 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
|
This version keeps crashing after a few minutes of starting. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Is there supposed to be a significant variance between the Pool Hashrate and the Hashrate reporting within TBM?
You seem to be abit unlucky here. Normally it will even out over time. Higher difficulty, higher fluctation in the hashrate poolside. v1.18 has a bug in the stats for pool that use vardiff. F.eks Nicehash. Should I revert back to 1.17 until that bug is fixed in the next release? Is xintensity 512 too low for 2miners? |
|
|
|
|
Been running TBM 1.18 (CUDA 11.4) for 7.5+ hours on 2miners.com with the specs configured below:
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] ID BOARD TYPE KERN XINT TEMP FAN CORE MEM WATT
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU0 3060Ti Cuda 6 512 62/0 70 1417 8092 153
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU1 3060Ti Cuda 5 512 66/0 70 1671 8092 184
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU2 3060Ti Cuda 2 512 69/0 70 1433 8092 153
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU3 3060Ti Cuda 5 512 57/0 70 1700 8092 184
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU4 3060Ti Cuda 2 512 67/0 70 1494 8092 153
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU5 3060Ti Cuda 5 512 62/0 65 1443 8092 153
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] 980
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] ID BOARD HASHRATE/W HASHRATE AVERAGE SHARES
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU0 3060Ti 425.14 kH/W 65.05 MH/s 65.05 MH/s 170/0/2 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU1 3060Ti. 353.51 kH/W 65.05 MH/s 65.04 MH/s 183/0/1 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU2 3060Ti 425.05 kH/W 65.03 MH/s 65.03 MH/s 186/0/1 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU3 3060Ti 353.50 kH/W 65.04 MH/s 65.04 MH/s 175/0/1 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU4 3060Ti 425.05 kH/W 65.03 MH/s 65.03 MH/s 183/0/1 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] GPU5 3060Ti 425.17 kH/W 65.05 MH/s 65.05 MH/s 184/0/1 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] 401.24 kH/W 390.25 MH/s 390.24 MH/s 1081/0/7 (100.00)
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382]
441m [2021-10-23 23:31:48.382] COST: 0.98 KWH (0.08USD) POOL HASHRATE: 357.31 MH/s
Is there supposed to be a significant variance between the Pool Hashrate and the Hashrate reporting within TBM?
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for asking the same question in previous posts as I am trying to see what the best value is for my NVIDIA 3060 TIs.
Pools change their code too. I think the best option is to find something that works for you and keep it for yourself. We have created a miner that be tuned to produce great profit. Your job is to find out how to use it... That makes sense. Is there a minimum/maximum value for xintensity? And also please keep up the great work!!  |
|
|
|
|
Is it recommended to do dynamic (-1) vs the default for xintensity when mining on miningpoolhub/2miners/nanopool?
Forgive me for asking the same question in previous posts as I am trying to see what the best value is for my NVIDIA 3060 TIs.
|
|
|
|
--kernel 0 seems to best on gtx 1080 and 1080ti with the pill. default intensity (192)
--kernel 7 crashing
41MHASH on the 1080ti, 34++ on 1080
Does the kernel value determine the number of shares submitted per minute? |
|
|
|
708m [2021-10-20 04:48:36.749] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected!
Are these messages an indicator that the Memory Overclocks are too high for these two cards?
Yes, but instead of dropping the memclock you can try a lower kernel number --lock-cclock is helping for stability as well. I did not specify a kernel speed as I was allowing the miner to select the best one. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:30.854] GPU5 using gpu kernel 4. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:30.885] GPU0 using gpu kernel 2. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:30.963] GPU3 using gpu kernel 4. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:30.995] GPU1 using gpu kernel 2. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:31.010] GPU2 using gpu kernel 6. 0m [2021-10-20 07:15:31.026] GPU4 using gpu kernel 6. Is there a baseline I can start with for 3060 TIs? |
|
|
|
835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU1 3060Ti 353.21 kH/W. 64.99 MH/s 64.99 MH/s 228/3/0 (98.70)
835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU2 3060Ti 423.85 kH/W. 64.85 MH/s 64.91 MH/s 253/6/0 (97.68)
Check the clocks on these cards, you shouldn't normally get rejected shares on this pool. Search in the log for cpu verification errors. Reduce the clocks. TBM will not send shares to the pool that fail CPU verification, but they will show as rejected in the stats. Here is a live test on v1.17 with default intensity (192), ~21 hours:  449m [2021-10-20 00:25:04.726] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 482m [2021-10-20 00:58:43.716] GPU1 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 617m [2021-10-20 03:16:21.509] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 701m [2021-10-20 04:41:53.221] GPU1 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 708m [2021-10-20 04:48:35.281] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 708m [2021-10-20 04:48:36.015] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! 708m [2021-10-20 04:48:36.749] GPU2 Cpu verification failed. Share not sent to the pool. Rejected! Are these messages an indicator that the Memory Overclocks are too high for these two cards? |
|
|
|
Is xintensity 192 still the recommended value for miningpoolhub?
