Am I the only one? 6.0 DOMINATES my machine to the point of uselessness!

[hardtaill]

Jay, Mike,

6.0 was very fast today. Faster than usual. I'm still noticing quite a high CPU memory usage of over 400mg. Whatever you did was great. Thank you for the QCharts platform.

[hardtaill]

6.0 and 5.1 ran really well today. Here is a screen shot of both 6.0 and 5.1 that run simultaneously.

[mlp]

Good grief! There is SOMETHING terribly different with our setups - I tried running 6.0 today and it SLAMMED the CPU usage at 100% to the point that I could not close the app. And this was with nothing else active running (had a browser minimized, but it was not doing anything). I had to kill the process using Task Manager. Again, this was with 5.1 NOT running. No Outlook email either. Just a minimized browser and QC6. TOTALLY unusable.

Maybe Vista is part of the issue, but I have a hard time believing that is all of it. 5.1 runs fine (generally) during the day. 6.0 DOMINATES my machine, as described. And this box is "stronger" than the first of your described boxes, hardtaill. I'm running DSL. No viruses, no spyware, no nothing like that. Clean, relatively new install (has to be, it is Vista Ultimate (not premium, as stated earlier), and that has not been available for very long). I am running on 2 displays (dual-head nVidia card). Does that hurt performance that much?

I am working on the memory upgrade, as I think it is a good idea regardless. My hopes that it will "solve" this are slim.

[Larry Marchman]

Originally posted by mlp
Good grief! There is SOMETHING terribly different with our setups - I tried running 6.0 today and it SLAMMED the CPU usage at 100% to the point that I could not close the app. And this was with nothing else active running (had a browser minimized, but it was not doing anything). I had to kill the process using Task Manager. Again, this was with 5.1 NOT running. No Outlook email either. Just a minimized browser and QC6. TOTALLY unusable.

Maybe Vista is part of the issue, but I have a hard time believing that is all of it. 5.1 runs fine (generally) during the day. 6.0 DOMINATES my machine, as described. And this box is "stronger" than the first of your described boxes, hardtaill. I'm running DSL. No viruses, no spyware, no nothing like that. Clean, relatively new install (has to be, it is Vista Ultimate (not premium, as stated earlier), and that has not been available for very long). I am running on 2 displays (dual-head nVidia card). Does that hurt performance that much?

I am working on the memory upgrade, as I think it is a good idea regardless. My hopes that it will "solve" this are slim.

I agree. Something just does not compute here.
I was running 5.1 and 6.0 concurrently today with the same workspace, a minimal workspace, since that's the only way I can run both concurrently.

I continue to see 6.0 consuming 3x to 5x the cpu as 5.1.
ie if 5.1 is consuming 10%, then 6.0 will be consuming 30%, and often runs to 5X times 5.1 as market trade rates increase. And this with 5.1 on IP4 feed with equivalent tick volumes as 6.0. If on IP2 with lesser ticks the difference is 10X, depending on time of day.

With a substantial workspace, I can't run 6.0. Brings my box to it's knees.

So 'Tails report just does not compute in my universe.

Note: MLP, the issue is relative resource consumption. If 5.1 ok on Vista, 6.0 not OK on Vista, it's not Vista. If you have unused physical memory, ie you have not driven apps into SWAP file, if you add more memory, you will just have more unused physical memory, which will be of no benefit.

LAM
XP Pro SP1, 2.4Gig P4, 1gig fast Rambus ram, 533 FSB.
I have gobs of unused physical memory avaiable when doing comparisons.

[mlp]

Larry, thanks for your reply. My workspace is definitely a substantial workspace. Regardless, I checked memory usage with Task Manager and there is just less than half of it unused physical memory. Well, I tried to check it with 6.0 running and had to interrupt THAT plan... With 5.1 it is just over half used. Anyway, the result is that QC6 is not an option for me as it stands. I'd really prefer that it were.

[hardtaill]

MLP and Larry,

The two screen shots are what I'm running during market hours. Those two shots are from my HP widescreen laptop with a 3.2g clock. I also run both apps on my Compaq square screen and formatted differently for size. The Compaq only has a 1.1g clock and only 750mhz of ram. Upgrading to 2g ram will probably have a minimal effect if you're having trouble at 1g. I'm using two different ISPs for each terminal so internet speed must not be critical. The only thing that I can think of, as mentioned earlier, is maybe some open ports which may be constantly communicating with the outside world. My machines are "off-the-shelf" which means I have not doctored the clocks or ramped the memories. I do have a friend with a new Vista PC and maybe I'll do an install of 6.0 and 5.1 and see what happens with my usual specs. Or, we can make contact and I'll give one of you my complete list of operating parameters.

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

Originally posted by hardtaill
MLP and Larry,
The two screen shots are what I'm running during market hours. Those two shots are from my HP widescreen laptop with a 3.2g clock. I also run both apps on my Compaq square screen and formatted differently for size. The Compaq only has a 1.1g clock and only 750mhz of ram. Upgrading to 2g ram will probably have a minimal effect if you're having trouble at 1g. I'm using two different ISPs for each terminal so internet speed must not be critical. The only thing that I can think of, as mentioned earlier, is maybe some open ports which may be constantly communicating with the outside world. My machines are "off-the-shelf" which means I have not doctored the clocks or ramped the memories. I do have a friend with a new Vista PC and maybe I'll do an install of 6.0 and 5.1 and see what happens with my usual specs. Or, we can make contact and I'll give one of you my complete list of operating parameters.
'Tail.

'Tail,

Thanks for the input.
OK, here's the deal.

Your posts have kinda implied, to me at least, that since you're OK there must be something amiss with my and other user's boxes. That's an invalid conclusion, and is not responsive to the issue at hand, and quite frankly is misleading in it's implications.

I assure you, the issue I'm observing and reporting on has nothing to do with the "remedies" you propose, namely that we possibly have inadequate memory or inadequate CPU horsepower or inadequate bandwidth or ports open that are consuming cpu resource. None of those conditions exist, and are beside the point anyhow.

The issue at hand is the "relative" CPU load in 6.0 vis a vis 5.1, given identical environments. I can run 6.0 with a workspace that doesn't chew up my box. But that workspace is but a light weight shadow of what I run in 5.1. The reason for needing a significantly cut down less demanding workspace is due to 6.0 taking 3x to 5x more cpu cycles. This can be observed running 6.0 and 5.1 concurrently on a box with equivalent prefs settings and the exact same workspace at the exact same time with the same tick rates, and equal GUI hits, and...well all the other considerations to get an as close as possible apples-to-apples comparison. It's even more of a disparity than the aforementioned 3x to 5x figure if running 5.1 on the IP2 throttled feed, but that's not really a fair comparison due to a mismatch in tick rates.

What I need to do is present here a detailed benchmark showing the issue, as I have done in other venues during Beta. A report showing the relative resource consumption of 6.0 vs 5.1 running the same workspace on the same box incurring the same(as close as possible) data tick rates. The difference is significant, and unarguably points to troubling, at least to me, processing inefficiencies in 6.0. I'm really resisting the notion of having to spend thousands of dollars to by an even more powerful box to compensate for bugs in a product.

Also what needs to be appreciated and understood is the impact of having a production workspace that's been designed to run on the continuum IP2 throttled feed, and why it's reasonable and necessary and valid that one will have to cut the workspace demands since the 6.0 esignal feed has significantly more tics/sec, especially during market open and for a while thereafter and then going into the close. At noon the tick differences are not as great. But again, my observations are on equivalent tick delivery feeds, namely IP4 vs eSignal. Well...there are caveats regarding some differences in those feeds, but not enough to invalidate the observations. I'll leave the caveat considerations for a detailed presentation of actual results.

In the meantime, it would be very helpful if you would be willing to send me workspaces you normally run during the day. I can demonstrate the loads they have on "my" box, and feed back a profile of the difference in cpu utilization those workspaces incur on 6.0 and 5.1. The screenshots you supplied are but a blur and even after extracting and blowing them up I can't get a feel for the nature of the wksp or what cpu demand the wksp would incur.

Here's hoping we can keep the issue on point....relative CPU consumption.

LAM
[email protected]

[hardtaill]

Larry,

I assure you that I agree with most of your post. But, as you can see by the screen shots, they were taken DURING market hours at about 20 minutes before the close which is a "hot" time in the market for trying to obtain data. I also agree with you, and as I stated in a previous post, 6.0 does take considerably more memory and processing power. 6.0 is demanding well over 400mgs of memory while 5.1 takes only less than half of that and most of the time, less than a third. I use both platforms, running simultaneously, to make trading decisions before the close of the market. The Compaq (1.1ghz processor) also runs just fine during any market time. By no means did I mean to disparage anyone's box, and by no means did I assume that any mistakes had been made in setting parameters in those boxes. I'm sorry if my words caused any such conclusions.

