Chatter about the MT5 strategy tester - page 10
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
that's what I'm talking about! and that's what I'm talking about!
Vasiliy, it is possible to compete for the file of 100 terminals, it is clear.
the fact that you can copy trades from one terminal to another using the copier is another thing
The question is that the terminal itself (if it's MT4) writes ticks in the file ticks.raw ...
but if he tries to write 100 terminals at a time into the file {TERMIN}\history\{broke}\tisks.raw - a crash will occur
That's what I don't think Andrei understands.
I can hear the theoretical couch squeaking beneath Andrei again.
Ow!!!! Yuri! Please listen to me!
Do you think the MT terminal is so dumb, and written by people so dumb, that multiple terminals will try to write the same thing to the same file?!
No? So I say no! The MT terminal is very well written, it doesn't take the liberty of writing the same thing to a file if someone is already writing to it! You can easily convince yourself of that, make an experiment at last, enough of fruitless theorizing! It is this "intelligibility" that allows you to use a shared folder for several terminals, everything works without problems!!!! It's just a question of making this feature (selecting a shared folder) a standard feature.
If we are talking about a tester, all history bases are stored centrally in the tester folder. And all tester agents running from that folder read history from the same database. While the first agent synchronizes the history, other agents, if they need the same history, wait
In the tester, shared access to the history database (and ticks, too, by the way) is done for the very reason that there is no writing (or rather, writing is one-time during synchronization) and there is only reading
If we are talking about a tester, all history bases are stored centrally in the tester folder. And all tester agents running from that folder read history from the same database. While the first agent synchronizes the history, other agents, if they need the same history, wait
In the tester, the shared access to the history base (and ticks too, by the way) is done for the very reason that there is no writing (or rather, writing is one-time during synchronization), but there is only reading
That's what I'm telling Andrei.
You need to send 100 terminals to one folder - in this folder the ticks and timeframes are collected.
and that's what it doesn't seem to understand!
Ow!!!! Yuriiiiiiiiiiii! Hear me please!
Do you think that the MT terminal is so dumb, and written by people so dumb, that several terminals will try to write the same thing in one and the same file?
No? So I say no! The MT terminal is very well written, it doesn't take the liberty of writing the same thing to a file if someone is already writing to it! You can easily convince yourself of that, make an experiment at last, enough of fruitless theorizing! It is this "intelligence" that makes it possible to use a shared folder for several terminals, everything works without problems!!!! It's just a question of making this feature (selecting a shared folder) a standard feature.
just the smart ones, and that's why they have
the recording is a one-time thing.
You're the one who hasn't heard me for several posts and you're talking theoretical nonsense.
(read where I'm telling you - I'm nearly pounding on my bald head - that you can't write simultaneously from 100 terminals) - don't be offended - I'm being nice
You can make it work - just say that the couch was too stiff or too saggy.
If we are talking about a tester, all history bases are stored centrally in the tester folder. And all tester agents running from that folder read history from the same database. While the first agent synchronizes the history, the other agents, if they need the same history, wait
In Tester, the history database is shared (and ticks, too, by the way) for the very reason that there is no writing (or rather, writing is one-time during synchronization), but only reading
You're talking about shared folder C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\MetaQuotes\Tester\.
The same principle is needed for the terminal in the normal mode, not with the forced specification of a common folder to the history bases using links. Now it works fine, but please implement this feature normally by specifying a folder to history bases in the terminal settings.
You are talking about shared folder C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\MetaQuotes\Tester\.
This is the same principle for the terminal in normal mode, not by forcing a shared folder to the history bases via links. Now it works fine, but please implement this feature normally by specifying folder to history bases in terminal settings.
It does not and cannot work well. You're just lucky and the bases aren't killed by overwriting much. We have total recheck of all databases with transparent error recovery based on data from server, which eliminates potential collisions (if writing from different terminals to the same directory) and damage.
One should care very much about risk to work in such an environment. It is all the more creepy to demand and claim that everything is right and normal.
That's what I'm telling Andrei.
I don't want to swear, although you insistently provoke me to do so.
And that's exactly what he doesn't seem to understand!
I really don't want to quarrel, although you stubbornly provoke me to do so.
Fuck! TRY TO SEE FOR YOURSELF - MAKE A COMMON FOLDER FOR HISTORY AND SPECIFY IT FOR ALL TERMINALS AT!!!!! THIS WORKS!!!!
Shove your theoretical couch to yourself at ****! Practice, try it! The shared folder on the links works and there are no problems!
It doesn't work well and it can't work. You're just lucky and the bases aren't really killed by overwriting.
You have to be very risk-averse to work in such an environment.
Yes, it's a crutch. Workable - but a crutch. In the case of agents, they thought of file sharing, why not do it for the terminal?
Fortunately, terminal doesn't try to write to file if writing is already done, that's why the way with folder by links works now.
One day we were taken aback when the admins of one broker came to us complaining about file recording errors.
It turned out that they had been backing up servers with all the files on the fly for a long time. Not shadow copy, but they were copying files in the peasant way. To the question "what were you guys thinking???" the answer was "why, everything worked fine for a long time!
That's roughly how @Andrey Dik answers . At the same time he suggests to do that to millions of traders. So that a couple hundred would step on the same rake every hour.
One day we were taken aback when the admins of a broker came to us complaining about file recording errors.
It turned out that they had been backing up servers with all the files on the fly for a long time. Not shadow copy, but they were copying files in the peasant way. To the question "what were you guys thinking??" the answer was "why, everything worked fine for a long time!
That's roughly how @Andrey Dik answers . At the same time he suggests to do the same for millions of traders. So that a couple hundred would step on the same rake every hour.