Alpari's voracious terminals - page 3

New comment
 
First of all, at Alpari the quotes are in five digits, so the ticks on which the Expert Advisor works are much more frequent. And you can also insert Sleep() in your EA to slow it down a bit. I also faced this problem, so I have moved to four-digit quotes and run several terminals at once. CPU load is several percent.
 

It's nonsense. Four digits, five digits... what's the difference...

Debugger, you have not answered goldtrader's question:

А если удалить все индикаторы и советники?

 
Sir you may be a moderator but if you don't know better don't say so.
 

Why wouldn't I know? I also have an Alpari with the same five digits you had.

The maximum number of bars in the window is 65000, in the history - doesn't matter to the processor anymore.

The Market Watch window at the moment has 5 characters in total, 3 charts open.

It has the most mediocre processor - E7200, 4 GB of memory. Operating system is Windows 7 Corporate.

Today CPU just doesn't notice the terminal, and on weekdays not so much - if there are no calculations (when calculating, of course, it notices).

 
Camnoce6e:
Sir, even though you are a moderator, but if you don't know better don't talk.

I support Mathemat, I've been using the Alpari terminal for a long time and haven't noticed any voracity.

I have been using Alpari's terminal for a long time and haven't noticed any waste of time.

 
Mathemat:

That's silly. Four signs, five signs... what's the difference...

Huge, Alexei, on average by an order of magnitude. Compare the tick volumes.

If there are, say, 20-30 pieces of indices, it will be noticeable (by hitches), moreover, all of them are calculated in one thread.

And by the way, it will not always be noticeable by the CPU load, if there is more than one core.

The way out is to optimize the calculation of indicators.

 
Mathemat:

That's silly. Four signs, five signs... who cares...

Debugger, you didn't answer goldtrader's question:


Just now returned to the forum...
The maximum number of bars in the window is 10,000 bars.
Max history 25,000 bars

ps: even if the terminal does not eat all the CPU resources, then in an elementary comparison 25%-30% (Alpari terminal) vs 2%-3% (other MT4 terminals) in a quiet market... (assuming simultaneous operation of at least 2 terminals from different brokers)
I don't know how to explain it. I am out of ideas, thats why I am using this forum.
In indicators there is an instruction to recalculate values no more frequently than 1 time in 1000 ms (not the Sleep function)

 
Mathemat:

It's silly. Four digits, five digits... what's the difference...

Debugger, you have not answered goldtrader's question:

although the five-digit quote version does explain the situation somehow.
 
Temnyj:

I support Mathemat, I've been using Alpari's terminal for a long time and haven't noticed any voracity.

And the processor is loaded by indicators, especially those which are wrongly written.

I also use Alpari and now and then the processor is loading about 30-40%. There are only 5 symbols open, and standard AO and MA indicators on each of them. And such load is observed at important moments of the market. It sometimes happens so that the terminal can hardly switch from one symbol to another, from one time-frame to another, etc., and just hangs up when the end comes.

p.s.: Windows XP.

 
Bicus: I also use Alpari, and exactly the same periodic CPU load is about 30-40%. There are only 5 symbols open and each of them has standard AO and MA indicators. And such load is observed at important moments of the market.

It is clear at the crucial moments. But, judging by the words of the author, the processor is always so loaded.

TheXpert: Huge, Alex, or rather an order of magnitude on average. Compare the tick volumes.

If there are, say, 20-30 turkeys, it will be noticeable (by brakes), especially if all of them are counted in one thread.

If there are 20-30 of them, it first leads to hypothesis about wrong hands: to be able to calculate all this mess about once per second and the power of Core i7 2600K is not enough.

Although, it's hard to suspect the author of incompetence.

123456789
New comment