As I stated before, bandwidth and ram are most likely not the culprit for not being able to run a beefed-up workspace similar to the ones I use. Open ports, on the other hand, which, by their very nature, love to communicate and use up recources, may be something that needs to be looked at. My machines are completely impervious to any outside comunication other than what I ask the machine to do. I'm a stickler when it comes to privacy as I do considerable banking with my company and also my trading account. I've asked my ISPs to try to gain access to my equipment and they are not able to do so as they do to most other customer's equipment. But, open ports aside, and maybe I'm wrong about them, the fact remains that I'm day trading with the workspaces that I've posted and I'm using the compuuters that I've listed.

You know much more about the Qcharts/Esignal environment than I do, and I appreciate reading about it and being informed by you and many others on this board. Truly, I've learned a lot. I would be more than happy to send you all four of my workspaces, ie: 6.0 and 5.1 for widescreen, and 6.0 and 5.1 for 4x3 format. Just tell me how I can deliver it to you, whether by email or through the Esignal network.

Larry, again, thank you for your input and knowledge about the software and platforms.

I will be available rather late tonight to transfer the workspaces in any mode you desire.

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

Thanks 'Tail for your thoughtful response, and offer to share your workspaces. Much appreciated. Please send them along to my email address when you have time. Hopefully it will provide fruitful information.

Before I get to the animated .GIF in this post, a couple of comments regarding your most recent comments. Firstly, regarding ports, while a rouge program may be chewing up cpu resource, that's a separate issue and truth is that has nothing to do with the subject of relative processing efficiencies of 6.0 vs 5.1. Also, while an individual's setup may be fine for them, their personal experience can't be projected in any absolute or global sense as being applicable to other user's experience. QCharts is a variable load thing that depends on an individual's demand for data and number crunching and whatnot. I too can run 6.0, but only if viewing a significantly smaller universe of information than I can view in 5.1. And no, this has nothing to do with syms in 5.1 that are not available in 6.0. The context is viewing symbols that are in both.

OK. Let's get to it.

Included here is an animated .GIF made this afternoon. Hopefully it will give a sense of what I'm looking at when comparing 6.0 and 5.1. My GIF maker program is DemoCharge and as one can see in the .GIF below it takes about half my cpu cycles, so there's a little choppiness or studder in this particular capture when the cpu slipped into 100% territory a couple of times. It's difficult to capture this way, to have a workspace and that will let all three...gif maker, 6.0, and 5.1... run concurrently.

The topmost QCharts.exe is 6.0.0.25. The lower QCharts.exe is 5.1.0.21. With 6.0, one has to include and add in the winros.exe cpu % numbers for the total 6.0 % hit. Winros.exe is the 6.0 Data Manager.

Both 6.0 and 5.1 are running the exact same workspace, and are incurring the same GUI hit. That is, one is not minimized or hidden from view (i.e. producing no screen drawing hit) whilst the other is not minimized and is incurring additional cycles to paint the screen. In this capture 5.1 is running on IP4, so the tick delivery is about the same, and trust me I keep a watchful eye on the data delivery to both to make sure neither is experiencing a queuing&spurting server, which would skew results due to tick delivery mismatches, and hence processing requirements. Yep, that's right, eSignal servers can and do queue, though not nearly as often as continuum servers.

It should be clear from the animated .gif that 6.0 is chewing up three to over four times the cpu cycles as 5.1. The greater the tick delivery, the greater the difference in %cpu it seems in my observations. Imagine the effect of pulling up a QCharts workspace that normally consumes 50% on average in 5.1(on IP4) into 6.0. Lessee, that's a 150-200% cpu requirement. oops...that won't work. And if one were using IP2 feed with fewer ticks feeding 5.1 (meaning lesser cpu load), well that's another story. The difference would be much, much more than 3 or 4x.

LAM
[email protected]

LT%CPU is average of last 25 samples. %CPU is current sample. This run was configured at 1 sec sampling rate.

