|
Mining cryptonight at Nicehash requires a modded miner. Mine works, see link in sig.
|
|
|
|
LOOL I didn't know they had a binary up for EQhash lol good one i'll send a donation your ways anyways for the honestly hard to find in this dog eat dog world
also I've been doing some testing with the i7 6800k and with an OC to 3.7 MHz it does around 20h/s on lyra2z , basically double the hash rate of a 6700
I have a feeling I could get more out of it but I tried a higer OC and I didn't see much benift, hash rate acurally went lower /shrug
Thanks. If higher CPU clock didn't help then your mem bandwidth is maxed out. Did you try to OC the mem? |
|
|
|
This algo really needs a windows binary similar to what u did for zero coin id donate .2 btc myself if you can add it so i cant test it on the zcash test net I was tempted to copy the Nicehash binaries and offer them to you privately for .2 BTC.  https://github.com/nicehash/nheqminer/releasesFirst impressions: I haven't tried the binaries and can't compile on Linux because I have an old version of QT. I don't want to risk breaking my cpuminer compile environment. nheqminer is a completely different from cpuminer, all c++, different SW architecture, different build process. Merging it with cpuminer is not going to happen. The algo has similar issues as zcoin, it is extremely memory hard so the limiting factor is memory bandwidth, not compute capacity. It is already acknowledged by Nicehash that 6 threads are all that are needed on a i7, so mem bandwidth is already saturated and it wouldn't benefit from optimizing. There are opportunities to promote some SSE4/AVX code to AVX2 but the potential benefits are very limited. The i7 is already I/O bound so it won't improve with AVX2 (as seen with zcoin) but i5 and I3 may see some improvement. With only 4 threads there may still be some memory bandwidth available that could be exploited with more efficient code. How much it will help is anyone's guess. Given the amount of work involved, my lack of experience with qmake and c++, and the limited potential benefit I'm going to pass on it for the time being. If anyone wants to pick it up I can help with the intrinsics but it looks pretty straightforward to migrate from AVX to AVX2. |
|
|
|
@joblo Did you remove zr5 algo from v3.4.8? ./cpuminer --config=~/miner-configs/cpu-ziftrpool.io.json
********** cpuminer-opt 3.4.8 ***********
A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
with AES_NI and AVX extensions.
BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT
Forked from TPruvot's cpuminer-multi with credits
to Lucas Jones, elmad, palmd, djm34, pooler, ig0tik3d,
Wolf0, Jeff Garzik and Optiminer.
[2016-10-21 10:42:01] Unknown algo: zr5
Try `cpuminer-opt --help' for more information. Silly command line parsing bug related to zcoin addition. Lyra2z is listed twice pushing zr5 out of range. Simple fix delete line 577 in miner.h. "x14",
"x15",
"x17",
"yescrypt",
"lyra2z", <--------- delete this line
"zr5",
"\0"
|
|
|
|
ok this makes no sense :
intel G1820 using cpuminer-core2 is getting 569h or 10h/s
the G3250s using cpuminer-core2 are also getting ss high as 500 h or 9.8 h/s
and a brand new skylarke I-7 600k using cpuminer-core-avx2 is getting a max of 580 hs or 9.9 h/s cores hash faster but max out at aroun 90h
a core i3 4170 using cpuminer-core-avx2 gets only 450 h or 8.9 hs/s - slower hash but each core does 120 h
any ideas as to why the i3 and the skylarke under perform so much on lyra2z
Yes, I have discussed it extensively. It all about memory bandwidth, not compute power. For kicks try reducing the number of threads on your 6700K until you see the total hashrate drop. Hint: it's less than 4. At my local store that had some broad well - E cards 6 core ones for only $100 more I exchanged my 6700 for a 6800k are boy were you right , even with like 50% usage on the cores I'm seeing speeds of like 10000 h and 30 h/s I guess these cards have 28 pc-e lanes vs the normal 16 ? I cant image the higer end ones wit 40 pc-e lanes thoughs could probably do a sold 60 h/s , crazy these are only $100 more than the i7 6700k I did need to buy are more expensive mb though. ok maybe this was a fluke after windows 10 updates run seems to have slowed down a ton trying to figure out whats what **edit no fluke got the same high hash rates agin but for some reason after a while the miner just stops when it hits those max rates of 9k h or more any ideas ? seems that the pool kicks the rig off due to shares being such high hash rates ? I get stratum timeouts when it gets to the higher rates Stratum problems are a pool issue. |
