Support Board
Date/Time: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 18:08:42 +0000
Physical Memory Over Use due to Sierra Charts
View Count: 1500
| [2016-03-23 13:47:21] |
| FXDojiStar - Posts: 8 |
|
My PC: 16GB RAM CPU: Intel i7-4770k CPU@3.5Ghz When using 12 charts my computer shows memory utalisation of 21% When using 38 charts my computer shows memory utalisation of 97% I am surprised that so much physical memory is being used by Sierra Charts. I have already contacted AntiVirus and other technical guys and they indicated that there may be some memory leak with SC. Please help. How can I make SC use less memory. |
 12charts.jpg / V - Attached On 2016-03-23 13:46:27 UTC - Size: 618.57 KB - 334 views 38Charts.jpg / V - Attached On 2016-03-23 13:46:37 UTC - Size: 639.83 KB - 302 views |
| [2016-03-23 17:12:05] |
| |
|
It is not possible for Sierra Chart to have a memory leak. This is something that we monitor extremely closely and there is no memory leak. Based upon the large amount of memory use, this most likely is from the reading of Intraday data files and the caching of that data by the operating system. You really should not be concerned about this because the operating system will manage this. It also could be caused by your antivirus software. But it is not possible for Sierra Chart itself to be using that amount of memory. It cannot directly access more than 4 GB. 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: 2016-03-23 17:13:02
|
| [2016-03-23 17:17:54] |
| |
|
Here is the relevant documentation about this subject: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/helpdetails30.html#h30.1 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 |
| [2016-03-24 08:06:02] |
| FXDojiStar - Posts: 8 |
|
Thank you for the explanation. I have already contacted ESET and they have identified SC. They have stopped scans on data feed. This has made no difference. I can understand Intraday Data, but 16GB being fully utalised does not make any sense. Whats the optimum number of charts on each workspace? |
| [2016-03-24 08:11:30] |
| |
|
It is not Sierra Chart using that memory. That is a complete impossibility. And do not let anyone convince you otherwise. Sierra Chart may be indirectly causing that memory usage, but it is not Sierra Chart actually allocating that memory. As we said, that is impossible. Only you can answer this question: Whats the optimum number of charts on each workspace?
You are the one working with Sierra Chart and you know your computer hardware and you can observe what is happening. We are in no position to answer this question.
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: 2016-03-24 08:14:25
|
| [2016-03-24 08:13:22] |
| |
|
Furthermore, we recommended in the help topic to try restarting your computer in safe mode and see if it makes a difference. We do believe the problem is related to reading Intraday data files but it is going to be the operating system or other programs which is allocating the memory. We do know how to minimize that effect, but really this should not be a problem to begin with. And it is something that would normally cause an 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 Date Time Of Last Edit: 2016-03-24 08:15:19
|
| [2016-03-24 08:59:33] |
| |
|
The other question is whether the memory use is actually causing a problem? If not, then we think just let it go. It is not something that Sierra Chart has direct control over. We do know how to minimize it, at the expense of performance, but it should not be happening to begin with. Although we have never observed this ourselves. 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: 2016-03-24 09:00:42
|
| [2016-07-01 02:07:15] |
| chisel - Posts: 23 |
|
Just thought I would add my experience to possibly calm the nerves of the OP: Today, I ran into a similar situation as FXDojiStar on a W7 x64 system with 8 GB of physical memory and thought I would need to add much more. Previously, with Firefox, IB TWS and SC with seven chartbooks open, memory usage in Task Manager was around 3 GB if not less. Today, I added about a dozen intraday and daily charts and all of a sudden the memory usage went up to over 7 GB. When I looked in the Task Manager processes, SC was only using 310 MB of memory, so I searched and found RAMMap from Microsoft. The Mapped File (whatever that is) is what is using/reserving 5 GB of memory, and IMO, the huge Mapped File is indirectly related to SC as mentioned in post #5, because when I close SC, memory usage drops 5 GBs instantly. BUT, as mentioned in post #2, the OS will manage the memory cache which I read on this page before finding the SC post above: http://superuser.com/questions/527075/how-do-you-force-windows-7-to-release-a-mapped-file Just to see if I could get a low memory error, I intentionally added more charts to try to get the memory over the physical limit of 8 gb, and as the usage approached 8 gb, the OS cleared the cache and memory usage as seen in the Task Manager went back down but subsequently increased. I have not seen any type of "out of memory" error so no problems so far. Since SC cannot use more than 4 gb of memory, 8 gb in my system should be fine unless I add more instances of SC with many charts. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2016-07-01 11:19:45
|
| [2016-07-01 04:31:12] |
| |
|
Everything said in post #8 is our understanding.
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 |
| [2016-07-20 01:09:12] |
| i960 - Posts: 360 |
|
Nah there's something going on here with SC and memory usage these days. I'm seeing 2-2.5GB *resident* memory usage by the SierraChart process itself these days and it was nowhere near that in the past. What changed here? Are we caching huge amounts of intraday data in an internal process cache somewhere now? I seem to remember usage levels 1-2GB in the past and I'm not running an appreciably large number more chartbooks then I was previously. Just what is SC doing that it needs 2-3GB+ of RAM usage these days? No this is not OS cache related either, it's process memory. In fact my current process is using 2.2GB private and 2.8GB commit size. At one point it was up to 2.5GB private. |
| [2016-07-20 01:33:06] |
| |
|
What changed here? Nothing which would causes significant amount of additional memory use. There can be some small amount of additional memory, but this would be under 50 kilobytes.Are we caching huge amounts of intraday data in an internal process cache somewhere now? Definitely not.
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 |
| [2016-07-20 01:36:09] |
| i960 - Posts: 360 |
|
So should I be seeing 2.2GB of resident memory usage from SierraChart.exe? Because that's what I'm continuously seeing. Not an OS issue, not cache related either - this is the per process usage.
|
| [2016-07-20 01:37:36] |
| |
|
Depends upon what you are doing with Sierra Chart. It is impossible for us to answer this. One instance of Sierra Chart we are running right now is using 100 megabytes. This is all. 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 |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: