Can we please have some feedback on using Nicehash client to mine Cryptonote using AMD cards. Since you're using Claymore's ZEC miner (3rd party) for AMD cards, might as well use his Cryptonote miner as well (it works manually).

I was wrong .. XMR miner is getting a share with a rather large difficulty and as you've mentioned, it can take some time to hash through the work.

Sorry for the noise. Thanks!

Sorry i wasn't clear: ZEC and ETH work correctly the way you've explained. When the internet connection is pulled it stops pretty quickly.
Thank you for checking up, i know you're super busy.

Feature request for XMR (cryptonote) miner: don't keep mining / using gpu resources if a connection to the pool is unable to be established.

I see your ZEC/ETH miner behaves that way. We have quite a dodgy internet sometimes and using power/resources when there's no internet connectivity kills the electricity bill.

Thanks

Let's not start the nvidia vs amd propaganda.

Make it so

Only if you use SSL.

Their hash rate is climbing quickly. I certainly will keep on dwarfpool as it's considerably more profit even through the hiccups. Set and forget.

It's the same thing (not really, but for informational purposes, its the same).

This has been discussed to death in multiple threads.
AMD == better ROI. If you don't care about about ROI and just want to get the fastest possible hash rate while using the least amount of power, go Nvidia.

Can we move along.

What is the url to your fork?

Aren't you managing all those rigs in an automated manner? Sounds like you're doing things manually.

Can't say I have much rejected shares with dwarfpool. Is your latency on accepted shares good?


At this point, last I saw it doesn't support SSL. Even so, I'm still getting considerably more from dwarfpool than flypool (didn't use to be that way).

http://dwarfpool.com/zec

[..]

Use as username: WALLET . WORKER_NAME

Nothing in GPU hardware error logs? (hwinfo)

Feature request: add %WORKER% env variable the same way you've done for your ZEC miner.

Feature request: add %WORKER% env variable the same way you've done for your ZEC miner.

Feature request: add %WORKER% env variable the same way you've done for your ZEC miner.

I then tried v1.1:

root@apollo:~/44/1/cpuminer-multi-1.1-multi# gdb ./cpuminer
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.11.1-0ubuntu1~16.04) 7.11.1
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu".
Type "show configuration" for configuration details.
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>.
For help, type "help".
Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"...
Reading symbols from ./cpuminer...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /root/44/1/cpuminer-multi-1.1-multi/cpuminer
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
** cpuminer-multi 1.1 by Tanguy Pruvot (tpruvot@github) **
BTC donation address: 1FhDPLPpw18X4srecguG3MxJYe4a1JsZnd

[New Thread 0x2aaab0a2e700 (LWP 19010)]
[New Thread 0x2aaab0c31700 (LWP 19011)]
[2016-12-10 06:43:18] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://mine.xpool.ca:1131
[New Thread 0x2aaab0e34700 (LWP 19012)]

Thread 3 "cpuminer" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0x2aaab0c31700 (LWP 19011)]
_IO_vfscanf_internal (s=s@entry=0x2aaab0a30620, format=format@entry=0x2aaaab0f308b "%15[^:]:%[^\n]",
    argptr=argptr@entry=0x2aaab0a30748, errp=errp@entry=0x0) at vfscanf.c:279
279     vfscanf.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0  _IO_vfscanf_internal (s=s@entry=0x2aaab0a30620, format=format@entry=0x2aaaab0f308b "%15[^:]:%[^\n]",
    argptr=argptr@entry=0x2aaab0a30748, errp=errp@entry=0x0) at vfscanf.c:279
#1  0x00002aaaaad3ebcc in __GI___isoc99_vsscanf (string=0x2aaab8001320 "http://mine.xpool.ca:1131",
    format=0x2aaaab0f308b "%15[^:]:%[^\n]", args=args@entry=0x2aaab0a30748) at isoc99_vsscanf.c:43
#2  0x00002aaaaad3eb57 in __isoc99_sscanf (s=<optimized out>, format=<optimized out>) at isoc99_sscanf.c:31
#3  0x00002aaaab0be7db in ?? () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcurl.so.4
#4  0x00002aaaab0d2493 in ?? () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcurl.so.4
#5  0x00002aaaab0d2eed in curl_multi_perform () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcurl.so.4
#6  0x00002aaaab0c994b in curl_easy_perform () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcurl.so.4
#7  0x0000000000468e08 in ?? ()
#8  0x000000000046a073 in ?? ()
#9  0x00002aaaab96370a in start_thread (arg=0x2aaab0c31700) at pthread_create.c:333

Just for fun, i went ahead and tested a slightly older release:

https://github.com/tpruvot/cpuminer-multi/archive/v1.0.9-multi.tar.gz

root@apollo:~/44/1/cpuminer-multi-1.0.9-multi# ./cpuminer  -a cryptonight  -p cami@hack.co.za  -o stratum+tcp://cryptonight.eu.nicehash.com:3355  -u 12d7SjLcyEwLCnZhPeQhMnME3dDF9CnSuY -t 12 -q
** cpuminer-multi 1.0.9 by Tanguy Pruvot (tpruvot@github) **
 based on Lucas Jones fork of pooler cpuminer 2.4

BTC donation address: 1FhDPLPpw18X4srecguG3MxJYe4a1JsZnd

[2016-12-10 06:26:32] Using JSON-RPC 2.0
[2016-12-10 06:26:32] CPU Supports AES-NI: YES
[2016-12-10 06:26:32] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://cryptonight.eu.nicehash.com:3355
[2016-12-10 06:26:32] 12 miner threads started, using 'cryptonight' algorithm.
[2016-12-10 06:26:33] Pool set diff to 20000
[2016-12-10 06:26:36] thread 11: 66 hashes, 16.70 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:36] thread 3: 66 hashes, 14.91 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:36] thread 7: 66 hashes, 14.40 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:36] thread 5: 66 hashes, 14.28 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:37] thread 8: 66 hashes, 14.01 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:37] thread 10: 66 hashes, 12.79 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 4: 66 hashes, 11.61 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 6: 66 hashes, 11.35 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 1: 66 hashes, 11.26 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 0: 66 hashes, 11.23 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 9: 66 hashes, 10.65 H/s
[2016-12-10 06:26:38] thread 2: 66 hashes, 10.21 H/s

Hmm!