Why does everyone keep talking about GPUs? I thought this was a hard drive capacity-"mined" coin?  correct - the mining process is scraping over your plot files. The amount of storage devoted for plot files is equal to your chances of finding a block. It also defines the amount of CPU power you need to scrape, because you need to read 1/4096 of your plotted volume. In most cases this is not important and can easily run on a single core, in the background, not hurting other processes running. The actual "plotting" involves a CPU-intensive process and may take a day for a Terabyte. The i7-3930K I used for plotting yielded 2 TB/day. Lots of people buy a couple 4TB disks and don't want to wait 2 weeks to plot them, hence the development of a gnu-plotter. Its the same problem. I am buying 1000 TB and it will take weeks to plot. Having only CPU i will not think of getting 1000 TB. GPU only make people scale up and everything end up the same but people have to spend more money. 1000 tb are you serious? That is only 250 4TB drives. Ok 275 4 TB Drives after microdick finishes messing with them. Yes i know but time to plot them risk to take a while, unless plotting on multiple computer |
|
|
|
Why does everyone keep talking about GPUs? I thought this was a hard drive capacity-"mined" coin? correct - the mining process is scraping over your plot files. The amount of storage devoted for plot files is equal to your chances of finding a block. It also defines the amount of CPU power you need to scrape, because you need to read 1/4096 of your plotted volume. In most cases this is not important and can easily run on a single core, in the background, not hurting other processes running. The actual "plotting" involves a CPU-intensive process and may take a day for a Terabyte. The i7-3930K I used for plotting yielded 2 TB/day. Lots of people buy a couple 4TB disks and don't want to wait 2 weeks to plot them, hence the development of a gnu-plotter. Its the same problem. I am buying 1000 TB and it will take weeks to plot. Having only CPU i will not think of getting 1000 TB. GPU only make people scale up and everything end up the same but people have to spend more money. 1000 tb are you serious? |
|
|
|
X:\burst2\burst-pool-miner>gpuPlotGenerator.exe 10364770829529893068 0 10000 16
GPU plot generator v1.0.0
Author: Cryo
Bitcoin: 138gMBhCrNkbaiTCmUhP9HLU9xwn5QKZgD
Burst: BURST-YA29-QCEW-QXC3-BKXDL
--------------
Creating plots for nonces 0 to 10000 (2 GB) using 4 MB memory
Retrieving OpenCL platform
Retrieving OpenCL GPU device
Creating OpenCL context
Creating OpenCL command queue
Creating CPU buffer
Creating OpenCL GPU buffer
Creating OpenCL program
Building OpenCL program
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 71: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 4] << 32) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 72: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 5] << 40) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 73: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 6] << 48) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 74: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 7] << 56);
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 90: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset] << 56) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 91: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 1] << 48) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 92: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 2] << 40) |
^
"C:\Users\hoop\AppData\Local\Temp\OCL2292.tmp.cl", line 93: warning: shift
count is too large
(p_buffer[p_offset + 3] << 32) |
^
Error:E013:Insufficient Private Resources!
An error occured in the generation process, aborting...
>>> Unable to build the OpenCL program
windows 7 64bit radeon 280x driver 13.9
gpuPlotGenerator only work 32 bit system ?
I am on 64-bit - doesn't work there either. Man oh man. It probably has something to do with the 290x having 4GB of VRAM vs 3GB or 2GB on all other models. Only real difference apart from shader count. ok its working now  just download update version Great, 14.7? |
|
|
|
hey guys i have tried to make a bat to run the gpu plotting (i have R9 290x) i downloaded the gpu plotter but when i run the bat i get not a valid win32 application. any ideas?
