| Pages:
1
..
7
8
9
10
11
..
19 |
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by boosted  | | Quote: Originally posted by emsjoflo | | Quote: Originally posted by boosted | I am not sure if the bug I mentioned about before has been fixed or not in 47.10 but its either back
or still awaiting a fix in a new update.
The issue is as follows:
I am in a Standalone and sorting NP-F column and I have it sorted from neg. to positive. I started clicking on
some of the negative rows and they turn more negative and the positives that I click on turn to negative.
BUT, if you scroll down at least halfway down column and start clicking on positive NP-F numbers they stay same
as they should.
Like I said, not sure this got fixed or if the problem has now been inverted from what it was when I originally found it.
Anyways, just was sitting here and clicked in a few and noticed it. |
boosted, I noticed that the problem seems to be much worse when I run several instances of GSB standalone on the same machine at the same time. And
then if I change parameters and do another batch with different settings it gets worse. I have been in the middle of a WFA when the graph changed.
It seems almost like GSB is overwriting systems with similar serial numbers.
It was getting so bad that I quit running simultaneous standalone GSB on the same machine. and if it starts getting irritating, I will restart GSB
every time I want to run a new batch of systems. |
emsjoflo
Interesting to see someone else have same issue as I had. Good to know (I think...lol) I wasn't the only one seeing this issue crop up.
I haven't tried the newest GSB release yet but hoping its resolved. I am hoping any and all bugs are fixed soon before more time and effort is spent
improving GSB. I think GSB has made more than enough progress at this point since its inception and happy to see Peter continue its evolution. Like
I said it would be nice to slow the progress train down for a bit until any and all bugs are worked out, then resume GSB progress. Peter is doing
great work with GSB which we can all appreciate. |
47.10 was a fairly buggy build. (sorry) It was rushed as all builds were expiring at the end of the month. Each build since has bugs fixed, but I
hadnt noticed the mentioned bug, so need feedback if its in .40 build. When we start on additional secondary filters and exits, there will be no
significant builds of GSB for some time. (SF and exits is a big job) We still need WF of multi market / bar intervals before we start additional SF
|
|
|
moveo
Josef
Posts: 20
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is not possible to create custom indicators.
The indicatorfile is written to:
C:\GSB\GSB (Managers)\Indicators Data\ES.30.Minute.830.1500.CentralUSATime\MACD....gsbcustindic.txt
But when I click on Tools, Custom Indicators, Load Exported Files, no Indicator loads.
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by moveo | It is not possible to create custom indicators.
The indicatorfile is written to:
C:\GSB\GSB (Managers)\Indicators Data\ES.30.Minute.830.1500.CentralUSATime\MACD....gsbcustindic.txt
But when I click on Tools, Custom Indicators, Load Exported Files, no Indicator loads. |
Do a support upload under help, inc screen shot and the custom indicator file.
What version are you on of GSB?
|
|
|
alvestjo
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Registered: 13-1-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think I have found a bug in 1.0.47.49:
It is not possible to export a Portfolio Analyst file for the WF data. It works with the "traning results" but not "WF OOS" or "WF Current". There is
not error message or anything but the file is not created.
//Jonas
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by alvestjo | I think I have found a bug in 1.0.47.49:
It is not possible to export a Portfolio Analyst file for the WF data. It works with the "traning results" but not "WF OOS" or "WF Current". There is
not error message or anything but the file is not created.
//Jonas |
Thanks for picking that up. Its an issue in 48.07 too. Will get fixed before too long
|
|
|
cyrus68
Member
Posts: 171
Registered: 5-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There are 3 issues that I would like to report. I am using build 47.49.
First, the calculation of the number of data-streams that pass verification is mostly correct, but sometimes wrong. For example, it will report 1/3,
when it should be 2/3.
Second, while testing NQ, it failed to copy all text files to the Worker folder on C (2 out of 16). I had to copy them manually. GSB helpfully issued
an exception notification.
Third, it appears to me that the calculation of the average % deterioration is erroneous. This is so, under the assumption that the calculation is a
simple average of the various metrics. I did this calculation several times and, in each case, there was an error. It could be that a weighted average
is being used.
 
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by cyrus68 | There are 3 issues that I would like to report. I am using build 47.49.
First, the calculation of the number of data-streams that pass verification is mostly correct, but sometimes wrong. For example, it will report 1/3,
when it should be 2/3.
Second, while testing NQ, it failed to copy all text files to the Worker folder on C (2 out of 16). I had to copy them manually. GSB helpfully issued
an exception notification.
Third, it appears to me that the calculation of the average % deterioration is erroneous. This is so, under the assumption that the calculation is a
simple average of the various metrics. I did this calculation several times and, in each case, there was an error. It could be that a weighted average
is being used.
|
You should be on 48.16
1) Let me look via teamviewer or send support tick with screen shot of a system that is not correct.
2) The exception is likely file not found. Took us a long time to fix. Caused by identical file contents, different file name. Fixed in 48.16
3) This is not the formula used. Think its explained exactly in market validation video 2.
From memory its ave(fitnessA/FitnessB,NpA/NpB,AtA/AtV,Pfa/PfB
|
|
|
cyrus68
Member
Posts: 171
Registered: 5-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes indeed. File names are unique but contents may be similar. I just downloaded build 48.16.
I will send you an example of the verification error, next time I run GSB.
I will check the aforementioned video. The last line in my calculations in Excel show the % deterioration of each metric (B/A). For example, for
Fitness, there is a 23.4% deterioration, and for NP, it is 13.5%. Then, a simple average is calculated for all the metrics. The number of trades is
excluded for obvious reasons. The result is 11.3%, which differs from 15% calculated by GSB.
|
|
|
cyrus68
Member
Posts: 171
Registered: 5-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There appear to be significant problems with the SQL server. The Manager failed to aggregate systems, for ten minutes at a time. Then, suddenly, it
would start to update systems produced by the workers. The net result is a waste of time and resources. If I want 3000 systems, I end up with 5000.
This isn’t the first time there have been problems with the SQL server. If it is frequently overloaded or suffers from other defects, the issue has to
be resolved. A simpler solution is to have managers and workers communicate on a LAN. I suspect that the vast majority of users don’t use cloud
workers or run GSB on remote computers.
Another issue is that pausing workers is no longer possible. They restart automatically after ten seconds.
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by cyrus68 | There appear to be significant problems with the SQL server. The Manager failed to aggregate systems, for ten minutes at a time. Then, suddenly, it
would start to update systems produced by the workers. The net result is a waste of time and resources. If I want 3000 systems, I end up with 5000.
This isn’t the first time there have been problems with the SQL server. If it is frequently overloaded or suffers from other defects, the issue has to
be resolved. A simpler solution is to have managers and workers communicate on a LAN. I suspect that the vast majority of users don’t use cloud
workers or run GSB on remote computers.
Another issue is that pausing workers is no longer possible. They restart automatically after ten seconds.
|
Do you mean no systems came until 10 minutes after the manager was started? How many minutes until the workers started?
If you want only 3000 systems, set the max unique systems to 3000 (under workplace left menu) and grace period to zero (under app settings ) and you
will get 3000 systems.
I have the stats in sql data base, and the stats show the bulk of GSB users have there computers in data centers, not on lans. We will never go back
to lan as it means we have sql and lan versions, and lan on anything but a local/nas drive is unreliable. ie dropbox / google drive dont cope.
You may have issues, but I have had zero. And i have been WF up to 180 systems at a time and running 90 workers the last week. (duie to the generosity
of lots of GSB users) Today the SQL server load is near zero, so I doubt issues are in the sql server.
If you put GSB in admin mode, there are more stats I can work with to isolate your issue.
see this post.
https://trademaid.info/forum/viewthread.php?tid=92
You can then send a screen shot of the metrics
Shown here is 20118 systems, but workers produced 20588 systems. Why 400 systems were dropped is grace period was 30 seconds, so systems after 30
seconds were discarded. (There were about 90 workers on this run, and some of the workers are old slow machines)
22409-20588 were duplicate systems
Will look forward to this issue being resolved for you.
|
|
|
cyrus68
Member
Posts: 171
Registered: 5-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What I said is that the Manager would suddenly stop aggregating systems. In other words, the number of unique systems would remain constant. Ten
minutes later, it would restart aggregating systems. In the meantime, thousands of systems had been produced by the workers. This happened repeatedly
while I was running GSB on Saturday morning.
For example, the manager would stop aggregating at 2800. Ten minutes later, it would restart and add the 2000 in the queue. All I wanted was steady
completion of the 3000, entered in the settings, so I could get on with testing another strategy, rather than waste time. If this wasn't an SQL server
issue, then what was it?
Normally, I hope to be able to run GSB at my convenience, rather than when the SQL server is running smoothly. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a brighter
day.
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by cyrus68 | What I said is that the Manager would suddenly stop aggregating systems. In other words, the number of unique systems would remain constant. Ten
minutes later, it would restart aggregating systems. In the meantime, thousands of systems had been produced by the workers. This happened repeatedly
while I was running GSB on Saturday morning.
For example, the manager would stop aggregating at 2800. Ten minutes later, it would restart and add the 2000 in the queue. All I wanted was steady
completion of the 3000, entered in the settings, so I could get on with testing another strategy, rather than waste time. If this wasn't an SQL server
issue, then what was it?
Normally, I hope to be able to run GSB at my convenience, rather than when the SQL server is running smoothly. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a brighter
day. |
I will look into this. If you can get a screen shot of the 3 news stats from admin mode, would be helpful.
|
|
|
JasonT
Junior Member
Posts: 61
Registered: 6-6-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Offline Usage
Hi Peter, this is not a bug per se but more of a feature request.
When travelling and without access to an internet connection, when you attempt to load GSB, it can't complete its licence check, provides an error pop
up and won't open. It seems you need an internet connection load GSB even if you don't need it to then operate and produce systems. This limits
users' ability to continue to use GSB in those circumstances - which is a shame.
Can you please consider a method to enable offline usage, even if its for a limited time?
If an method or work around currently exists, can you please advise how as I will be in need of this capability over the coming month. An email or PM
is fine if it is not appropriate to post it on the forum.
Many thanks,
Jason.
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JasonT | Hi Peter, this is not a bug per se but more of a feature request.
When travelling and without access to an internet connection, when you attempt to load GSB, it can't complete its licence check, provides an error pop
up and won't open. It seems you need an internet connection load GSB even if you don't need it to then operate and produce systems. This limits
users' ability to continue to use GSB in those circumstances - which is a shame.
Can you please consider a method to enable offline usage, even if its for a limited time?
If an method or work around currently exists, can you please advise how as I will be in need of this capability over the coming month. An email or PM
is fine if it is not appropriate to post it on the forum.
Many thanks,
Jason.
|
If you leave gsb open on your laptop, and put the laptop to sleep when done with it, this might fix or greatly reduce the problem. Many users might be
envious of your problem, traveling around the world on holiday & playing with GSB. Hope you both have a great & very special holiday.
|
|
|
Bruce
Member
Posts: 115
Registered: 22-7-2018
Location: Auckland - New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi Peter,
Running new simulations with Training/Test/Validation, 40/40/20 respectively. However, I'm not getting any validation results, either on the graph or
the table below. What could be preventing that from being calculated? Thx.
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by TradingRails |
Hi Peter,
Running new simulations with Training/Test/Validation, 40/40/20 respectively. However, I'm not getting any validation results, either on the graph or
the table below. What could be preventing that from being calculated? Thx. |
check fitness on the midle right optimzition field. If its blank then the probelm is drastic. No systems being produced. Go to a worker an right click
the top diag field, then look what systems metrics are being produces. You filters might be too tight.
If stuck we can do team viewer.
You could have filter for 100 trades, and your not getting 100 trades in the 40% (esp if nth is not set to all)
|
|
|
Bruce
Member
Posts: 115
Registered: 22-7-2018
Location: Auckland - New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Exception Errors
I appear to be getting a number of these alerts regularly, any idea what to do to address the exception?
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
version 49.07 and before use massive ram for nth tests. fixed in 08.
the error is when I had to reboot the server after it crashed. Ran out of ram.
It wont happen again as I have no more 49.07 running.
Ignore the error as all systems that fail to upload get send as soon as GSB is online
|
|
|
Petzy
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Registered: 24-10-2017
Location: Sweden
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Two graph empty in PA 20180913.1
In the report "Drawdown Graph" in Portfolio Analyst I get two graphs that are empty.
"Contribution ofEachSystemtoMaxDrawdowns" and "Contribution ofEachSystemtoAverage5WorstDrawdowns"
Attachment: Login to view the details
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Petzy | In the report "Drawdown Graph" in Portfolio Analyst I get two graphs that are empty.
"Contribution ofEachSystemtoMaxDrawdowns" and "Contribution ofEachSystemtoAverage5WorstDrawdowns"
|
send me the files I dont have and I will look into it. make sure they are zipped up else in dropbox etc
Make sure you also copied ALL files from this build of PA, not just the exe file
|
|
|
Petzy
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Registered: 24-10-2017
Location: Sweden
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I sent it via onedrive... thanks
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Petzy | In the report "Drawdown Graph" in Portfolio Analyst I get two graphs that are empty.
"Contribution ofEachSystemtoMaxDrawdowns" and "Contribution ofEachSystemtoAverage5WorstDrawdowns"
|
The reason is the file name is too long. Fixed in build 20180919.1 (not released yet)
For now use shorter file name
|
|
|
boothy
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Registered: 21-5-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi Peter,
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but why is it that often the best fitness listed on the right hand GUI is much higher than what is in the unique
systems?
|
|
|
admin
Super Administrator
Posts: 5060
Registered: 7-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by boothy | Hi Peter,
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but why is it that often the best fitness listed on the right hand GUI is much higher than what is in the unique
systems?
|
Best show an example where they dont match. Im rusty on on now, but sometimes the GUI in places can show the average of the 29,30,31 min bars which
can lead to confusion as its not the same when you are looking at just the 30.
Has gold changed, in that last I looked everything was flat for the last year. The volatility was very low.
|
|
|
boothy
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Registered: 21-5-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by admin | | Quote: Originally posted by boothy | Hi Peter,
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but why is it that often the best fitness listed on the right hand GUI is much higher than what is in the unique
systems?
|
Best show an example where they dont match. Im rusty on on now, but sometimes the GUI in places can show the average of the 29,30,31 min bars which
can lead to confusion as its not the same when you are looking at just the 30.
Has gold changed, in that last I looked everything was flat for the last year. The volatility was very low. |
I have done another test. Just a simple test with 2 workers, ES.30 data1 and SPX.30 data2. No multiple time frames.
you will notice that the best fitneess in the centre GUI of manager is 17,006,804 but the best on the RH GUI is 21,533,203.
you will also notice if you add both worker unique systems = 3882 but on the manager says 3880. I have grace period set to 0.
Also attached is screen shot of the worker with fitness 21,533,203 and 1487 systems on RH GUI but only fitness 16,430,250 with 1487 systems in
centre GUI.
Thanks.
 
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
7
8
9
10
11
..
19 |
![[*]](images/davis/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
