 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
Overclocked +135 core + 600 mem with increased TDP bios Cudaminer 2/28 = 3.35kh/s on Yacoin!  cudaminer.exe --algo=scrypt-jane -H 2 -L 2 -i 0 -l t64x1 -b 4096 -m 1 Using the exact same settings I only get around 2.4kh/s. Any idea why? Which card exactly are you using and which driver version? I am still on 335.23. Also, I am no longer using any increased TDP bios as it doesn't really help. My overclocks nowadays are dependent on which of my cards exactly. Some of them I can push to +170 core +650 mem. I have been getting around 3.3-3.5kh/s on YAC these days with the occasional dip down to ~2.5kh/s. The cards are Gigabyte 750Ti 2GB. Same driver version as you. |
|
|
|
Overclocked +135 core + 600 mem with increased TDP bios Cudaminer 2/28 = 3.35kh/s on Yacoin! cudaminer.exe --algo=scrypt-jane -H 2 -L 2 -i 0 -l t64x1 -b 4096 -m 1 Using the exact same settings I only get around 2.4kh/s. Any idea why? |
|
|
|
I know this has probably been discussed loads of times before in the thread but it is now buried. I know the CPP starts ten days after your delivery is late. My rig pre-order was supposed to be delivered in the fourth week of March. So is it ten normal days after it's late the CPP starts being calculated or ten business days. Also if it was supposed to be delivered in the fourth week of march when do you start counting the ten days? The Saturday of the fourth week of march, the Sunday or the Monday of the following week. Also it's 10% every ten days or did they actually mean every ten working days? I feel Bitmine played on the mistranslation on purpose to gain extra customers. Like my pre order stated March Fourth week which in English means the week of March the 4th. Not the fourth week of March.
March fourth week is the fourth week of march. The count seems to start on saturday. It's not working days, it's 7 days per week. |
|
|
|
Updated from the perfectly working .4 to .5 and it's now back to unusable.  A ton of these in the log: 2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:252 - BDM was not ready for your request! Waited 20 sec.
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:253 - getattr name: getTopBlockHeight
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:254 - BDM currently doing: Passthrough (14133058)
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:255 - Waiting for completion: ID= 81876446
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:256 - Direct traceback
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:259 - Traceback:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "armoryengine\BDM.pyc", line 249, in passthruFunc
File "Queue.pyc", line 176, in get
I'm happy to report that this problem is fixed in .7. |
|
|
|
Hi guys im selling
Price 3800 EUR per unit, if somebody decides to take both il give both for 7000 EUR
Seriously? 23 BTC?!? Yeah, 1.6TH is gonna pay that back in no time... |
|
|
|
|
I'll give you 4 BTC shipped for them. Need to use an escrow though(I'll pay if needed). I'd rather pay in BTC, but I guess that's out of the question? You want a bank transfer?
|
|
|
|
Updated from the perfectly working .4 to .5 and it's now back to unusable. A ton of these in the log: 2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:252 - BDM was not ready for your request! Waited 20 sec.
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:253 - getattr name: getTopBlockHeight
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:254 - BDM currently doing: Passthrough (14133058)
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:255 - Waiting for completion: ID= 81876446
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:256 - Direct traceback
2014-04-02 10:17 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:259 - Traceback:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "armoryengine\BDM.pyc", line 249, in passthruFunc
File "Queue.pyc", line 176, in get
|
|
|
|
its 28XX
im wondering why i wont receive my additional hashing power... oh, ive forgotten, because this company is a scam.
Do you know your queue position? How many Gh/s was your original order? |
|
|
|
By the way, according to some information I got an AMD R9 290X only does around 6.5 MHash/s. Can anyone confirm this? If so, we've got another nVidia coin here.
My 7970 does about 4.6Mh/s so 6.5 for a 290X sounds about right. I didn't pay attention to the other part of the message, my R9 290x is doing between 9 and 9.5MHash/s (it is about the same as the 780ti) How do you get such a high hashrate? I tried every tweak I could think of, but couldn't get any higher than 4.6Mh/s. Here the parameters I use : -I 19 -g 1 -w 512 (running at 1030-1050MHz) Wow, that actually made a pretty significant difference, thanks! Sorry for derailing your thread, Christian. |
|
|
|
By the way, according to some information I got an AMD R9 290X only does around 6.5 MHash/s. Can anyone confirm this? If so, we've got another nVidia coin here.
My 7970 does about 4.6Mh/s so 6.5 for a 290X sounds about right. I didn't pay attention to the other part of the message, my R9 290x is doing between 9 and 9.5MHash/s (it is about the same as the 780ti) How do you get such a high hashrate? I tried every tweak I could think of, but couldn't get any higher than 4.6Mh/s. |
|
|
|
By the way, according to some information I got an AMD R9 290X only does around 6.5 MHash/s. Can anyone confirm this? If so, we've got another nVidia coin here.
My 7970 does about 4.6Mh/s so 6.5 for a 290X sounds about right. |
|
|
|
They seem just a tiny bit noisy. |
|
|
|
Testing version 0.90.99.4 for Windows, Mac and Linux*
I can confirm that this makes a huge difference compared to 0.90.99.3. The wallet that made the previous version unusably slow now works with almost no slowing down. Also the startup is now crazy fast. Almost a hundredfold increase in startup speed compared to any previous version I've used. But there's a problem with sending from the problematic wallet. I tried to make a donation to you guys but it always fails. I can't send coins to any other address from it either. Sending from my offline wallet works perfectly though. I tried broadcasting the transaction using blockchain.info, but it says that "An outpoint is already spent". |
|
|
|
Not quite done with the ledger fixing yet but I'm glad to hear it works so far.
Yeah, I added another wallet that has a large amount of pooled mining transactions and Armory became pretty unresponsive. But it's not crashing so I can live with for now. |
|
|
|
OMG, it's actually working!  For the first time in ages I have a properly working Armory! I've had a ton of different problems before. They're all gone now. Great job guys! |
|
|
|
In that particular thread that is linked, we have a problem with certain types of transactions that is affecting at least 2 of the 3 users there reporting issues (which are in this thread). I suspect this pattern is present across a lot of support requests. I whole-heartedly agree that we need to get the app working for those users, but they still represent a small portion of our userbase -- those that are participating in pooled mining. I might be one of those users. But I've had a lots of other problems too. For example a fresh install will crash at least a couple of times during the initial scanning even with no wallets added. I've had various problems on 2 different Windows computers and one Ubuntu. I haven't reported any issues before because until now Armory has been able to run at least a few minutes before crashing allowing me to do the transaction. Now I'm at a point where I can't even do that, because any version I try will crash before I can do anything. My offline Armory has always worked flawlessly though. |
|
|
|
Nice. Let's hope so.  |
|
|
|
I have the order number #31** (1st week of February Batch). I called them on monday and they told me that I would recieve my miner in last Week of March or if I'm lucky even faster.
TBH I kinda hope that's not true. I'm in front of you in the queue and my 60 days will be up on friday next week. I'm hoping to get a refund instead of the miner.. |
|
|
|
 I'm not in a hurry anymore. I exported a private key and got the coins that I needed out, so I can wait for the next version. Thanks for the work you are doing! Armory has some great features and I'm looking forward to using a stable version in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
