The chart refresh rate is shockingly slow eg if I move the chart to view previous days candles it takes up to 20 seconds to show correctly. Note with all MT4 closed and only 1 NT7 chart it still takes 10 seconds for chart to refresh. Data is from PFG
The MT4 runs fine with or without NT7 running
I have a VPS and using NT7 with 4 charts with 4 indicators on each and running (No strategies running) also 2 MT4 accounts with total of 6 charts 1 EA and no indicators. No other programs running.
Using VPSLAND running Windows 2003 Virtuozzo 64-bit . I am using 444.8mb of the 1.0GB memory availiable.
Total traffic usage 95.9kb with no limit
I had support check connection speed they downloaded a program and gave a screen shot showing more than 3MBPS download speed .
I had done a speed test using .zdnet.com.au/broadband/speedtest.htm
the result was VPS 600kbps compaired to my home conection of 8500kbps
Anyway does anyone have any ideas to fix or maybe I should try another VPS provider like commercial net ..... as previous post
Most commercial VPS are oversold: too many resources (cpu, memory, bandwidth) are given to the VPS's, compared to the physical ressources of the server.
Usually, if a VPS using "Virtuozzo", you can be sure that the resources are oversold.
Dedicated Server running windows located in close proximity to Chicago (futures) or the exchange of your choice.
Windows 7 phone (soon to be out in 4G). You can remote desktop to any windows xp/7 computer (and to other versions of windows that have downloaded the remote desktop from Microsoft).
The reason you do NOT want a VPS, is because you're not exclusive to the hardware. VPS usually involve several other clients on the same blade/server. Thus, changes or increases in performance demand give surges....unanticipated shutdowns/restarts for other clients software issues....etc.
A dedicated server allows you to absolutely control the hardware and only conduct restarts or allocate resources of your own choosing.
I pay $70/month for a 1and1 dedicated windows server and I can access my server from virtually any computer that has a connection. I can also access/manage from a windows phone (I'm waiting on the 4G version to upgrade).
My pingtest.net result for my server is 29ms with 3 or 4ms of jitter. The 1and1 servers are located in Lenexa, KS, very close (or close enough) for my purposes, you could obviously research and find closer to Chicago if you needed.
With windows 7, I now have uninterrupted access to a computer that's running my strategies continuously. Thus if I need to run an errand or do something in the middle of a trade, I now have an option of simply monitoring from my phone instead of exiting the position.
The following 3 users say Thank You to RM99 for this post:
Thanks for your reply.
I thought that would be the case between dedicated Server and VPS though I opted for VPS due to costs. I'm currently trying to determine if the problem lies from the latency between my computer and the server Currently getting a Request timed out. message while trying to perform ping test to my computer from server.
There is NO reason not to use a VPS from a technical point of view. There are SOME disadvantages, like for example the clock in the VPS not being stable (falling behind quite fast) and the time slices obviously not being "stable" either, but both are not relevant in soft real time scenarios unless you do low level work. It is definitely good enough for trading unless you go HFT and / or work on a low level driver area.
The unstable closk is the reason I recently put my own data collector off onto a spare compputer I had here (happens I have quite some).
Wspecially when two VPS talk to each other, some operaitons may get timing critical But these are edge cases.
THAT SAID: a VPS is great to reduce investments, but one must make sure that they are not overloaded. Especially the disc subsystem is critical one here. To give you an idea.. my main server for virutalizatin right now has 64gb memory, 8 cores (2x4 opteron). The main disc area (there are some others for databases that are dedicated) are now 8 x 300gb velociraptor in a RAID 10 configuratoin - and I have problems that the dis subsystem often overloads, though NORMALLY it happens during multipel parallel compiles and / or patch day One reason may be that although I run a quite decent controller there - NTFS is not ZFS sadly. VPS servers really are bad for discs. Basically it is all random IO, nothing in sequence. Even if one server reads a file in seuqnce, the disc IO is split between many virtual servers.
The next area critical is memory speed Basically virtualization destrys CPU cache coherency so level 2 / 3 caches get constantly reloaded.
That said, the main reason, and that was said, why a VPS is bad for trading - portentially are:
* NO GPU support. A vm basically renders in software, which means that some chart operations just take longer. This should thogh, ONLY show up as higher CPU unlesss the CPU overloads.
* Price Normally hosting of any kind is a brutal as cheap as possible business. This leads to crappy subsystems where people don't see it (dsics) and in generally putting as much as possibly onto a server. Sadly, discs, but also CPU / memory will get sqeezed as much as possible. Sadly trading is QUITE time sensitive - more than web servers - so.... a cheap VPS just will not cut it. Not saying anyone here is buying too cheap, just be aware of it.
Another tricky area, btw., is network Not the network per se, but the cards. Unless the server is a really higher quality one (and quite new), the network cards do not support VMQ. VMQ is a mechanism by which the network card is distributing the incoming packets into the input queues of the virtual machines - with hardware support. I just upgraded my main server with a quad port intel card (tons of bandwidth, but I need it for some server / server operations) and the CPU usage on the host significantly declined. Otherwise there is a LOT of MAC address to VM copy operations going on which eat up precious CPU The negative side? A little more than 400 USD for the card As a ide note - if one does server / server traffic (not trading) then jumbo rrames also help. Transmitting 5-7 times the data in one ethernet packet cuts down the packet processing when doing file transfers or backups
And now the really negative side: UNLESS one has access to the statistics of the host (i.e. the physical machine) it is totally useles to even figure out whether slowness is due to "the vps", the software or simply the host being overloaded
Sadly I can not offer sensibly to put anyone of you onto my cluster I am europe based, which means 120ms delay. it is good enough for me, but may not be for some of you. And I dont want to put a server to the US where I Can not go and check the hardware.
The following 4 users say Thank You to NetTecture for this post:
@bharding22, did you take a look at my VPS project (details here) ?
Three VPS users are from Australia (and are of course futures.io (formerly BMT) members) , and seems to be happy with it.
I will have some free slots in a week or two, I'll send you a PM, if you want to try that.
Like @NetTecture says it, it's very hard to know if a VPS will be fast enough or not, unless you have access to the statistics of the physical hosts.
Usually in trading, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know. (Al Brooks)
success requires no deodorant! (Sun Tzu)
To add, I didn't just stumble into my setup, I researched on TS forum with guys that actually have been auto trading and the guys that are trying to push the limit with respect to "hands free" trading.
There are also issues with software licensing for some of the providers and you have to check that they have an agreement already in place for the software you wish to install....obviously that becomes an issue when trying to install trading software that's obscure or most server consumers aren't using.
I chose 1and1 (dedicated) because a couple of other guys were using that setup for a very long time with little to no issues.
Even while trading 1 contract of CL, the potential loss (in terms of $$$) with respect to one foul up is significantly more than the savings of going VPS vs. dedicated. It's simple risk management. If the outcome is "unlikely" but the result is catastrophic, the risk is still high. I'd rather pay an extra $30/month to have a significant reduction in frequency.
The gentlemen who shared their experiences with me had numerous issues with VPS and only one or 2 issues with dedicated over a 2 year span. THAT was good enough for me to choose dedicated.
The following user says Thank You to RM99 for this post:
Yes, because they pay "wrong". Without hardware control (noone gives you) wont work.
I really love VPS. I have quite exactly 20 processor cores now with hypervisors, total of 96gb RAM I use them for pretty much every server I have, lathough every physical host also serves as file server + domain controller I use them as trading workstations. But i am VERY carefull not to overload the servers running desktops. Once they will show signs of problems.... or come close... a new one is purchased. Right now I am waiting for the new AMD processors and then I possibly add another 16 cores or so and another 64 gb RAM
But you dont have this luxury with most VPS hosts. A VPS would work really nice for trading with very little oversell (1.25 maybe as factor) and allocating fixed RAM. But it will NOT work with "regular hosting" which is not optimized for interactive applications
The following 2 users say Thank You to NetTecture for this post: