Not sure what's going on there (aka "can't reproduce issue").
My only guess is it's possibly related to removing the sha256 algos, but... that was even before I started doing the compilers job for scrypt.
Not sure what to do other than general hints along the lines of "start with a clean tree, CFLAGS="-whatever" ./configure; make"
Hrrrm... I guess you could revert the sha256 removal or drop the new scrypt.c into Tenebrix-miner and see if that also causes the same issues.
There is no scrypt.c in your latest released source of 1.0.2... I'm looking at the tar.gz and it's missing it. edit: It works just popping scrypt.c in, I'm getting 3.87kh/s now per core |
|
|
|
Up to 2.83 Khash/thread on an i7 920@2.8 ghz. Trying different compilers and optimizations, no code changes. llvm is by far the worst, got a high of 2.3 Khash/thread with that compiler. Yuck.
That's pretty wild, faster than the 1055T if that's with hyperthreading on. The Intel people in this thread are going to want to know what your configure options and compiler was for that. |
|
|
|
Just pushed another small tweak, gets another 3% or so on K10s.
Hey, For some reason after compiling the new code, the program no longer takes command line arguments? Not sure what's happening. It just returns the -h line no matter what I input. Also, I've been running the last version of your code at ~38kh/s and haven't gotten any blocks in about 6 hours. But maybe I'm just unlucky. |
|
|
|
Dunno, it's still plenty profitable around here, and that's at $0.30/kWh...
Unless you have a P4 or pay like $1/kWh ... how on earth do you end up with a loss?
it would also be only barely profitable for me. similar electricity rate, additional power measured with wattmeter. the rig has only an athlon x2 240e.  btw... have your released your tenebrix gpu miner to the public or are you planning to do so? buy a 1055T used from overclock.net for $120, mine, profit. it's only about an extra 100w per day. 1055Ts are the new 5850s. you think this will last long? If not tenebrix some other CPU mining operation will take over. As long as it costs barely nothing new to mine it, people will be in for it. |
|
|
|
Can someone post a walkthrough of how to get this started.
I have Bitminter running at the same time and Tenebrix says that it cannot bind to port 8333 because bitcoin is already running...can I not run both at the same time?
Tenebrix uses a different port |
|
|
|
|
...but you should sell your coin.
Bitcoin is inflating wildly right now, almost as much as it deflated back in May. The hash rate will keep going down, but at the same time, the difficulty will always be decreasing so net rewards for miners will probably not diminish in the extreme.
People are pulling out, and the people left mining will be the ASICs and large scale GPU farms in locations with cheap electricity. They won't be making much, but they will be making some and that will be enough.
The next big jump in bitcoin price will probably not occur until the currency actual deflates -- that is, when block size shrinks to 25 BTC/block some time next year. This is also granted the currency survives this long, but as long as the infrastructure is up and trading is still profitable to the trading companies and the traders it will be. Until then, we will be in freefall until we hit some kind of equilibrium.
This is probably obvious to most people, but if you're just hopping aboard now and haven't figured things out -- bitcoin is inflationary in the near term, deflationary in the long term.
(It should be noted that if you haven't been paying attention either, TBX mining is exploding because it effectively utilizes the CPU cycles from mining rigs, the currency is secure long as lolcust doesn't dump his 7m TBX into the market, and because of effective programming from both Artforz and lolcust. Hop on if you want.)
|
|
|
|
Dunno, it's still plenty profitable around here, and that's at $0.30/kWh...
Unless you have a P4 or pay like $1/kWh ... how on earth do you end up with a loss?
it would also be only barely profitable for me. similar electricity rate, additional power measured with wattmeter. the rig has only an athlon x2 240e. btw... have your released your tenebrix gpu miner to the public or are you planning to do so? buy a 1055T used from overclock.net for $120, mine, profit. it's only about an extra 100w per day. 1055Ts are the new 5850s. |
|
|
|
Awesum, thx
http://allchains.info/ has estimated difficulty change too, it's set to more than double in a day current network speed is 4 mh/s or 4000 kh/s or about 360 quad core amd processors. you will only get 2 TBX/day-kh/s in about 24 hours! mine fast, mine hard. |
|
|
|
It looks like a rig with a bulldozer CPU and multiple CGN architecture graphics cards will flood the hashrates seen today.
The registers are still 64 bit in the 7xxx series... what people don't understand about the cache is that they take up a significant part of the die. The point of GPUs is to execute parallel instructions from sequentially stored memory because that's what graphics acceleration and scientific process acceleration requires. They won't add giant caches and make the die size 150% larger (making the effective cost per unit 50% higher) if 99% of their consumers won't use it. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/2For instance, with Phenom II's the L2 cache size is slightly less than the size of an extra two cores and the combined L1, L2, and L3 cache system consumes about as much space as all the cores. The whole point of a GPU/CPU combined system is that the CPU handles instructions that require rapid random access to small amounts of memory on the cache while the GPU handles large parallel instructions that operate with small amounts of cache and sequentially read memory at high rates. If they both could do everything, we wouldn't need both. |
|
|
|
Using gcc4.6.1 CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3 -Wall -msse2" ./configure
Getting 3.8 kh/s per core for K10.5 @ 3.7GHz Guys what about AVX and AES-NI instructions in Sandy 2600K !? How far can I push my 2600K !? AVS won't make the cache size bigger, it's intended to facilitate floating point instructions more than anything... I think scrypt is mostly integer-based. |
|
|
|
Just pushed some more scrypt manglery, 3.62kH/s/core with -march=amdfam10 -O3
did you upload the source code already? edit: okay, yeah I see you have... I will rebuild tomorrow and give it a go |
|
|
|
|
It's going up? I have hundreds of these in a wallet on one of my backup drives
|
|
|
|
FML, I sold at 0.00289  I'm keeping my thousands of TBX all to myself... Fuck everything, I'm an early adopter until doomsday! |
|
|
|
I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.
Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux box to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ? Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions.... I copypasted the binaries from a machine with gcc4.6.1 to a machine with gcc4.5.4... No idea what the wacky results were about, but they seem normal now that I recompiled it. But, yeah, the high performance binary seems to require the gcc4.6.1 libraries. you should get roughly 200% performance though if you compile them correctly. Now I'm getting 34 kh/s on 10 AMD K10.5 cores. I would post binaries but like I said, they don't translate well across variable gcc versions... You are best off compiling your own with gcc4.6.1. Also, by the rate the hash rate seems to be increasing from block speeds I think we're into the hundreds of kh/s. I don't think there'll be a chance to 51% this if the adoption keep rising exponentially like it has been for the last week. |
|
|
|
|
I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.
|
|
|
|
|
So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.
edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1
Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!! thanks!!
|
|
|
|
model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor cpu MHz : 3600.000 gcc -v gcc version 4.6.1 (Debian 4.6.1-13) uname -a Linux buildhost 3.0.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Sep 20 07:03:13 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux ./configure
make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:48:59] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:49:03] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:49:22] thread 0: 63077 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:23] PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!)
[2011-10-05 20:49:24] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:25] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:26] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 2.66 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:27] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
CFLAGS="-O3" ./configure
make clean; make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:50:11] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:50:16] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:50:32] thread 0: 65535 hashes, 3.21 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:33] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 3.23 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:33] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 3.24 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:34] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 3.24 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:36] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 3.22 khash/sec
CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
make clean; make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:51:22] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:51:26] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:51:42] thread 0: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:42] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:43] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:44] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 3.28 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:45] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 3.29 khash/sec
Hey, got a problem, just got a proof of result true but I didn't get the block in tenebrix, what's going on??? my configuration file is this: {
"_comment1" : "Any long-format command line argument ",
"_comment2" : "may be used in this JSON configuration file",
"url" : "http://127.0.0.1:8697",
"user" : "1",
"pass" : "1",
"algo" : "scrypt",
"threads" : "6",
"quiet" : "off"
}
Where is my block?  edit: Nevermind, linux is just slow, I got it! also: gcc -v
gcc version 4.5.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4)
uname -a
Linux user 2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:24 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
|
|
|
1.80kh/s per core, 1055t and 940be at 3.8ghz
1055ts are the cpu to buy to mine tenebrix, they are 120$ used and do 3.4 to 3.6 ghz on stock volts (11kh/s). When the 8 cores come out in a week, they should demolish the 2600k in price/performance for tenebrix
Also don't be aware cpu overvolting can sometimes double the amount of power used, i wouldn't bother using overvolted processors because you will lose a lot from your power bill.
If you're on amd64 linux, might wanna try my mangled scrypt cpuminer: https://github.com/ArtForz/cpuminercompiled with CFLAGS=-O3 3.28 kh/s/core on a 3.6GHz PhenomII 2.73 kh/s/core on a 3GHz AthlonII 2.40 kh/s/core on a 2.7GHz Sempron 140 I will compile tenebrix on linux and try that right now, thanks edit: There is a bug possibly ./configure: line 4888: syntax error near unexpected token `,'
./configure: line 4888: `LIBCURL_CHECK_CONFIG(, 7.10.1, ,' You can easily get around it by commenting these lines out though, since pretty much everyone with linux is running curl already  That's about a +0.85 KH/s boost per core, so now I'm getting 16kh/s on my 1055T |
|
|
|
|
1.80kh/s per core, 1055t and 940be at 3.8ghz
1055ts are the cpu to buy to mine tenebrix, they are 120$ used and do 3.4 to 3.6 ghz on stock volts (11kh/s). When the 8 cores come out in a week, they should demolish the 2600k in price/performance for tenebrix
Also don't be aware cpu overvolting can sometimes double the amount of power used, i wouldn't bother using overvolted processors because you will lose a lot from your power bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