[hardtaill]

Larry,

Thanks for the information and the GIF. What I'm seeing on your display is similar to what I'm seeing on both of my boxes as far as processor usages. As I write this, I am out of town and hope to be back before the morning. I'll try to get you my workspaces as soon as I get back and hopefully sometime tomorrow you can use one of the 6.0 formats during market hours. My resolution is merely 1024x768 on my Compaq, so you might need to stretch everything out on your screen. If you use my widescreen workspace, you still may have to adjust for differences in displays.

I'll use your provided email.

Thank you,

'Tail.

[ckelly]

Larry, 'Tail -
Just another piece of data for you guys -

My 6.0 workspace is about 73KB in size. It is very slow to respond; incredibly slow to paint candles (unless you think a regular 6-minute wait on intraday charts is ok); and locks-up (wth that white bar at top) what feels like about every other time I touch the workspace - but truthfully is only many, many times per day, including times that I do not touch the workspace.

My regular 5.1 production workspace is about 900Kb. When the market is screaming, it slows down a bit, but otherwise has none of the problems seen in 6.0, reported above.

If I run 5.1 and a few browsers, my cpu will typically run in the 1% to 20% range. If I run 6.0 and a few browsers (no 5.1), my cpu will regularly spike to 90-100%.

I cannot run my regular production workspace in 6.0 - that dog just won't hunt. I've done everything I can to really slim down the workspace in 6.0 and still feel like I have the minimal info needed to trade the way I understand how to trade - but, given the issues stated - 6.0 currently does not have the capability for me to use it with real money.

Thanks, Larry, for all your efforts to uncover and hopefully solve the 6.0 cpu hog, and other, issues.

Carol


I'm running: XP Pro x64 on twin AMD64 2.2 GHz and currently with both 5.1 & 6.0 running along with a few browsers:
Total Physical Memory: 2.05 GB
Available Physical Memory: 1.3 GB
Total Virtual Memory: 3.9 GB
Available Virtual Memory: 3.1 GB

[hardtaill]

Carol,

Thank you for the input.

Larry,

I'm still out of town on an all-nighter for business reasons. I should be getting back to my work computer at about 11:00am Eastern. It looks as though I'm only going to be able to get you my 4x3 workspace for 6.0 and 5.1 by that time. I've got another appointment at 2:00pm Eastern and by the time I try to find my way home after that, the markets may be closed. I will email you my 6.0 widescreen format later this evening. This will give you the weekend to streatch/reduce the program for your display and give you a chance to play around with it. By Monday morning you should be able to take 6.0 for a screaming test drive. If it locks up your machine Monday, let me know.

Thanks,

'Tail.

[hardtaill]

Larry,

I just emailed you my version of 6.0 and 5.1 in the 4x3 format. They are currently working just fine from my 1.1ghz Compaq. I'm off to some meetings and will try to find my bed sometime today. "It's been a hard day's night". I'll get you the widescreen version later tonight or Saturday.

Thanks for your helpful posts,

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

Originally posted by hardtaill
Larry,
I just emailed you my version of 6.0 and 5.1 in the 4x3 format. They are currently working just fine from my 1.1ghz Compaq. I'm off to some meetings and will try to find my bed sometime today. "It's been a hard day's night". I'll get you the widescreen version later tonight or Saturday.
Thanks for your helpful posts,
'Tail.

'Tail,

Thanks much for sharing the workspaces. Appreciated.
Although we have discussed this off-list, thought I would post the result of my running the workspaces in case anyone following this thread might be wondering.

I had a chance to run the workspaces (a 6.0 version and equivalent 5.1 version) going into the close Friday. Although the sym count as displayed in 6.0 status bar was 300+, turns out the workspaces don't incur all that much of a load due to many, if not most, of the syms being infrequently updating Options. Hence, there's cycles to spare.

LAM

[hardtaill]

Larry and MLP,

I've reformatted my workspaces and removed all symbols having to do with options in 6.0. and 5.1. I am running 6.0 and 5.1 simultaneously and everything is working as before. My symbol count is 395 and they are all securities. There is very little hesitation in filling the charts when a new symbol is selected and most of the time they are snapping into view. I'm, at this hour, using my HP laptop with 3.2ghz clock and 2ghz ram. The following screen shot is current info from 6.0. I'll reformat my Compaq's 1.1ghz laptop later today and give it a try as well.

Thank you,

'Tail.