|
|
|
ok this makes no sense :
intel G1820 using cpuminer-core2 is getting 569h or 10h/s
the G3250s using cpuminer-core2 are also getting ss high as 500 h or 9.8 h/s
and a brand new skylarke I-7 600k using cpuminer-core-avx2 is getting a max of 580 hs or 9.9 h/s cores hash faster but max out at aroun 90h
a core i3 4170 using cpuminer-core-avx2 gets only 450 h or 8.9 hs/s - slower hash but each core does 120 h
any ideas as to why the i3 and the skylarke under perform so much on lyra2z
Yes, I have discussed it extensively. It all about memory bandwidth, not compute power. For kicks try reducing the number of threads on your 6700K until you see the total hashrate drop. Hint: it's less than 4. |
|
|
|
cant build on Centos 7 6x In file included from algo/hodl/hodl-gate.h:1:0,
from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:2:
./algo-gate-api.h:126:49: error: using typedef-name ‘json_t’ after ‘struct’
bool ( *work_decode ) ( const struct json_t*, struct work* );
^
In file included from ./miner.h:38:0,
from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:
/usr/include/jansson.h:53:3: note: ‘json_t’ has a previous declaration here
} json_t;
^
In file included from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:0:
./miner.h:526:20: warning: ‘algo_names’ defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
static const char *algo_names[] = {
^
make[2]: *** [algo/hodl/cpuminer-hodl.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make: *** [all] Error 2
installed sudo yum groupinstall 'Development Tools' sudo yum install tmux gmp-devel jansson-devel openssl-devel boost-devel git automake gcc make curl-devel I think there were errors before this, I need to see the first ones. Also please provide some of the more mundane info like the version, where you downloaded from and the build commands you used. Edit: Try uninstalling jansson-devel. It looks like there is a bug in configure that can't handle when jansson is installed on the system. |
|
|
|
Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.
I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.
afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly. increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower That wasn't the point. A single CPU has access to 4 memory channels instead of 2 doubling the memory bandwidth, The 2nd CPU is still overkill. i dont seem to understand your point taken a system with multiple (say 2) cpu sockets exists and both cpus are present: - each cpu has dual or quad memory channel (if its dual or quad doesnt matter in this scenario) - each cpu gives X H/s, like a normal single cpu system would, just two cpu+ram on one mobo - each cpu uses their own dual/quad memory channel using one cpu produces X H/s, using both cpu produces 2x X H/s taken a system with a single cpu socket exists: - the cpu has dual memory channels upgrading the dual channel to quad channel through a mobo/cpu upgrade results in (likely) doubled hashrate im missing the point where a second cpu doesnt speed up the total hashrate of the system if the second cpu has its own memory channels or do you imply the one cpu should use the other dual channel memory for the other cpu and thus doubling its memory bandwith? cause that wont work afaik My mistake, I was assuming shared memory. |
|
|
|
Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.
I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.
afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly. increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower That wasn't the point. A single CPU has access to 4 memory channels instead of 2 doubling the memory bandwidth, The 2nd CPU is still overkill. |
|
|
|
|
The branding Intel uses for Celeron CPUs is misleading and is causing confusion with some users.
First the model number don't match the generation, ie some G4xxx models are branded as Skylake
but Skylake Pentiums are the 6xxx series.
But more importantly Celerons are cost reduced and stripped of some advanced technology, including AVX
and AVX2. Therefore the AVX and AVX2 builds will not work on Celerons. The Westmere build is likely the
most featured compile that can be used with Celerons.
I will update the readme file included in the binary package of the next release to clarify.
I would also like to remind users to always read the readme file before reporting problems and to provide a
clear problem description and supporting data. I will ignore any reports without data.
|
|
|
|
lol this is working! cpuminer-btver1 -a lyra2z -o stratum+tcp://xzc.suprnova.cc:5595 -u xy.xy -p xy --hide-diff pause G4500(skylake) 7-8H/s  Your CPU is a Celeron and Intel cheats with Celeron branding. Celerons are stripped of the latest tech, in particular AVX and AVX2. Your maximum feature set is SSE4.1 and AES which corrresponds to a Westmere Pentium CPU. You will get best performance using the Westmere build on many algos. The zcoin algo is unique in that AVX and AVX2 did not improve the hash rate so the performance is the same regardless of the build. |
|
|
|
@felix
you mean your fork or joblo's one?
btw i got 256 gb of ram on that dual xeon server
will follow your advices later...
i only have a copy of the src in my github acc, no modifications made, im talking about joblos cpuminer-opt the amount of memory is largely irrelevant, its more the speed from cpu to memory that dictates the hashpower my xeon e3 has 8 cores, though using more than 4 cores does not result in more hashpower with 2x 24 threads (2 cpu) i assume the optimum thread count per cpu is about 6-10, maybe a bit more or less depending on the power of each individual core now on linux placing procs on specific cpus is easy, not sure how to do this on windows. im unsure how cpuminer-opt handles the placement of threads in a multi cpu environment, if you only specify 12 threads (6 per cpu) it might spread them on cpu0 and cpu1, but it might also spread them only on cpu0 which would result in only half the hashpower Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller. |
|
|
|
old vertcoin = lyra2RE (lyra2 chained with some other algos)
new vertcoin = lyra2REv2 (lyra grid is smaller than previous, still chained with other algos)
zcoin = plain lyra2 (not chained with other algos) WITH variable grid size based on block height (A LOT bigger than in the other two cases)
Corrrect. The CPU implementation can saturate an I7's memory bandwidth with only 4 cores (maybe less) using only scalar instructions. Vectorizing (4:1) had no effect on hash rate. Any GPU miner would also hit a performance ceiling once memory bandwith was saturated. Given this occurs on a CPU with only a couple of scalar threads I would expect similar on a GPU. In my opinion a viable GPU miner is out of the question. But it's all moot now as zcoin will be switching to MTP and I doubt any other coin will choose this flavour of Lyra2. |
|
|
|
what about renaming the binaries to the corresponding arch? 4.8.x didnt include this (thats why you where not able to compile westmere, or in general other arch's by their name) gcc 4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0 and 6.2.0 indicate the following: core2 == core2 corei7 == nehalem corei7-avx == sandybridge core-avx-i == ivybridge core-avx2 == haswell missing in 4.8.x: westmere (4.9.4) broadwell (4.9.4) skylake (6.2.0) i suppose there is no easy way to upgrade gcc in a mingw environment on windows, im using gnustep which is the current version and only ships with gcc 4.8.x sadly i also attempted cross compiling but ran into issues with linking the libs in the last step, has anybody done that before? I just defaulted to the gcc arch but I'm flexible. A case could also be made for going strictly by the best feature like is displayed by the miner. Using the Intel brand doesn't help with AMD users who are unfamiliar with them. The newer architectures have the best feature in their name so AMD users can key on that (assuming the issue of compatibility and performance of Intel builds on AMD CPUs is resolved). I'm also considering dropping core-avx-i as their is no specifically targetted code for this arch. If there are any performance differences over corei7-avx it's all from the compiler. I would like to hear if there are users with Ivybridge CPUs that get lower perfomance using corei7-avx vs core-avx-i. |
|
|
|
Last Block Found 3,891 Time Since Last Block 1 hour 24 minutes 50 seconds Something is not right I think. No pool,no big hash,slowest block found wait until self-regulating algorytm stabilize to current power. i dont understand, can you elaborate? Just bad luck, block just found, nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
trying to run this miner on my desk top but I crashes right away
I have and dual core Pentium g4400 cpu (Sandy bridge)
cpuminer-core-avx2 -a zcoin -o stratum+tcp://xzc.pool.mn:2428 -u user -p x
any help ?
Read the readme, Sandybridge doesn't support avx2. |
|
|
|
Is there any boost compared with the ocminer version? Not really. It's optimized to use AVX2 but it didn't improve performance because the algo is so memory hard. |
|
|
|
|
Suprnova under attack again?
|
|
|
|
here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):
fx-8320e:
Thanks, those are the results I expected. Next release i will drop the btver1 build and recommend AMD users choose the Intel build with the same features. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