Can you send what you're bat contain |
|
|
|
|
Ok so,
Not working on my 280x too, just stop without error noticed
Try with other 7850 and 7870, and say not gpu found, try with cpu
|
|
|
|
So, because some blame me here is my full config Windows 8.1 64 core I5 16gb ram ATI 14.6 3 R9 290X in the computer (not oc) Config that works : gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 256 9400 nonces minutes gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 128 14500 nonces minutes gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 64 14500 Nonces minutes nobody is blaming you.. you have confirmed it working for 290x multiple times and thats great.. now we(me) are working on 280x.. all I am asking is dont reply to questions regarding 280x when you have a 290x card because they are not the same and its not helping at all. I feel like we can let this go now? Im interested in hearing if there are any other gpus working or is 290x the only card capable of gpu plotting? Ok no pb, i' have an other computer with some 280x i'm going to try |
|
|
|
This command : gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
doesn't work on my windows 8 64 bit , and the prompt give me this usage : Usage: ./gpuPlotGenerator <path> <address> <start nonce> <nonces number> <stagge
r size> <threads>
Can you help me , please ? Do you replace the myaccount in the command line by you real id? |
|
|
|
So, because some blame me here is my full config for this computer Windows 8.1 64 core I5 16gb ram ATI 14.6 3 R9 290X in the computer (not oc) Config that works : gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 256 9400 nonces minutes gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 128 14500 nonces minutes gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccountid 68847637 18500000 4096 64 14500 Nonces minutes |
|
|
|
Ok there is tested config for 280x: gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
I'm getting arround 15k per minute. Great job. Thank you. You put 64 instead of 256? I'll try 64 to see if i got more too Replaced the openCL dll for the error - now Everytime - 'Display driver has stopped responding'. All at stock settings - no OC. FUCK man this is bullshit. I don't understand how a 280X works, but a 7970 and 7990 don't work. They are virtually the same core, minus a couple of minor differences. Totally agree - Its the fucking AMD drivers I bet - Constant problems, one thing fixed, something else unknown gets broken. What version of Catalyst is everyone using who has to WORKING 100%? 14.6 yea but you have a 290x no? better to write that since we are talking about 280X... and they are NOT the same.. If someone with 280x want to try to downgrade to 13.xx that might be a temporarily fix. Hey guy, you are not alone, so calm down, if you're not happy, try to resolve the problem yourself Better yet, everyone should help each other to resolve this issue. I'm semi-confused why this wouldn't work on 7970, since the 280x just has a couple little more features and better ram structure. But they are still the same process and mostly the same main core technologies. Do you try with other threads value, and other stagger size? |
|
|
|
Ok there is tested config for 280x: gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
I'm getting arround 15k per minute. Great job. Thank you. You put 64 instead of 256? I'll try 64 to see if i got more too Replaced the openCL dll for the error - now Everytime - 'Display driver has stopped responding'. All at stock settings - no OC. FUCK man this is bullshit. I don't understand how a 280X works, but a 7970 and 7990 don't work. They are virtually the same core, minus a couple of minor differences. Totally agree - Its the fucking AMD drivers I bet - Constant problems, one thing fixed, something else unknown gets broken. What version of Catalyst is everyone using who has to WORKING 100%? 14.6 yea but you have a 290x no? better to write that since we are talking about 280X... and they are NOT the same.. If someone with 280x want to try to downgrade to 13.xx that might be a temporarily fix. Hey guy, you are not alone, so calm down, if you're not happy, try to resolve the problem yourself Better yet, everyone should help each other to resolve this issue. I'm semi-confused why this wouldn't work on 7970, since the 280x just has a couple little more feature and better ram structure. But there are still the same process and mostly the same main core technologies. I dont know if anyone has got it working on 280x yet.. he has 290x but for some reason he isn't saying that and its confusing a lot of people.. and then he goes whining at me because I correct him sigh Ok guy, if you see my previous post, when i test it i'm saying that i have 290x, if you know that i have one, if only because you see it. This is not my fault if people just read the last post, i want to help, but i'm not here to be the father of some, so if people don't want to take 5 min to learn some post before that's not my problem. |
|
|
|
Ok there is tested config for 280x: gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
I'm getting arround 15k per minute. Great job. Thank you. You put 64 instead of 256? I'll try 64 to see if i got more too Replaced the openCL dll for the error - now Everytime - 'Display driver has stopped responding'. All at stock settings - no OC. FUCK man this is bullshit. I don't understand how a 280X works, but a 7970 and 7990 don't work. They are virtually the same core, minus a couple of minor differences. Totally agree - Its the fucking AMD drivers I bet - Constant problems, one thing fixed, something else unknown gets broken. What version of Catalyst is everyone using who has to WORKING 100%? 14.6 yea but you have a 290x no? better to write that since we are talking about 280X... and they are NOT the same.. If someone with 280x want to try to downgrade to 13.xx that might be a temporarily fix. Hey guy, you are not alone, so calm down, if you're not happy, try to resolve the problem yourself |
|
|
|
Ok there is tested config for 280x: gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
I'm getting arround 15k per minute. Great job. Thank you. You put 64 instead of 256? I'll try 64 to see if i got more too Replaced the openCL dll for the error - now Everytime - 'Display driver has stopped responding'. All at stock settings - no OC. FUCK man this is bullshit. I don't understand how a 280X works, but a 7970 and 7990 don't work. They are virtually the same core, minus a couple of minor differences. Totally agree - Its the fucking AMD drivers I bet - Constant problems, one thing fixed, something else unknown gets broken. What version of Catalyst is everyone using who has to WORKING 100%? 14.6 |
|
|
|
The GPUplotter is not working - using EXACTLY the config you have. Did you install the OpenCL driver from AMD?
juste the base driver |
|
|
|
|
For those who use gpu plotter, seems to working better with Threads = 64 or 128 got nearly 40% more then 256
|
|
|
|
Ok there is tested config for 280x: gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4000 64
I'm getting arround 15k per minute. Great job. Thank you. You put 64 instead of 256? I'll try 64 to see if i got more too |
|
|
|
This is my parameter gpuPlotGenerator.exe plots myaccount 68847637 18500000 4096 256 I run it, it started, but plot isn't generated. Win7 64bit, 280x. If plot file is to 0bites but in the plot folders, that's normal it will grow with the time |
|
|
|
YES. Cross-Fire Card. Tried your setting but not working on mine. Perhaps due to multi-gpu.
You mean you have more than one card on your computer that's right? I have Multi card too (R9 290X) but not in crossfire |
|
|
|
Tried your setting but not working on mine. Perhaps due to multi-gpu.
You mean you have more than one card on your computer that's right? |
|
|
|
What is your full parameter ? Hi everyone, After many hours of setup I finally made it. I have a 1Tb generation in progress and 3x100Gb already finished. I would like to test the V2 pool but I haven't any BURST for now. Could someone send me 1 BURST to test it please ? Here is my address : BURST-YA29-QCEW-QXC3-BKXDL. Regarding the plot generation, I found an OpenCL implementation of Shabal ( https://github.com/aznboy84/X15GPU/blob/master/kernel/shabal.cl) that could be used to make a GPU version of the generator. I will try to work on it when I have some free time. Regards Hi everyone, As promised I have been working on a GPU plot generator on the last few days. I made a little program built on top of OpenCL, and it seems to work pretty well in CPU mode. Unfortunately, I can't test the GPU mode as it requires a very powerfull graphic card (with at least 46kB private memory per compute unit, because the algorithm needs at least 4096*64 static bytes to store an entire plot). Here is a preview you can test for now : gpuPlotGenerator-src-1.0.0.7z : https://mega.co.nz/#!bcF2yKKL!3Ud86GaibgvwBehoxkbO4UNdiBgsaixRx7ksHrgNbDI gpuPlotGenerator-bin-win-x86-1.0.0.7z : https://mega.co.nz/#!HJsziTCK!UmAMoEHQ3z34R4RsXoIkYo9rYd4LnFtO_pw-R4KObJs I will build another release in the end of the day with some minor improvements (threads per compute unit selection, output of OpenCL error codes, improvement of the Makefile to generate the distribution directly). I will also try to figure out another mean to dispatch the work between the GPU threads to reduce the amount of private memory needed by the program. For the windows people, you can use the binary version directly. For the linux people, just download the source archive, make sure to modify the OpenCL library and lib path in the makefile (and maybe the executable name), and build the project via "make". To run the program, you need the "kernel" and the "plots" directories beside the executable. The executable usage is : ./gpuPlotGenerator <address> <start nonce> <nonces> <stagger size> The parameters are the same as the original plot generator, without the threads number. If you find bugs or if you want some new features, let me now. If you want to support me, here are my Bitcoin and Burst addresses : Bitcoin: 138gMBhCrNkbaiTCmUhP9HLU9xwn5QKZgD Burst: BURST-YA29-QCEW-QXC3-BKXDL Regards Unfortunately, I can't test the GPU mode as it requires a very powerfull graphic card (with at least 46kB private memory per compute unit, because the algorithm needs at least 4096*64 static bytes to store an entire plot).
It's nice to see someone else working on this, since I seem to have failed in it. Private memory is actually part of global on AMD cards, so storing it in private isn't any better than just using global for everything; it's local that needs to aimed for for the massive speedup. No AMD cards have more than 64KB local per workgroup, which makes storing it all in local impossible however. I haven't tried your implementation yet, but on my own first attempt, I also used global on everything also, and the result was faster than the java plotter, but slower than dcct's c plotter. My 2nd attempt used a 32KB local buffer I rotated through for storing the currently being hashed stuff, however I couldn't figure out how to get it copied also to global fast enough, and the local -> global copy killed the performance. You might be interested in those kernels here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg8695829#msg8695829Thanks, I will look at your kernels to see if I can find a better solution. Here is the new version. I reduced the amount of memory used from 40KB to about 1KB per unit. The only drawback is that it requires twice the global memory as before. I will search a mean to reduce this overhead later. In CPU mode, it all goes pretty well (when no graphic card is detected). The GPU mode is still kind of buggy on my graphic card (an old GeForce 9300M GS), don't know the exact reason yet. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I will try to fix this issue tomorrow. Here are the files : gpuPlotGenerator-src-1.1.0.7z : https://mega.co.nz/#!iYFWAL5B!BvtmRQ5qGq4gGwjDglFNtDtNIX4LDaUvATBtClBdTlQ gpuPlotGenerator-bin-win-x86-1.1.0.7z : https://mega.co.nz/#!aBVGBBQD!tBsRtb8VrHR12_anrFTrl41U0fPQu_OqFnxyi5nCyBY For the linux users, the Makefile has a new target named "dist" that builds and copy/paste all the necessary files to the "bin" directory. The executable usage is : ./gpuPlotGenerator <path> <address> <start nonce> <nonces> <stagger size> <threads> <path> : the path to the plots directory <threads> : number of parrallel threads for each work group So the usage would be like this: "D:/gpuPlotGenerator <numerical_account_address> 0 819200 4096 <cpu/gpu_threads?>" Is that format correct? Is the thread count need for gpu plotting(Point out in bold)? What's the nonce/minute rate? Hi, This is still a buggy early stage version. I post it here to have feedback from people who owns more powerfull graphic cards (the behaviour may vary from one card to another). But yes, the final usage would be the one you mentioned. The threads parameter is the number of threads used in the local work group. In GPU mode, the value should be a multiple a 64, 256 is the typical value for most of the cards. Ok i made a test with my R9 290 I Put 256 in thread (apparently can't put more) And in 1min15 i generate from nonce 888597 to nonce 900885, So 9830 nonce minute, not bad at all Wow! So it really works on some models after all! Glad to read it. I am still investigating to correct the bug that occurs on the other graphic cards. Thank you for your feedback. I make an other feedback when finish |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
