if your system open the crontab file with "vi" then: ":wq" to write the modification on crontab and exit.
if your system open the crontab file with "nano" then: "CTRL+O", say yes to write the modification on crontab and exit.
you should get to the log file here /home/m1/test_network.log
Hope it helps.
VI, the best of the best full text editor and massive substitutor by "the power of G" I think, we coulf make some script likes profit switching 's salfter's script with, Vi, cat, Grep, egrep, pgrep sed, awk, and others basics systems integrated commands, méta and spécials characters. only I do not feel able to do it |
|
|
|
Hey CryptAtomeTrader44, I had some code that I was testing, however after updating to 19-1, the update has overwritten the watchdog file with all the changes I had in it and I had no backup of the modified wd  I have to start over now, hopefully I will have working beta version by the end of the week. I will post once I am done. Arf, the shoemaker's syndrome always badly shod! The computer technician (engineer?) Who does not back up his script before updating! hi hi ha ha oh oh! I know that too! I do not stop tinkering the Salfter files to have a little more details at my convenience on the MPH-Switch, but I do not know where the original files at all. But anyway, my changes are very minimal because I do not understand much about Python. Even some Bash script goes beyond me then ... For example I can not reproduce this manual command of nvidia-settings that would allow me to reduce a little fan speed when they make too much noise annoy me. Post us your script with an explanatory comment on the changes made. At least it will be here and therefore saved in some sorts. yup... lesson learned... i will post once i have something modded, right now i am at square one. here's the command to change fan speed on a single GPU: nvidia-settings -a [gpu:5]/GPUFanControlState=1 -a [fan:5]/GPUTargetFanSpeed=70 This will set fan on GPU5 to 70%. Change as you see fit, however note that if you have Maxximus007_auto_temp control enabled, it will readjust it back on its regular cycle. That's the response that i recieve : sudo nvidia-settings -a [gpu:0]/GPUFanControlState=1 -a [fan:0]/GPUTargetFanSpeed=30
Failed to connect to Mir: Failed to connect to server socket: No such file or directory
Unable to init server: Could not connect: Connection refused ERROR: The control display is undefined; please run `nvidia-settings --help` for usage information. |
|
|
|
Hey CryptAtomeTrader44, I had some code that I was testing, however after updating to 19-1, the update has overwritten the watchdog file with all the changes I had in it and I had no backup of the modified wd I have to start over now, hopefully I will have working beta version by the end of the week. I will post once I am done. Arf, the shoemaker's syndrome always badly shod! The computer technician (engineer?) Who does not back up his script before updating! hi hi ha ha oh oh! I know that too! I do not stop tinkering the Salfter files to have a little more details at my convenience on the MPH-Switch, but I do not know where the original files at all. But anyway, my changes are very minimal because I do not understand much about Python. Even some Bash script goes beyond me then ... For example I can not reproduce this manual command of nvidia-settings that would allow me to reduce a little fan speed when they make too much noise annoy me. Post us your script with an explanatory comment on the changes made. At least it will be here and therefore saved in some sorts. |
|
|
|
|
Some questions and / or Suggestions :
Would it be possible to output all the variables from the 1bash file to use a CSV file where we could list the currencies, our respective wallets for each currency, the associated tradding pools and platforms as well as their ports and usernames? and finally if we want to undermine it or not according to its profitability at the moment t + 3 min (in terms of its difficulty and its profitability).
I ask this because it has to undermine a little of everything and everywhere, this file would allow you to manage which miner mine what, when, on which pools that send themselves on which platforms of tradding...
Without keeping an Excel file up to date with wallets, addresses, and other pools, there is something to lose.
Column headers proposed for CSV file :
COIN ALGO ALGO_PL ALGO_CORE_OVCLOCK ALGO_MEM_OVCLOCK GLOBAL_TARGET_TEMP MINER_SOFTWARE EXTENSION_ARGUMENTS (DUAL MINER) SOFT_VERSION_MINER WORKER (NAME) WALLET_ ADDRESS WALLET_PROVIDER_NAME POOL_NAME POOL_DNS POOL_PORT DUAL_WALLET ADDRESS DUAL_WALLET_PROVIDER_NAME DUAL_POOL_NAME DUAL_POOL_DNS DUAL_POOL_PORT BTC_ADDRESS BTC_ADDRESS_PROVIDER COMMENT
Later it will be possible to add more columns in the file.
For example, if papami or damNmad (i don't remmeber who work on this) produces us a profit script, it would be possible to add a SWITCH_PROFIT column whose value could be as YES or NO. Thus, the profit script would compare only selected coins with each other and mine for the best profit while choosing oneself each coin we chose (not the coins proposals of the pools).
I do not know if I formulated my idea correctly, but to summarize, it was to make a database file in CSV format that we could thus insert more easily into excel or calc.
this would also greatly reduce the 1bash file but would not remove any utility
|
|
|
|
|
hashing time :
14:33 => 14h59 ==> 26 min
What miner for cryptonight should I use while waiting for a solution ?
Should I continue with that of Salfter or that of Klaust even if they bug within 30 minutes both ?
Hi try xmr-stak-nvidia, it should be in the xmr/stakGPU/bin folder, you'll need to edit the config.txt file to account for the number of GPU's, there is a post explaining how to make the changes about 10-20 pages back.
I've been looking for, but I'm not sure I've found it, and besides, I'm not sure it's possible to use it with the MPH-switching-profit of salfter at the same time as the more CPU mining.
|
|
|
|
Same Problem with 2.04 version of Salfter : ./ccminer -o stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580 -u Cryptatometrader44.ATOMICMINER44 -p xcd
*** ccminer-cryptonight 2.04 (64 bit) for nVidia GPUs by tsiv and KlausT
*** Built with GCC 5.4 using the Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 8.0
tsiv's BTC donation address: 1JHDKp59t1RhHFXsTw2UQpR3F9BBz3R3cs
KlausT's BTC donation address: 1QHH2dibyYL5iyMDk3UN4PVvFVtrWD8QKp
for more donation addresses please read the README.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] 2 miner threads started
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070 (15 SMX), using 60 blocks of 32 threads
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070 (15 SMX), using 60 blocks of 32 threads
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] Pool set diff to 500054
[2017-09-23 14:33:54] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:33:57] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 648.71 H/s (648.58 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:33:57] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 623.38 H/s (623.22 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:34:11] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:34:13] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.66 H/s (710.22 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:34:13] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.64 H/s (702.43 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:06] Pool set diff to 350010
[2017-09-23 14:35:06] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:35:06] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.36 H/s (718.44 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:06] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.37 H/s (714.17 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:11] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 710.39 H/s (717.88 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:11] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 1428.76 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:35:17] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:35:17] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.12 H/s (714.29 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:19] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.93 H/s (718.08 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:35:57] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:35:59] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.85 H/s (718.96 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:36:00] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.43 H/s (715.36 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:36:52] Pool set diff to 245007
[2017-09-23 14:36:52] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:40:03] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.93 H/s (716.51 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:40:04] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.59 H/s (719.81 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:40:59] Pool set diff to 58824.7
[2017-09-23 14:40:59] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:41:00] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.95 H/s (716.70 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:41:00] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.57 H/s (719.91 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:41:23] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:41:24] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.59 H/s (716.69 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:41:24] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.54 H/s (719.95 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:42:04] Pool set diff to 50000.2
[2017-09-23 14:42:04] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:42:04] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.56 H/s (720.00 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:42:07] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.18 H/s (716.73 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:42:07] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:10] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:13] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:15] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:18] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:21] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:24] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:26] GPU #1: result for nonce $008006C5 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:29] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:32] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:34] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:37] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:40] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:43] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:45] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:48] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:51] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:54] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:56] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:59] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:42:59] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:43:00] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.77 H/s (716.54 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:02] GPU #1: result for nonce $008041DF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:43:02] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 700.57 H/s (717.96 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:07] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:43:08] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.21 H/s (716.51 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:10] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.60 H/s (718.00 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:24] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:43:24] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.12 H/s (716.44 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:26] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.54 H/s (718.07 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:41] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.45 H/s (716.36 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:43:41] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 1434.00 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:44:19] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:44:19] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.56 H/s (718.28 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:44:21] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.85 H/s (716.32 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:44:21] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 1436.40 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:44:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.27 H/s (716.26 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:44:51] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 1435.82 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:56:06] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:09] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:12] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:15] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:17] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:20] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:23] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:26] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:28] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:31] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.64 H/s (715.82 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:56:31] accepted: 16/16 (100.00%), 1437.12 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:56:31] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:34] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:37] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:39] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:40] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:56:42] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.12 H/s (715.82 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:56:42] GPU #1: result for nonce $00803485 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:56:42] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 707.28 H/s (718.34 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:56:58] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.65 H/s (715.82 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:56:58] accepted: 17/17 (100.00%), 1422.93 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:57:08] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.64 H/s (715.81 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:57:09] accepted: 18/18 (100.00%), 1421.92 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:57:35] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:57:38] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.26 H/s (715.81 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:57:38] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.31 H/s (718.42 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:57:49] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.13 H/s (718.39 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:57:49] accepted: 19/19 (100.00%), 1431.39 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:58:31] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:58:31] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.34 H/s (718.45 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:58:32] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.34 H/s (715.79 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:58:54] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:58:55] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.51 H/s (718.48 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:58:56] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.65 H/s (715.82 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:59:18] Stratum detected new block
GPU 1: an illegal memory access was encountered
cryptonight/cuda_cryptonight_core.cu line 255 hashing time : 14:33 => 14h59 ==> 26 min What miner for cryptonight should I use while waiting for a solution ? Should I continue with that of Salfter or that of Klaust even if they bug within 30 minutes both ? |
|
|
|
So my problem with Cryptonight hasher with the GPUs does not seem to be solved.
If you have an idea, I am taker, because I know how to apply some rules but I do not know how to program.
About 9 days ago there was a fix for the "illegal memory access" problem in ccminer-cryptonight. Maybe your version is older than that. The latest version is there: https://github.com/KlausT/ccminer-cryptonight/releasesI just compiled from the downloaded sources on your link and I 've already got this error after a few minutes. By the way, I did not find a build.sh, so I made a make Therefore, the memory access pb is not resolved. I do the same test with that of Salfter Log: m1@MINER44:~/00.TESTS/ccminer-cryptonight-2.05$ ./ccminer -o stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580 -u minerspeudo44.MINER44 -p x
*** ccminer-cryptonight 2.05 (64 bit) for nVidia GPUs by tsiv and KlausT
*** Built with GCC 5.4 using the Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 8.0
tsiv's BTC donation address: 1JHDKp59t1RhHFXsTw2UQpR3F9BBz3R3cs
KlausT's BTC donation address: 1QHH2dibyYL5iyMDk3UN4PVvFVtrWD8QKp
for more donation addresses please read the README.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-09-23 13:29:20] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070 (15 SMX), using 60 blocks of 32 threads
[2017-09-23 13:29:20] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580
[2017-09-23 13:29:20] 2 miner threads started
[2017-09-23 13:29:20] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070 (15 SMX), using 60 blocks of 32 threads
[2017-09-23 13:29:21] Pool set diff to 500054
[2017-09-23 13:29:21] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:29:23] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 649.35 H/s (649.32 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:29:23] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 633.48 H/s (633.42 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:29:35] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:29:36] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.36 H/s (705.85 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:29:36] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 722.14 H/s (705.65 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:29:52] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.28 H/s (711.03 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:29:52] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 1438.42 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:30:31] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:39:46] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.81 H/s (720.33 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:39:46] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.23 H/s (714.19 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:39:53] Pool set diff to 50000.2
[2017-09-23 13:39:53] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:39:54] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.05 H/s (720.34 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:39:54] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.56 H/s (714.18 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:39:57] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 695.57 H/s (714.10 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:39:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 1416.63 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:40:48] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:40:48] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.50 H/s (714.19 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:40:48] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 1436.55 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:40:50] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.03 H/s (720.40 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:40:55] Pool set diff to 75000.3
[2017-09-23 13:40:55] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:40:55] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.07 H/s (720.40 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:40:56] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 712.35 H/s (714.15 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:41:10] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.88 H/s (714.14 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:41:10] accepted: 12/12 (100.00%), 1434.94 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:41:14] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.80 H/s (720.34 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:41:14] accepted: 13/13 (100.00%), 1431.68 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:41:17] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 698.25 H/s (720.25 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:41:17] accepted: 14/14 (100.00%), 1412.13 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:41:50] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:41:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.57 H/s (714.26 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:41:52] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.04 H/s (720.29 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:42:29] Pool set diff to 52500.6
[2017-09-23 13:42:29] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:42:29] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.07 H/s (720.32 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:42:30] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.68 H/s (714.38 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:24] Pool set diff to 50000.2
[2017-09-23 13:43:24] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:43:25] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.01 H/s (720.37 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:26] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.98 H/s (714.56 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:27] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 698.73 H/s (720.30 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:28] accepted: 15/15 (100.00%), 1415.71 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:43:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.60 H/s (720.24 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:44] accepted: 16/16 (100.00%), 1434.58 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:43:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.75 H/s (714.53 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:43:51] accepted: 17/17 (100.00%), 1431.35 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:44:16] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.87 H/s (720.18 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:44:16] accepted: 18/18 (100.00%), 1432.62 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:44:19] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:44:20] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.65 H/s (714.60 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:44:21] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.15 H/s (720.19 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:44:26] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:29] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:32] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:35] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:37] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:40] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:43] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:45] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:48] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:51] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:54] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:56] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:44:59] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:02] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:05] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:07] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:10] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:13] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:14] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:45:16] GPU #1: result for nonce $00800AD3 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:45:16] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 702.95 H/s (719.20 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:16] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.44 H/s (714.59 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:18] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:45:18] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.22 H/s (719.21 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:19] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 712.47 H/s (714.59 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:24] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 708.94 H/s (714.56 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:25] accepted: 19/19 (100.00%), 1430.17 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:45:38] Pool set diff to 75000.3
[2017-09-23 13:45:38] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:45:38] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.98 H/s (714.55 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:45:40] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.06 H/s (719.25 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:46:33] Pool set diff to 52500.6
[2017-09-23 13:46:33] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:46:33] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.01 H/s (719.34 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:46:34] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.18 H/s (714.69 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:46:51] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:46:51] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.03 H/s (719.37 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:46:53] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.33 H/s (714.72 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:46:59] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:02] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:05] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:08] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:10] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:13] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:16] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:19] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:21] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:24] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:27] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:30] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:32] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:35] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:38] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:41] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:43] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:46] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:46] Pool set diff to 50000.2
[2017-09-23 13:47:46] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:47:47] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.57 H/s (714.72 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:47:49] GPU #1: result for nonce $00801124 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:47:49] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 703.51 H/s (718.55 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:47:57] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 709.93 H/s (714.67 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:47:58] accepted: 20/20 (100.00%), 1413.43 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:48:42] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:48:42] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.98 H/s (718.62 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:48:42] accepted: 21/21 (100.00%), 1429.91 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:48:43] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.48 H/s (714.65 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:49:06] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.84 H/s (718.62 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:49:06] accepted: 22/22 (100.00%), 1433.32 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:49:15] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:49:15] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.37 H/s (714.70 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:49:17] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.94 H/s (718.63 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:49:38] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.53 H/s (718.63 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:49:38] accepted: 23/23 (100.00%), 1434.90 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:49:44] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:49:46] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:49:49] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:49:52] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:49:55] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:49:57] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:50:00] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:50:03] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:50:05] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:50:07] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:50:08] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804923 does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 13:50:08] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 703.00 H/s (718.25 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:50:09] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.61 H/s (714.74 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:50:46] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.61 H/s (718.29 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:50:46] accepted: 24/24 (100.00%), 1435.22 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:51:03] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:51:04] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.85 H/s (718.30 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:51:05] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.97 H/s (714.84 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:51:17] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:51:18] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.02 H/s (718.33 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:51:19] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.87 H/s (714.85 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:51:35] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.53 H/s (714.84 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:51:35] accepted: 25/25 (100.00%), 1435.56 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:52:12] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:52:12] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.60 H/s (714.89 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:13] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.01 H/s (718.44 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:22] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.50 H/s (718.42 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:22] accepted: 26/26 (100.00%), 1431.10 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:52:26] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:52:27] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.01 H/s (718.43 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:28] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.07 H/s (714.89 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:50] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.37 H/s (714.90 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:50] accepted: 27/27 (100.00%), 1436.37 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:52:55] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 703.66 H/s (714.85 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:56] accepted: 28/28 (100.00%), 1424.67 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:52:56] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.12 H/s (718.44 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:52:56] accepted: 29/29 (100.00%), 1422.78 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:53:21] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:53:22] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.01 H/s (714.86 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:53:23] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.08 H/s (718.49 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:16] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:54:18] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.21 H/s (714.95 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:19] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.03 H/s (718.58 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:37] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.40 H/s (714.94 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:37] accepted: 30/30 (100.00%), 1435.43 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:54:43] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 718.61 H/s (718.59 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:43] accepted: 31/31 (100.00%), 1433.01 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:54:48] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 711.36 H/s (718.56 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:54:48] accepted: 32/32 (100.00%), 1425.76 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:55:12] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:55:12] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.29 H/s (714.95 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:55:12] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.77 H/s (718.59 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:55:20] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.41 H/s (718.58 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:55:21] accepted: 33/33 (100.00%), 1430.70 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:56:08] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:56:08] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.88 H/s (718.64 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:56:08] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.81 H/s (715.01 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:03] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:57:04] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.96 H/s (718.72 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:05] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.95 H/s (715.08 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:13] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:57:15] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.98 H/s (718.73 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:15] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.29 H/s (715.07 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:21] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 710.51 H/s (715.06 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:21] accepted: 34/34 (100.00%), 1431.49 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:57:37] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:57:37] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.32 H/s (715.08 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:57:39] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.05 H/s (718.77 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:11] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.41 H/s (718.78 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:11] accepted: 35/35 (100.00%), 1436.74 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:58:28] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.78 H/s (715.13 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:28] accepted: 36/36 (100.00%), 1436.19 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:58:32] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:58:32] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.10 H/s (718.81 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:33] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 712.71 H/s (715.12 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:46] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.22 H/s (715.12 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:47] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:58:47] accepted: 37/37 (100.00%), 1436.31 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:58:48] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.99 H/s (718.83 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:58:49] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 709.24 H/s (715.10 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:59:11] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.11 H/s (715.12 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:59:11] accepted: 38/38 (100.00%), 1437.11 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 13:59:42] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 13:59:43] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.03 H/s (715.13 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 13:59:44] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.00 H/s (718.89 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:00:40] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:00:42] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 713.82 H/s (715.09 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:00:43] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.03 H/s (718.96 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:12] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 719.21 H/s (718.96 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:12] accepted: 39/39 (100.00%), 1433.03 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:01:17] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.91 H/s (715.10 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:17] accepted: 40/40 (100.00%), 1435.12 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:01:23] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:01:23] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.00 H/s (718.97 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:25] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.78 H/s (715.09 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:41] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:01:41] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.35 H/s (715.10 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:41] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.79 H/s (718.99 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:47] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:01:49] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 714.25 H/s (715.10 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:01:49] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.64 H/s (719.00 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:02:40] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.96 H/s (715.15 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:02:40] accepted: 41/41 (100.00%), 1437.60 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:02:42] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:02:42] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 720.79 H/s (719.04 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:02:43] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 709.32 H/s (715.14 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:02:58] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:02:58] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.07 H/s (719.06 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:02:59] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 715.92 H/s (715.14 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:03:32] Stratum detected new block
[2017-09-23 14:03:33] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 721.01 H/s (719.09 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:03:34] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1070, 716.01 H/s (715.16 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:03:49] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 1070, 717.91 H/s (719.08 H/s avg)
[2017-09-23 14:03:49] accepted: 42/42 (100.00%), 1433.91 H/s (yay!!!)
[2017-09-23 14:04:03] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:05] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:08] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:11] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:13] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:16] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
[2017-09-23 14:04:19] GPU #1: result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU!
GPU 1: an illegal memory access was encountered
cryptonight/cuda_cryptonight_core.cu line 255 Hashing time : 13:20 =>14:04 = 34 min What means theses messages : result for nonce $00804AFF does not validate on CPU! Hardware : Motherboard : TB250BTC PRO (12 PCIe) Intel G34xx 4 Go RAM DDR4 USB Key 32Go 2 X GTX 1070 Asus Dual nvOC V0019 (not upgraded yet) How can i help you to improve debugging ? |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I have recently built a new rig with 13 P106-100 ASUS cards on nv0019 running -200cc 1550mc and PL90. I have a weird problem that after some time the hashrate on all cards drop by 50% or more and doesn't go back up, the miner doesn't restart and it just keeps running with lower hashrate. This time it did this after 7 hours , with 7 cards running it was up for over 12hours and no problems. Has anyone experienced this before and maybe you know where the problem is?
I am obviously running headless and using SSH to monitor the rig and adjust the settings.
PS. The miner or the OS doesn't restart the miner or reboot the system, just the hashrate drops pretty badly from 328 to 140 MH/s.
Thanks in advance to everyone who can help and also thanks to fullzero for the new version!
I've had similar issue, when one or two cards would semi-freeze, bringing the whole rig to work extremely slow. I added whole bunch of debug options in the watchdog to figure out what was going on... it turns out watcdog enters into a loop for counting down errors before trying to restart the mining process and it takes about 5-10 min to change the count by -1 and it won't catch the low utilization to restart the rig until few hours later. The mining doesn't stop but continues at reduced hash speed, some cards drop from 25 to 13 MH/s, some down to 0. To make it worst, during this semi-hang the driver changes p-state due to low/high utilization so it ends up with some cards at p2, some at p8 and some at p0 which screws the OC and makes more cards to hang. I have some ideas to modify or even rewrite the watchdog to address these issues and will post it once finished. I am quite busy atm to work on it but I can post logs from the added debug so that devs can look into it. Anyway, it turns out all of this was caused by two cards (same brand/model/memory) that couldn't handle the overclocking as the rest of the cards. By reducing the memory overclock on these two from 1820 to 1700 it stabilized the rig, no more hangups. For now, reduce your overclock and give it a try, see if it fixes the problem. Please post back with results. Have you managed to improve your watchdog as you said in this previous post? |
|
|
|
So my problem with Cryptonight hasher with the GPUs does not seem to be solved.
If you have an idea, I am taker, because I know how to apply some rules but I do not know how to program.
About 9 days ago there was a fix for the "illegal memory access" problem in ccminer-cryptonight. Maybe your version is older than that. The latest version is there: https://github.com/KlausT/ccminer-cryptonight/releasesThanks Klaust. I will try to recompile again from sources from v2.05 When I did my tests last night, I realized one thing after posting my message: the 1bash script runs the plusCPU command to mine monero with the CPU. in a previous comment, I was asking the question of dual CPU-GPU mining. I do not remember having an answer. Is it possible to do cryptonight hash with the CPU and GPUs at the same time? If so, on identical pools and addresses? On the same machine at the same time? |
|
|
|
Papami, Leenoox and IAmNotAJeep : What do you think about this other site that give some other comparisons ? https://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrencyThey don't give JSON but they give others résults and coins. Would it be possible to request and extract data of the answer page that they give us ? |
|
|
|
@salfter
Is it possible for you to write a switch based on WhatToMine.com json api?
MPH switch with its high 30 minute api update time is almost useless,
by the time MPH api updates the coin difficulty has changed and there is no profit most of the times.
I'm not so good with programming but if you show us the way I think there are many here better than me that will help make it happen.
WhatToMine api can give tailored results and I think its api update time is 3 minutes (just posted to ask on its page)
We just need to set the cards, click calculate, then add a .json after coins with the rest of the address.
That way mixed card rigs gets the best results based on what they set too.
I was thinking of a way that WTM_Switch read from the given link, and the coins we set it to switch in 1bash
then it switch between the coins with whatever pools it is set in 1bash.
P.S.
I tried to give it a shot from your MPH_SWITCH, but its way over my league.
+ 1 000 0000 I have awkwardly tried to write what you propose in one of my previous posts, but I am for this proposal. I was starting to make up my mind to do it myself, but like you, I do not have enough programming skills for it. And I did not dare to ask Scott Alfter as Newbie of this forum. Indeed, if we could directly switch to any crypto that is in the 1bash in focus of the calculations of profitability given by WTM, it would be top ++++! I will add a request to your proposal: May also use additional parameters to this WTM_Switch. For example, choose between average income over 3 days or 7 days or even immediate (the 3 minutes you quote). Or choose between average profitability (last column of their web page). So today I found that "greencoin" (VTC) is more profitable hash over a week than Zencash which was largely ahead of ETH when I made this query of average profitability over 3 days and 7 days (91,000 Satochis of average over 7 days at 17:15). Problem with average 24, 3 days and a week is they are for the past based on current price. And some times shown great profit when there is a big price spike. So it means if you have been mining them for past week and now you sell them you get that profit. I believe best calculate is based on current difficulty and price because you are mining now, not in past. What about mining for best BTC exchange - since most of these pools pay in BTC? Example: SIGT/SKUNK is nowhere near the top on the profitability list on WTM but it gives almost the highest BTC result. If we calculate fiat profitability we deal with variables often moving in different directions (altcoin to btc and then btc to fiat exchange). We end up with a unit of measure that expands and contracts. That is like measuring different things while your ruler expands and contracts randomly between measurements in response to unrelated events, possibly even the wholesale price of bacon  Just thinking out loud, but recently I've been focusing on btc exchange. Having read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2067256.0, I would say that your two points of view are actually defending themselves. Indeed, we can not only rely on the past of 3 or 7 days to determine which altcoin miner. But it is clear to me that I chose nvOC for this reason that evokes iamnotajeep: exchange to BTC. It's easier to use then, sometimes even without going through the fiat. I think of the site where I buy a mining equipment that accepts BTC via BitPay. And there's nothing to stop automatic exchange on pools or 1bash for those who want to. Then do tradding on every corner once the wallet of the tradding squares. VertCoin is the one who brought back the most Satochis, this is what I relied on, although my reasoning may have been wrong, as Papami has made clear. I recognize him. |
|
|
|
Klaust ccminer is fixed! Compiled it with new makefile.am and its working like a champ Raised my neoscrypt hash rate by more than 20% from 800 to 1030~1060 on GTX-1070 And here is the compiled link if any one wanted KTccminer Dropbox Download LinkDownload, Extract to /home/m1/KTccminer Then change neoscrypt lines in 3main from : if [ $COIN == "FTC" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/SPccminer/ccminer' To: if [ $COIN == "FTC" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/KTccminer/ccminer' And in Nicehash and MPH_switcher lines : From: "cmd": "/home/m1/SPccminer/ccminer -a neoscrypt ... rest_of_the_line ...
To: "cmd": "/home/m1/KTccminer/ccminer -a neoscrypt ... rest_of_the_line ...
m1@m1-desktop-102:~/Downloads/ccminer-klaust$ ./ccminer -a neoscrypt -o stratum+tcp://hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510 -u papampi.nv101 -p x
ccminer 8.13-KlausT (64bit) for nVidia GPUs
Compiled with GCC 5.4 using Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 8.0
Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
Includes optimizations implemented by sp-hash, klaust, tpruvot and tsiv.
[2017-09-20 23:01:54] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] NVML GPU monitoring enabled.
0
1
2
3
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #1: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] 7 miner threads started, using 'neoscrypt' algorithm.
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #3: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #6: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #5: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #2: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #0: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] GPU #4: waiting for data
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] Stratum difficulty set to 256
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] Stratum difficulty set to 1374.19
[2017-09-20 23:01:55] hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510 neoscrypt block 1891623
[2017-09-20 23:01:56] hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510 neoscrypt block 1891624
[2017-09-20 23:02:00] hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510 neoscrypt block 1891625
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #2: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1047.67 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #1: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1047.00 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1036.62 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #5: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1053.91 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #6: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1050.90 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #4: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1029.65 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:02] GPU #3: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1016.98 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:08] GPU #3: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1019.92 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:09] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 7284.19 kH/s yay!!!
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] hub.miningpoolhub.com:20510 neoscrypt block 1891626
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #6: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1060.29 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #2: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1048.35 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #5: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1051.61 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1028.51 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #3: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1022.12 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #1: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1045.29 kH/s
[2017-09-20 23:02:20] GPU #4: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 1030.82 kH/s
I download it but when i try to use, i had an error. So i recompile it dierctly on my miner machine, and i was an happy man to see what my 2 GTX 1070 (AUSU DUAL) on my Biostar BTC PRO+ (12 PCiE) hash at 2012 KH/s in the beginning, and around 1980 KH/s after ten or fifteen minutes. But, i tried to use it for cryptonight after recompiling it (yours), and i had the same error : Wainting for data retry in 10 seconds. m1@MINER44:~/KTccminer$ ./ccminer -a cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580 -u minerpseudo44.MINER44 -p xccminer 8.13-KlausT (64bit) for nVidia GPUs
Compiled with GCC 5.4 using Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 8.0
Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
Includes optimizations implemented by sp-hash, klaust, tpruvot and tsiv.
Try `ccminer --help' for more information.
[2017-09-21 23:42:57] stopping 0 threads
[2017-09-21 23:42:57] resetting GPUs
m1@MINER44:~/KTccminer$ ./ccminer -o stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580 -u minerpseudo44.MINER44-p xccminer 8.13-KlausT (64bit) for nVidia GPUs
Compiled with GCC 5.4 using Nvidia CUDA Toolkit 8.0
Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
Includes optimizations implemented by sp-hash, klaust, tpruvot and tsiv.
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://europe.cryptonight-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20580
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] NVML GPU monitoring enabled.
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] 2 miner threads started, using 'bitcoin' algorithm.
0
1
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] GPU #1: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] GPU #0: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:32] ...retry after 10 seconds
[2017-09-21 23:43:35] GPU #0: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:35] GPU #1: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:38] GPU #1: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:38] GPU #0: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:41] GPU #0: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:41] GPU #1: waiting for data
[2017-09-21 23:43:42] ...retry after 10 seconds
[2017-09-21 23:43:44] GPU #0: waiting for data
I restore the salfter KTccminer and i tried the same command line. It works ! But after seven minutes, i had this message : GPU 1: an illegal memory access was encountered
cryptonight/cuda_cryptonight_core.cu line 255
and the hashing stop immediatly ! grrrrr   So my problem with Cryptonight hasher with the GPUs does not seem to be solved. If you have an idea, I am taker, because I know how to apply some rules but I do not know how to program. I was very surprised to note the time it takes to compile the KTccminer for an impressive number of graphics card! I had a big doubt after a while and I almost interrupted the ./build.sh, but I did not do anything and I'm very happy! |
|
|
|
@salfter
Is it possible for you to write a switch based on WhatToMine.com json api?
MPH switch with its high 30 minute api update time is almost useless,
by the time MPH api updates the coin difficulty has changed and there is no profit most of the times.
I'm not so good with programming but if you show us the way I think there are many here better than me that will help make it happen.
WhatToMine api can give tailored results and I think its api update time is 3 minutes (just posted to ask on its page)
We just need to set the cards, click calculate, then add a .json after coins with the rest of the address.
That way mixed card rigs gets the best results based on what they set too.
I was thinking of a way that WTM_Switch read from the given link, and the coins we set it to switch in 1bash
then it switch between the coins with whatever pools it is set in 1bash.
P.S.
I tried to give it a shot from your MPH_SWITCH, but its way over my league.
+ 1 000 0000 I have awkwardly tried to write what you propose in one of my previous posts, but I am for this proposal. I was starting to make up my mind to do it myself, but like you, I do not have enough programming skills for it. And I did not dare to ask Scott Alfter as Newbie of this forum. Indeed, if we could directly switch to any crypto that is in the 1bash in focus of the calculations of profitability given by WTM, it would be top ++++! I will add a request to your proposal: May also use additional parameters to this WTM_Switch. For example, choose between average income over 3 days or 7 days or even immediate (the 3 minutes you quote). Or choose between average profitability (last column of their web page). So today I found that "greencoin" (VTC) is more profitable hash over a week than Zencash which was largely ahead of ETH when I made this query of average profitability over 3 days and 7 days (91,000 Satochis of average over 7 days at 17:15). |
|
|
|
Klaust ccminer is fixed! Compiled it with new makefile.am and its working like a champ Raised my neoscrypt hash rate by more than 20% from 800 to 1030~1060 on GTX-1070 And here is the compiled link if any one wanted KTccminer Dropbox Download LinkDownload, Extract to /home/m1/KTccminer Then change neoscrypt lines in 3main from : if [ $COIN == "FTC" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/SPccminer/ccminer' To: if [ $COIN == "FTC" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/KTccminer/ccminer' And in Nicehash and MPH_switcher lines : From: "cmd": "/home/m1/SPccminer/ccminer -a neoscrypt ... rest_of_the_line ...
To: "cmd": "/home/m1/KTccminer/ccminer -a neoscrypt ... rest_of_the_line ...
Should you also use this version of "KTccminer" that you compiled to undermine cryptonignht (monero) or does it need another directory with a different version of "KTccminer"? This question because in a previous post you told me to simply remove "-a cryptonight" on the line that concerns this algo |
|
|
|
I could compile KTccminer on nv0019, but not on my other ubuntu gave me some errors just download the source and run the commands with no args ./autogen.sh
./configure.sh
./build.sh
it should be ok remember to: cd to the KTccminer directory first: cd /home/m1/KTccminer Klaust aswered under papami's Github ticket. He said and/or write : "I have a 1070 too, and under Windows it works. Did you use the build.sh script to compile it?" In my case, i just downloaded tar salfter's KTccminer and uncompressed in /home/m1. But i saw the mph_switching_profit stop mining when Monero bécame most profitable to mine. The rig don't mine nothing before to toggle to anoter coin algorithm. unfortunately if I have the skills to compile or mining, I do not have those to know how to code. I try to read your scripts, which I sometimes understand, but not always everything and not all the time ... Thank you very much to you fullzero for this work and the great progress of nvOC. I'm sure everything can still make great strides. Why not with a web interface for example? |
|
|
|
I read this post: subject [nicehash vs zpool vs miningpoolhub - And the winner is ...] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2067256.0The author displays a table with comparisons betwen these three pool and concludes : "Even with the talk about zpool taking 20% or what not, for me, it still comes out on top, so that just proves that zpool is more profitable for multi-algo switching the BTC wallet. " Would it be possible to make a switching profit script for multipool Zpool multi-algorithm in the future ? More complex: Would it be possible to make a script that would switch between minning profit scripts and all coins they permit to mine ? For example, switching between the pools of each multipool based on the most cost-effective cryptocurrencie, depending on the pools activated. From the onion miner on zpool, then from ETH on minningpooolhub 10 minutes later, or zcash (equihash) on nicehash the next 10 minutes depending on their level of profitability ? |
|
|
|
|
I have not managed to connect via the local network in ssh with putty (from a W7 x64) on my rig in nvOC019. No error message. Putty emits a sound of error and closes immediately!
Did I forget something in addition to REMOTE and SSH = YES?
I ping it with no pb but ssh seems to be unactivated :-( How can i verify if SSH server is launched ?
Do you have any idea why my putty (or rig) immediately refuses the ssh connection frommy W7x64 PC ?
|
|
|
|
engine's forum refuse i post, so a take a capture of my question preview post of this forum engine before tu upload in hosting imager.  |
|
|
|
I can not install KTccminer on NVOCv019. I looked at your post on their incident ticket page and I find that 4 days ago you were able to compile it correctly on your machine. Unfortunately, I have not managed to do the same with my Biostar TB250-BTC PRO (Socket 1151) and my 2 x ASUS GTX1070 DUAL. I use the script (s) of Scott ALlfter (alias Salfter) and I went on his page here: https://gitlab.com/salfter/mph_switch/tree/master. This page explains how to add the Cryptonight and Sia miners but I was unable to compile by following the command lines given by Salfter. ./autoreconf.sh does not exist in the KTccminer directory and ./configure --with-cuda- / usr / local / cuda-8.0 also returns errors after executing the file: autogen.sh here is what the configuration command gives me before the command make: user @ hostname $ / KTccminer-cryptonight $ ./configure --with-cuda / usr / local / cuda configure: WARNING: you should use --build, --host, --target configure: WARNING: invalid host type: / usr / local / cuda checking build system type ... / usr / local / cuda configure: error: invalid value of canonical build It seems to me to have found by re-reading the bash-history that it tries to mine with the CPUminer which mine at the same time as ETH and the others algo. is it possible to mining with CPUs and GPUs with two different software simultaneously without it posing bp? That is, I use Scott's mining profit switching script and I have activated the plusCPU function of fullZERO in the 1bash 1 / How to install KTccminer correctly? 2 / Is it possible to mine monero with the CPUs in addition to the GPUs ? @Scott Alfter The use of your script delighted me, but I hesitated for a long time because of the lack of documentation. I did not know too much or I was going. and I still do not really know where all the files you are using. Maybe you have some documentation about these scripts? NB: I used google translation to write this message |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
