| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Beso <givemesugarr@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> 2010/1/27 Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:25 AM, The Doctor <drwho@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 7 |
>> > Hash: SHA1 |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> >> The last time I looked at this (maybe a year ago?) I decided that the |
| 12 |
>> >> vmware-workstation would let a home user run something like two |
| 13 |
>> >> instances without charges. Not free in that I'm limited to something |
| 14 |
>> >> specific but no cost. (Is that free beer? It certainly doesn't sound |
| 15 |
>> >> like Free Speech...) |
| 16 |
>> > |
| 17 |
>> > There is also a 60-day time limit on the un-paid-for version of VMware |
| 18 |
>> > Workstation, as I recall. |
| 19 |
>> > |
| 20 |
>> > - -- |
| 21 |
>> > |
| 22 |
>> > The Doctor [412/724/301/703] |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> I got VirtualBox up and running with XP but nothing much more |
| 25 |
>> yesterday as I ran into XP licensing issues again with M$ and sort of |
| 26 |
>> backed off. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> I haven't figured out what's up with vmware-player networking yet. I |
| 29 |
>> can get to the web in a browser just fine, do updates through M$ |
| 30 |
>> Update, do GMail. It looks perfect. However WinSCP running in |
| 31 |
>> vmware-player isn't yet finding other machines on my network. IIRC |
| 32 |
>> there were different models of networking you could set up. I have to |
| 33 |
>> go back and relearn that stuff but it's not critical to me until I |
| 34 |
>> determine if the new machine is really fast enough to run TradeStation |
| 35 |
>> and, very importantly, if the networking is stable enough and |
| 36 |
>> transparent enough to allow me to connect to their network for real |
| 37 |
>> futures trading. That will force me to dig in if it isn't OK right |
| 38 |
>> now. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> are you sure that it isn't your routing tables that aren't ok? try |
| 41 |
> tracerouting the ip you're trying to access and see if you can reach it. |
| 42 |
> if you cannot you'd have to add the correct routing entries in windows |
| 43 |
> routing tables. |
| 44 |
> -- |
| 45 |
> dott. ing. beso |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
Actually I was pretty sure it _was_ routing. I just hadn't had time to |
| 48 |
look into it at that point. At this point I have. It seems the copied |
| 49 |
image decided to go with DHCP (or I had it that way and forgot) so I |
| 50 |
was pointing at the wrong IP address. It all works fine now. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Ah, the power of Gentoo on multiprocessor systems. There is a standard |
| 53 |
benchmark everyone runs on TradeStation just to gauge the relative |
| 54 |
speeds of their systems. The fastest reported so far has been about 3 |
| 55 |
1/2 minutes running on a very expensive i7-9_something. (IIRC he paid |
| 56 |
maybe $1K for the processor and MB, then $300 for a new copy of Win7 |
| 57 |
Professional.) This new machine of mine with the new Core i5-661 and |
| 58 |
standard memory speeds (I have gaming memory but haven't speed up to |
| 59 |
those gaming speeds yet) ran about 4 minutes 18 seconds using XP |
| 60 |
native. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
This morning, using Gentoo AMD64 and VMWare Player running a Win XP |
| 63 |
image the same TradeStation benchmark ran 4 minutes 20 seconds. |
| 64 |
Essentially identical. And with proof that VMWare limited itself to 1 |
| 65 |
processor I suspect I can run 4 copies in parallel and except for the |
| 66 |
memory and disk access parts of it essentially cut the speed by a |
| 67 |
factor of 4. (Oh yeah - I'll probably want better cooling...) Of |
| 68 |
course I'll need to prove this but the future looks bright! |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Not sure if the list allows attachments but I did a screen capture of |
| 71 |
top showing processor usage as the optimization benchmark was running. |
| 72 |
1 processor pegged, everything else idle. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Cheers, |
| 75 |
Mark |
Archives