Support Board
Date/Time: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:41:46 +0000
2675 Unusable - Freezes
View Count: 262
| [2024-09-12 05:34:51] |
| n8trading - Posts: 36 |
|
Just FYI, I downloaded the latest Current Release 2674 and it seems fine. But then I downloaded the Prerelease 2675 because of the mentioned window timer performance improvements, but I experienced the opposite - unusable poor performance. Sierra Chart was freezing and essentially unusable. Also, CPU usage was notably higher (10% in 2674, 25%+ in 2675). Just wanted to let you know. Note that I am on an older CPU (i7-4770k) in case that has anything to do with it. I hope it does not get released as the Current build :) |
| [2024-09-12 09:15:11] |
| Sierra_Chart Engineering - Posts: 17145 |
|
There is definitively no performance issues, in the latest prerelease. The issue is simply that apparently due to the Chart Update Interval you are using, there are more frequent updates of charts. So you need to increase the Chart Update Interval. More information: What is Sierra Chart Working On | Post: 394194 And for the record, we notice no performance issues at all in this version 2675. None. None at 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, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2024-09-12 09:17:14
|
| [2024-09-12 13:52:30] |
| n8trading - Posts: 36 |
|
Understood. In an instance of Sierra Chart that I have, I have 7 charts and the quote board. The global chart update interval is set to 500 for charts and the quote board, and all charts are set to 0 update interval (so they are using the global 500ms setting). In 2674, CPU usage is around 7%. In 2676, CPU usage is around 13-15%. I can clearly see that the quote board is updating more quickly which would explain the higher CPU usage. The UI is responsive enough, but it would be nice for Sierra Chart to not be using more resources if not necessary. I don't need the quote board updating more quickly in this instance. So, maybe the solution is to increase the maximum possible chart update interval so that I can increase that interval to achieve slower updating of the quote board/charts to more closely match how quickly the previous version was updating the quote board/charts. I have another instance with more charts that are used for trading and I need much faster update intervals in that instance. I will have to see if I am able to upgrade to >2674 and increase the update intervals to reduce CPU usage, maintain responsive UI, and receive chart updates at least as quickly as I have in =<2674. I appreciate this technical performance improvement by the way. Hopefully I can adjust the chart update interval in my other instance without reducing the speed at which I was receiving chart updates/data in =<2674. |
| [2024-09-12 18:03:41] |
| n8trading - Posts: 36 |
|
Ok, I read all of the details about the latest timer message code changes in your posts from #99 to #101 in your "What is Sierra Chart Working On" thread. I'd love to understand more detail as to why you might want to have another timer message code option in addition to or instead of WM_TIMER. From what I gather, using WM_TIMER is causing Sierra Chart to update charts more quickly even though the chart update interval setting hasn't changed. This in itself isn't a bug or issue, but this is what is causing confusion when users update and see that SC UI is less responsive and/or has higher CPU usage after updating to the version that uses WM_TIMER. For me personally, because of the 500ms interval limit, I cannot achieve the same or less CPU usage in the latest version that uses WM_TIMER because setting the interval to 500ms is still causing SC to update faster than before the WM_TIMER implementation and having a lower chart update interval setting. So as I mentioned in my previous post, increasing the update interval limit might be an option, or as you said, maybe giving an option to use a different message code would suffice; And if I understand correctly, would allow the update interval setting to be accurate and SC would update to exactly what value is set. It seems that WM_TIMER works well though, so maybe just re-working the update interval settings to coincide/relate with the faster updating that WM_TIMER achieves is the simplest route. From my perspective, I just want to be able to control SC to update as quickly as possible, for what I determine is necessary for my charts/quote boards, within the IO capability/capacity of my particular PC. In other words, I want to easily be able to tune SC to achieve the best balance of freshest/quickest data and least amount of CPU usage/fastest UI response time. And I would suggest that SC out of the box settings be set conservatively so that 99% of users/PC specs will have a good user experience with UI responsiveness and fresh data - it probably already is except for the fact that many users may be seeing increased CPU usage even with the default 500ms interval setting because SC is updating more quickly with WM_TIMER. Just my 2 cents, hope it's helpful! |
| [2024-09-12 18:12:12] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 36238 |
|
Why are you stating that there is a Chart Update Interval limit of 500? There is no such limit. You can change the Chart Update Interval to any value up to 1200000.
For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2024-09-12 18:25:13] |
| n8trading - Posts: 36 |
|
That is a fair question, John. I thought I read that somewhere, but it obviously does not exist. My mistake. So in my case, I will try increasing the interval limit higher. Thank you! Date Time Of Last Edit: 2024-09-12 18:33:01
|
| [2024-09-13 16:56:46] |
| Sierra_Chart Engineering - Posts: 17145 |
|
Actually this is not true: I'd love to understand more detail as to why you might want to have another timer message code option in addition to or instead of WM_TIMER. From what I gather, using WM_TIMER is causing Sierra Chart to update charts more quickly even though the chart update interval setting hasn't changed.
It is clear now it does not matter whether we use the message code WM_TIMER. We thought, using this message code would give the same result as users have in prior versions but it does not make any difference. Generating our own timer events, regardless of what message code is used, is apparently causing faster chart updates for some users. Which may be a good thing for some users. 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, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2024-09-13 19:46:27] |
| n8trading - Posts: 36 |
|
Oh ok, gotcha. Yeah I think it's a good thing. Now that I've adjusted my update intervals, SC is working smoothly and seems to be using less CPU as well, and I'm getting at least the same speed of updates, but I think it's faster. Thank you! |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: