The bridge script or the Zorro script? Zorro 1.42 is running Z3, Z7 and Z12 each with a separate instance of MT4 limited to the assets those systems trade connected with bridge 1.8 (or 1.9 when I want to roast a CPU core or two).

The CPU usage may be affected by the fact that these are running on Linux through WINE and rendering to a framebuffer so I wouldn't be too concerned about the absolute value. I'm more worried about the relative impact of bridge 1.9 (2x usage).

If it's just the Z systems, then the relative impact of 1.9 does not explain the CPU load. None of the Z systems consumes any noticeable CPU resources with 1.9. So the CPU load is generated elsewhere. Can you test it on a normal Windows PC or have you only Linux?

Another test that you could do: close all sessions and remove the EA from the chart, then replace Libraries\ZorroMT4.ex4 with the previous ZorroMT4.ex4 from version 1.8. This is the only file that uses a little more CPU resources than before due to a faster reaction on commands. Leave the other files unchanged. The EA will then report bridge version 1.8, but it's in fact 1.9. Please let me know if this has an effect on that 100% CPU load.

Only have Linux at the moment I'm afraid.



I tried this on Z7 and no, it has the same effect as entirely 1.9. 100% CPU usage.

Here's a pair of screenshots of my server load with a 1.9 instance (top) and without (bottom): https://imgur.com/a/0NZOi

The good news is I got no bad ticks running my original script and the test script the last few hours.

The bad news is that I am also seeing significantly higher CPU usage. Running two instances of Zorro (test script and a fairly basic portfolio script) shows up as 196,000K private working set memory in windows task manager.

Ok, we got a Linux system and can now confirm the CPU Load problem. We also know the reason. We'll upload a new version 1.9 later today. I'm afraid that won't help with a memory issue, though, but maybe this was also a CPU load issue.

Great news. Thanks jcl.

Here's the next attempt:

http://server.conitec.net/down/ZorroMT4.zip

Again, please install the DLL also in the Plugin folder. There are two changes. The high CPU Load was due to a too-high event timer rate dependent on the OS configuration. This should not happen anymore with this version. The other modification was enforcing an asset subscription when it is not available at first. This could solve the issue of unavailable assets at start. Since this problem didn't happen here with any broker, it's a "blind fix".

Please test and let me know how this version works. Don't forget to remove the old EA before putting the new one on the chart.

New one works great, thanks! Was the issue the different clock resolutions on Linux/Windows? Interesting that WINE didn't deal with that itself.

I have also just started testing this one. Working great so far. CPU usage looks a lot more reasonable too.

The error loading prices that I was experiencing with the last version has disappeared too.

I will run this throughout the Asian trading session today and report back once Europe has started up.

Thanks jcl for getting this update out so quickly.

I can report what I believe is success with the bridge. The test script provided by Zorro support returns the exact results I would expect. However, I am still encountering some inexplicable behavior with my original script (support assured me that the script itself is fine), but I am wondering if this may be an issue unrelated to the bridge.

The script relies on the HH() and LL() functions to calculate some of its indicator values. The indicators in questions are the Ichimoku indicators (don't judge me...this is something that I was asked to code by someone else). At start-up, there are a number of instances that return 0 for the Ichimoku indicators sometimes for some pairs in the asset loop. I have verified in the log file that the returned value is sometimes 0 - so its not merely a plotting error.

Here's an example of an obviously incorrect calculation of the values, and one that behaves as it should:


In the image above, the price curve is barely visible around the 85 level. The orange lines represent the Senku values from the Ichimoku indicator - clearly they have reacted to a price level of 0. Come to think of it, the blue line is an EMA, and it has also clearly been affected by a zero value - so its not restricted to just the Ichimoku indicator.

This one looks as it should and there are no zeros in the log file:


I will next run the script via both the MT4 bridge and the FXCM plugin (demo account only) and compare the results.

jcl (or anyone else), I'm wondering if this points to a problem with this particular indicator and the way it handles price quotes in real time, possibly being affected by the asset(loop() call in the script (I have noticed that results are a lot more stable when using only a single asset). This issue never appeared in any backtest, and I ran loads of them.

Sorry to keep prolonging this issue, but I would really like to get to the bottom of this one.