Crazy cache of testing agents - page 8
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
Arguments that the service is not made to provide resources for free, and therefore to generate income (not necessarily profit):
- The service takes a commission - income for the creators
- The person providing their resources receives remuneration - estimated remuneration exceeds the CC costs, and if you consider not a lump sum, but with the amortization for 3-5 years, the profit is even more
significant
Arguments that it is possible to earn under certain conditions:
- The calculation shows that the income per year should be 0.5k, while the expense of buying a PC is 0.15k - a fact. The fact that such an income is not achievable at current rates - confirms the lack of demand, so I propose to reduce the fees in order to increase demand, reduce the estimated income and increase the actual income, and most importantly to popularize the service and reduce costs for it.
- PC power costs vary depending on the resource load, but not that significantly - obviously people use PCs for other purposes - i.e. it works in the user's interest at the time it provides its resources to the network member, so power costs are not that significant in this case.
If the lack of earnings were obvious, no one in the cludes would have tapped in. Of course, they will write about the possibility of earning and cite a formula for net theoretical profit that is not achievable in principle.
And no need to say that "the computer is on anyway". You understand perfectly well the difference between working at a computer with a 100% CPU load and an "idle" computer. If you don't, run a large number of archive files by the win-rare and do that for at least an hour.
Or do you want to reduce it only for buyers, and sellers pay the old rates from the pocket of MQ? ;)
Your talking points:
- Cloud for providing resources to traders, by other users who are bored and run agents for a shared network for ideological reasons.
- Better to pay more and get "everything" now, even if that "everything" won't be in demand in the coming days.
Twisted as they wanted to be.
I used to run my agents too at first. But as soon as it became clear that there is no income, and the discomfort is sometimes felt, immediately went offline.
"You have to solve a problem of conditional difficulty of 100 computer-hours. And it can be solved on one computer in 100 hours or on 50 computers in 2 hours. The cost of solving it will not change (and neither will the total resources).
If you want, solve part of the problem on your local computer in 20 hours, and give the rest to the cloud. And the task of the cloud is to solve its part as quickly as possible(it does not affect the cost).
You really don't understand your mistake, or are you trolling?
1) And in my opinion, you do not understand the essence of it, along with the respected administrator. And no matter what hypothetical arguments you give, no matter what tests with fitting to the answer, the reality does not change.
And the reality is this: while performing my tasks, I faced the problem of idle cores due to insufficient speed of my hard disk. And there can be three ways of solving this:
1.Reduce amount of data caching. This can be achieved either by partial merging of caches in a group of agents, or by increasing usage of RAM, which in my case in standard mode is used by half.
I've triedto find articles on this subject, but I haven't found anything useful.
3.Distribution of agents on different carriers, including frame-disk.
Actually, solution number 3 was applied by me, and a large number of cores in my system turned froma "problem" into an advantage . But all this was done not with internal means of MetaTester, but with third-party software and other manipulations.
So, in this case there is no need to speak about amazing work of the tester. I will be able to say about it only when I can allocate resources for testing via tester's internal means.
2) We can discuss fairness of using agents endlessly. But who wasright to notice that the price is not determined by the market, and it looks very strange on a trading platform.
And all arguments concerning fair price set by the platform itself as the only true solution is just a hypothesis, because no one has ever tried something else.
And Aleks is right, resources are idle due to lack of demand and I can see it from my own experience. And nothing will increase demand except market pricing.
My personal opinion - market pricing would make the platform much more attractive, as traders would get a real powerful tool. IMHO - the operation of the cloud should be similar to that of torrent trackers in the early days: "give a little more than you get".
I, too, started my agents at first. But as soon as it became obvious that there was no income, and the discomfort was sometimes felt, I went straight off the network.
Nevertheless - mt5 is the best solution on the market, at the moment. But there is room to grow.
If the lack of earnings were obvious, no one would join the cloud. Of course, they will write about the possibility of making money and give a formula for net theoretical profit, which in principle is not achievable.
And no need to say that "the computer is on anyway". You understand perfectly well the difference between working at a computer with a 100% CPU load and an "idle" computer. If you don't, run a large number of archive files by the Win-Rar and do that for at least an hour.
Or do you want to reduce it only for customers, and sellers pay the old rates from the pocket of MQ? ;)
1. so claud is just a pyramid scheme?
2. Present your calculation, I admit that in something mistaken, but Renat silent, and you do not prove my mistake - electricity on a PC - let's do the calculation 300 watts per hour (I think really less) consumes a computer when optimized, without optimizing how much you - I put 200, then we get (300-200)*24*365/1000*5 = 4380 rubles(Although - 5 - a lot - for the network at night time is relevant there may be lower rates), so yes, turned out the amount 4380/60 = 73/12 = 6 $ per month - in the end accumulated 6 dollars for depreciation, which is not so bad.
3. if the remuneration is reduced, the demand will increase and so will the supply - claud will increase computing power.
Twisted as you like.
I used to run my agents too at first. But as soon as it became clear that there is no income, and the discomfort is sometimes felt, immediately went offline.
"You have to solve a problem of conditional difficulty of 100 computer-hours. And it can be solved on one computer in 100 hours or on 50 computers in 2 hours. The cost of solving it will not change (and neither will the total resources).
If you want, solve part of the problem on your local computer in 20 hours, and give the rest to the cloud. And the task of the claud is to solve your part as quickly as possible(it does not affect the cost).
I didn't twist anything - I wrote it as I understood it.
1. I see, again it's a pyramid scheme for suckers, where only claud users and those who spend nothing to maintain a fleet of PCs win
2. I quote you "If it were possible, the result would be sold instantly, in one click. Instead of 10 hours at $20 an hour, I'd pay $200 and get results instantly - that would be awesome!" - doesn't it follow that "Better to pay more and get 'everything' now, even if that 'everything' won't be in demand in the coming days."? My point is that time is of the essence and you have to pay for speeding up - but, I have to choose whether or not I'm in a hurry and payment should depend on that - in my mind. The idea is that if I'm not in a hurry, I don't burden the cloud heavily and allow those who are in a hurry to do their tasks faster - they pay more for that. This approach will satisfy different claud users.
...
Now take the same EA and run GBPCAD optimisation on your 24 cores. Multiply the previous figure by 24. And while you are contemplating the number of zeros, think, would you agree that only one of 24 cores could work normally (and the rest would stumble, trying to read the same block of cache data), or would you still like that after warming up (cache creation) the optimizer fully load all the cores?
...
Where do fantasies about conflicts when reading from one data instance (instead of 24) come from?
In doing my tasks, I've encountered the problem of idle cores due to insufficient hard drive speed.
You were asked to show at least the logs. Where is your task? What is it?
Maybe you are deliberately raping the hard drive? )
2)One can argue endlessly about fairness of using agents. Butright is someone who noticed that the price isn't determined by the market, which in terms of trading platform looks quite strange.
There's no point in speculating about the price of the cludes at all.
Create your own counterpart, and adjust the price however you want.
Why does everyone think they are smarter than MQ? (this is a rhetorical question, no need to answer)
Interesting that you defend the system, but don't use it yourself because you admit it makes no sense
I use it, but on the other hand. I buy resources when I need them. Very handy.
Something about me taking on the wrong role.
Defending MQ, Renate and their clout is not interesting to me. I always encourage people to think about it, but I often forget that no one needs it.
Right now I don't have time to answer the ever-growing wave of questions.
I apologise for getting into the conversation. I take my leave.
You were asked to show at least the logs. Where is your task? What is it?
Maybe you are deliberately raping the hard drive? )
Funny, but no one besides me has offered a solution. Waving flags and shouting about the awesomeness of the system have no practical use.
And no one here thinks they are smarter than MQ. Once again, mt5 is the best solution at the moment. But there is definitely room to grow
Something I have taken on the wrong role.
Defending MQ, Renate and their clout is not interesting to me. I always encourage people to think, but I often forget that no one needs it.
Right now I don't have time to answer the ever-growing wave of questions.
I apologise for getting into the conversation. I take my leave.
The difference in economic and technical levels of knowledge is huge and so you cannot pass them on.
Unfortunately.