Support Board
Date/Time: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:48:24 +0000
Significant Lag past version 1958
View Count: 3109
| [2019-07-29 14:50:11] |
| 101010 - Posts: 18 |
|
I've tried downloading pre-release 1959 and 1960 both and I'm experiencing significant lag having more than one or two chartbooks open in the main instance. The second and third instances run fine. Please advise.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-29 14:50:30
|
| [2019-07-29 18:20:15] |
| |
|
When you say there is a lag, is that the speed of chart updating is reduced, or is it a case where you find Sierra Chart is nonresponsive at times? Check the Chart Update Interval: General Settings Window: Chart Update Interval (Global Settings >> General Settings >> General >> Update Intervals) What is it set to? Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-29 18:28:22
|
| [2019-07-29 18:34:40] |
| 101010 - Posts: 18 |
|
Sorry I should've chosen better wording. Sierra becomes unresponsive mainly. Sometimes the program has to be closed using task manager. Other times it is responsive, but very delayed. My chart update interval is set to 10. I know you suggest to run this setting higher, but it was not a problem before versions 1959/60. |
| [2019-07-29 21:28:51] |
| |
|
Thank you for the information. We believe this is related to the new timer event functionality in Sierra Chart. We are not observing a problem like this ourselves but we will work on implementing the appropriate solution based upon what we know now. This should be ready by tomorrow. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-29 21:39:48] |
| User120942 - Posts: 71 |
|
I am experiencing the same performance issues when updating beyond version 1957, including the most recent version #1961 as of today. After updating to the prerelease version # 1961 and opening a previously saved workbook the charts load but almost immediately the entire platform freezes. I am not able to close Sierra using the "File" menu and have to use the Windows 10 Task Manager to close the platform. After which I reverted back to the current version # 1957 that seems to work without any issues. I have TPO charts open for 4 in the chartbook. I am wondering if that may be the cause of the issues Thank You |
| [2019-07-29 22:13:55] |
| |
|
This really is very puzzling to us. We would expect the exact opposite result where there is improved performance. In regards to post #5, attach that Chartbook you are using. Here are instructions: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=PostingInformation.php#AttachFile Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-29 22:14:20
|
| [2019-07-29 22:44:35] |
| |
|
We have had a few reports since the release of version 1959 where users are reporting the user interface of Sierra Chart freezing and what would be considered poor performance. We were surprised by this because there was an important performance improvement in version 1959 which we think would have the opposite result. However, it occurred to us what the actual problem is. Version 1959 and higher have efficient and reliable internally generated timer events rather than relying upon the operating system, in order to drive various updates in the program. Charts are updated on a timer. This is called the Chart Update Interval: General Settings Window: Chart Update Interval (Global Settings >> General Settings >> General >> Update Intervals) The situation with freezing and poor performance inherently makes no sense from the perspective of how the timer events are now managed effective with 1959. They are very efficient. They are managed in a very different way though. And in a very efficient way. Every time a timer event is now generated, it is followed rather than potentially getting dropped like earlier versions. There was a dropping mechanism that existed before that was not very efficient but it may have resulted in more dropped events than you realize and instead now all of the timer events for charts are getting followed. However, a new timer event is not generated until one completes and the chart update interval elapses again. So there are no overlapping events any longer. Therefore the solution to the problem is for you to increase the Chart Update Interval because you may be using too low of an interval based on the workload being presented from the Chartbooks. We would expect most users not to have a problem unless they are using too low of a Chart Update Interval. So you really have to set the Chart Update Interval to a more true setting which is reasonable. 10 ms is far too low if you are using that. And even 500 ms based on the work load may be too low. For example you could use 10 ms, and in older versions 90% of the events could be discarded. So therefore it defeats the purpose of using to low of an interval and you create the exact opposite problem where there is wasted processing. This is something that we are intimately familiar with, and we see the fault of users using too low of an interval. However, users will disregard what we say to them in some cases. And we are well aware of the problem of using too low of a Chart Update Interval. It defeats the purpose. If you have a problem you will need to increase the Chart Update Interval to a higher more reasonable setting. With the new timer mechanism, there are no dropped events. But there are also the same time no overlapping or excessive events being generated. So in the end increase your Chart Update Interval. There is *not* a problem in the new versions with performance. Instead the new version is revealing that you are using too low of an update interval, if you notice freezing or poor performance, and previously events were getting dropped. If you are using 500 ms and you have a performance problem with 1959 or higher, you really need to take that up to a 1000 or higher. Because the simple fact is that you really are not getting 500 ms updates per chart. You are actually getting fewer updates. You may be getting updates every second or every two seconds. Update: We realize that it is necessary for us to dynamically manage the Chart Update Interval and only use the setting as a hint. With versions prior to 1959, timer events which are accumulating in the message queue, are discarded. This no longer happens because of the structure of generating timer events. There are not any overlapping events. But if you have a lot of charts with a short update interval there can be very little chance for any user interaction with the interface. This is the basic problem. So we have to therefore dynamically increase the Chart Update Interval when this is sensed. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-30 02:56:44
|
| [2019-07-30 04:36:24] |
| 101010 - Posts: 18 |
|
So we have to therefore dynamically increase the Chart Update Interval when this is sensed.
Is this a feature that will be implemented in a future release? |
| [2019-07-30 05:07:02] |
| |
|
Yes we should have this out soon.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-30 07:04:33] |
| User657944 - Posts: 173 |
|
Just a question SierraEng: if the system manually or dynamiccally will adjust the ms updating interval to solve the freeze and get a better performance, how this is compatible to with the new feature Millseconds timestamp, so 1 milliseconds data feed if then the update is set to let me say 500 or more ms? Can you technically clarify this please? thx |
| [2019-07-30 09:10:34] |
| TedMar - Posts: 190 |
|
i have same situation as user in post #5
|
| [2019-07-30 09:27:55] |
| |
|
how this is compatible to with the new feature Millseconds timestamp, so 1 milliseconds data feed if then the update is set to let me say 500 or more ms? The two are completely unrelated. This does not in any way affect millisecond time stamping.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-30 12:36:48] |
| User657944 - Posts: 173 |
|
ok thx
|
| [2019-07-30 14:05:07] |
| Tooth Fairy - Posts: 79 |
|
What would happened if the rate of arrival of data packet is way higher than the processing rate? Then either your buffer has to be humongous to delay the inevitable or data packet has to be discarded. In any case, the precision (prob the more correct term than efficiency) you try to achieve won't be accomplished anyway and you have to settle for compromise as what SC did w/ previous version.
|
| [2019-07-30 17:54:14] |
| |
|
You cannot make the kind of comparison you are and what you are talking about here is a non-issue.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-30 18:40:30] |
| Tooth Fairy - Posts: 79 |
|
Maybe it's non issue to you but I take 1946 & below w/ that drop rate over your new not usable implementation.
|
| [2019-07-30 23:34:12] |
| |
|
over your new not usable implementation. It is usable and we explain this in the detailed post at post #7 above. Furthermore in regards to: Update: We realize that it is necessary for us to dynamically manage the Chart Update Interval and only use the setting as a hint. With versions prior to 1959, timer events which are accumulating in the message queue, are discarded. This no longer happens because of the structure of generating timer events. There are not any overlapping events. But if you have a lot of charts with a short update interval there can be very little chance for any user interaction with the interface. This is the basic problem. So we have to therefore dynamically increase the Chart Update Interval when this is sensed. This has been released in version 1962 and tested. It may still need some refinement, but it will at least offer an improvement in addition to increasing the Chart Update Interval if needed. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-30 23:57:46
|
| [2019-07-31 02:59:11] |
| User120942 - Posts: 71 |
|
@Sierra Chart Engineering, I increased the refresh rate from 10 to 1000 and the freezing issues seem to be resolved in versions 1959 and 1960. I have upgraded to version 1962 and will observe further to make sure there are no further issues. Thanks for the quick response. |
| [2019-07-31 03:40:48] |
| |
|
We have released version 1963 with additional refinements to the dynamic management of the Chart Update Interval. In this way, the Chart Update Interval setting only acts as the lowest target interval. It increases as necessary and gradually decreases all based on current load. Also you did not have to go to 1000 ms unless that was necessary. You could have taken it up to about 300 ms. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-31 05:56:38] |
| TedMar - Posts: 190 |
|
Delay and freezes(Lags) are still since version 1959. This is especially noticeable when you Zoom or change Bar Spacing , switch Charts .....
|
| [2019-07-31 06:04:46] |
| |
|
What is the purpose of post #20? It does not help us at all. It does not appear as though you have read post #7, #17, #19. The problem is not Sierra Chart. The problem is you have too low of a Chart Update Interval. And furthermore we have added automatic management of that. It is clear that users are not setting that properly and maybe we should just remove that setting altogether. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-31 06:16:00
|
| [2019-07-31 06:14:57] |
| |
|
In regards to post #20, you need to use version 1963 in your case.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-07-31 08:48:07] |
| User657944 - Posts: 173 |
|
SierraEng just to test I tried to use the 1963 but as per 1959 or 1960 compared to 1941 the platform is not responsive to control bar command, I mean if I select File or Global settings or what ever buttons it takes a huge time to get the button be selected vs to 1941. One positive things there no more freeze/bug that stop the machine, but it is let me say "lazy" compared to 1941 that is really fast and responsive. My 2 cents Alberto |
| [2019-07-31 08:55:44] |
| |
|
But all of you are just missing the point here. The problem is not that these newer versions are not performing as well. The performance is the same. The solution to the problem is to increase the Chart Update Interval: General Settings Window: Chart Update Interval (Global Settings >> General Settings >> General >> Update Intervals) Increase the Chart Update Interval to resolve the problem! All we are going to end up doing, is increasing the interval for you in the background and just ignoring the setting you are using. Which effectively what was happening in older versions of Sierra Chart, just not in an efficient way. At this point, if we continue to get these reports we may have to remove that setting altogether. Once again the level of performance of the newer versions of Sierra Chart remains the same. Actually even better. You are just seeing the effects of the too short of a Chart Update Interval you have been using. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-07-31 09:02:57
|
| [2019-07-31 09:12:18] |
| User657944 - Posts: 173 |
|
Well I really like to understand two points: 1) As per you istruction manual:The Chart Update Interval sets how often the chart graphics are updated and studies are calculated when connected to the Data/Trade server. When market data, Trade Order data or Trade Position data is received, it will be displayed within this time interval. So if I set the interval to 100 or 200 ms or to 800/1000ms how is it possible that this is not slowing the calculation of the studies (let me say 4-5 studies that must be calculated to get a trade signal on a 1 sec chart)? 2)In another post you answered me that the Milliseconds timestamp and the Interval update are two different things can you please explain how they are different and why they should not influence each others? There's no any critics vs You it is just to understand, since as a trader I'm pragmatic if I have a software version that, at least from a visual point of view it is faster than another I will stay with the faster one. thx Alberto |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: