My next motherboard

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by nitro, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. Now I know I cannot improve further my LAN connection and my hardware configuration is already good, at least without spending a small fortune for a direct T1 direct line.

    Thanks to all for your replies.
     
    #161     Sep 15, 2004
  2. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    so what? you're already stated this isn't a run-unattended system, the latency from colo to broker is irrelevant. what matters is the latency from your finger on the Panic button to your colo. and that would be far faster without the slow windows networking "stack".
     
    #162     Sep 15, 2004
  3. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    you sure about that? XP system clock has a 10ms tick size...
     
    #163     Sep 15, 2004
  4. nitro

    nitro

    I cannot explain it any more clearly than I have. There are a million things you can do speed up a program, but ping times are only half my need. I know of people that have even written their own drivers for a network card so they could put orders on the wire as fast as possible.

    I don't need a "panic button" whatever that is. My systems run by themselves, there is no human intervention. I just monitor them for data problems etc. For the one system that is a human/computer synergy where it presents opportunities, there would be something to be gained from running a faster TCP/IP stack, but I have already explained why I cannot use anything other than windows. Do a search on nitro and TCP and stack and you will see that I was talking about this stuff two years ago.

    I think you must be talking about one thing and I am another and I don't have the patience to figure out what you are talking about since I know what I do is 100% essential.

    nitro
     
    #164     Sep 16, 2004
  5. nitro

    nitro

    Yes I am sure.

    nitro
     
    #165     Sep 16, 2004
  6. JackR

    JackR

    I'm not a software systems guy but 10ms seems awfully long. 10ms is 10 milliseconds (.001 seconds). Today's PCs are clocked in the gigahertz range so the cycle time would be the reciprocal of a gigahertz or 1/1,000,000,000 or .000000001 seconds. Perhaps the rate Damir is referring to is 10 microseconds.
    Seems slow compared to the clock rate but as I said I'm not a software systems type.
     
    #166     Sep 16, 2004
  7. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    no, it's 10 milliseconds. it's not a hardware limitation, it's a Windows limitation - linux running on the same platform has a 1ms system time slice. one of the reasons Suns are still around is they provide a secondary clock to the system that allows slicing in the microseconds.

    the 1ms measured claim for an XP hooked up at colo is bogus, and even if it were true it would be meaningless because the system itself cannot run with that kind of resolution.
     
    #167     Sep 16, 2004
  8. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    sorry, forgot, this setup doesn't actually do trades, it only collects data. for that, i agree, the panic button is not nearly as important.
     
    #168     Sep 16, 2004
  9. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    going through a retail broker it simply doesn't matter whether or not an order gets "on the wire" 1/100 of a second faster. before that order goes out the other side of the broker's system, it has to be verified for margin, etc. yes, it happens automatically and fast, but it doesn't happen at anything resembling line rates.

    this entire line of enterprise is a dead end unless there are no intermediaries between the box and the market. it doesn't matter how fast and quick a retail hookup is, if you can see the data, it's already stale.
     
    #169     Sep 16, 2004
  10. Sorry, what do you mean exactly for >> it doesn't matter how fast and quick a retail hookup is, if you can see the data, it's already stale.
    >>

    Thanks.
     
    #170     Sep 17, 2004