combinations used in the field. When customers report a CPU problem, the first thing we try to do is duplicate the problem on a standard in-house system and see if we get the same results. In the majority of cases, we can't replicate the clients' experience. When we can, we get Engineering involved and we usually see improvements made in the next release.

There are just so many variables involved ( hd speeds, RAM, processor speeds, bus cards, video drivers, o/s, other apps running, etc. ) that we can't truly compare apples for apples unless we can use the customer's PC for testing. We even done that on a few occasions!

Since the introduction of these forums, we've been able to succesfully gather much more information about our user's systems than ever before. In part, that's what lead us to introduce these new "power user" requirements.

We'll certainly try to further improve our internal testing and, again, we appreciate all the feedback.

Thank you.