For nvidia it should be good. Testing it now on miningpoolhub. The payout was lower than normal the last 24hours, but pool luck was bad as well. Ethereum difficulty has rised to new heights. Previous tests show that higher xintensities are better. f.ex 400 Here are my results after running TBM 1.17 with xintensity 192 for more than 13+ hours: 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] miningpoolhub.com (ethash) PING: 57ms DIFFICULTY: 3.00 EPOCH: 448 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] ID BOARD HASHRATE/W HASHRATE AVERAGE SHARES 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU0 3060Ti 426.20 kH/W 65.21 MH/s 65.21 MH/s 238/0/0 (100.00) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU1 3060Ti 353.21 kH/W. 64.99 MH/s 64.99 MH/s 228/3/0 (98.70) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU2 3060Ti 423.85 kH/W. 64.85 MH/s 64.91 MH/s 253/6/0 (97.68) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU3 3060Ti 356.24 kH/W 65.19 MH/s 65.19 MH/s 234/0/0 (100.00) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU4 3060Ti 425.63 kH/W 65.12 MH/s 65.13 MH/s 247/0/0 (100.00) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] GPU5 3060Ti 426.30 kH/W 65.22 MH/s 65.20 MH/s 245/0/0 (100.00) 835m [2021-10-20 06:57:14.476] 2411.42 kH/W 390.58 MH/s 390.64 MH/s 1445/9/0 (99.38) Going to change xitensity to 400 to see if that value is better on miningpoolhub. |
|
|
|
Is xintensity 192 still the recommended value for miningpoolhub? |
|
|
|
on pools that reject stale work. nvidia run with --xintensity -1 and coreclock 1500. The default is working good on miningpoolhub, nanopool, 2miners and others
Thanks. So far, I can already tell that this version of TBM seems promising. Will update you in the next 8-10 hours. |
|
|
|
In this release, should we specify the xintensity value or just leave it by default? |
|
|
|
|
Been running TBM 1.14 with --xintensity 1408 for 17.8 hours now and here are my results below:
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] ID BOARD HASHRATE/W HASHRATE AVERAGE SHARES
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU0 3060Ti 425.56 kH/W 65.11 MH/s 65.11 MH/s 291/0/34 (100.00)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU1 3060Ti 350.15 kH/W 65.13 MH/s 65.13 MH/s 278/0/34 (100.00)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU2 3060Ti 425.68 kH/W 65.13 MH/s 65.13 MH/s 268/4/34 (98.53)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU3 3060Ti 353.95 kH/W 65.13 MH/s 65.13 MH/s 286/0/37 (100.00)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU4 3060Ti 425.66 kH/W 65.13 MH/s 65.13 MH/s 311/0/46 (100.00)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] GPU5 3060Ti 425.58 kH/W 65.11 MH/s 65.12 MH/s 287/0/42 (100.00)
1049m [2021-10-14 13:35:41.390] 2406.58 kH/W 390.73 MH/s 390.74 MH/s 1721/4/227 (99.77)
Is it bad or good that 10% of the submitted shares are stales for miningpoolhub?
|
|
|
|
|
Nvidia just released their latest driver (496.13) and they updated the CUDA version to 11.5
Will there be an updated TBM version that supports CUDA version 11.5?
|
|
|
|
Try to download again
The newly uploaded TBM v1.14 resolved the issue as now I am seeing the default xintensity value of 1200. Thanks! |
|
|
|
For this release, do we still need to specify the xintensity value since by default it is configured to 1200?
No need if you mine on miningpoolhub, 2miners, nanopool and many others. But Flexpool, ethermine, nicehash probobly need a lower --xintensity I am running TBM 1.14 now and excluded the xintensity value in the parameters. However, I am seeing that the miner is auto selecting "224" instead of "1200". Am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
All my gpus in all rigs are in P0 state for many years, it is something else.
Here in p0 clocks are stable except when temp is to hot, or the card doesn't have enough power. Anyway v1.14 has been released. check it out. v1.14 has few detected stales on miningpoolhub on --xintensity 1200 (default) and the poolside profit is amazing. For this release, do we still need to specify the xintensity value since by default it is configured to 1200? |
|
|
|
Is there a thread link to this suggestion?
Also, would that increase more stale shares submitted since we are increasing the xintensity?
Scroll a few pages back and look at the pictures. Miningpoolhub pay 100% for stale shares so it doesn't matter. 2miners, nanopool, wollypooly 100% as well. ezil.me 70% , hiveon.com 80%. Flexpool, ethermine, nicehash, binance pay 0%. So the configuration of the mining software needs to be changed accordingly Note that the ethereum blockchain rewards stale work/blocks. They are called uncle blocks. The uncle blocks are protecting the security of the blockchain. For bitcoin based blockchains stale work is not rewarded and not needed. Thanks for the explanation. I updated the xintensity to 352 and currently mining on miningpoolhub.com. Will provide results in the next 8-10 hours. Been running TBM 1.13 with xintensity 352 for 8 hours and my results are below: 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] ID BOARD HASHRATE/W HASHRATE AVERAGE SHARES 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU0 3060Ti 436.17 kH/W 64.99 MH/s 64.99 MH/s 133/0/0 (100.00) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU1 3060Ti 362.99 kH/W 64.98 MH/s 64.98 MH/s 155/0/0 (100.00) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU2 3060Ti 435.92 kH/W 64.95 MH/s 64.95 MH/s 134/1/0 (99.26) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU3 3060Ti 363.04 kH/W 64.98 MH/s 64.98 MH/s 128/0/0 (100.00) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU4 3060Ti 435.91 kH/W 64.95 MH/s 64.96 MH/s 135/0/0 (100.00) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] GPU5 3060Ti 436.15 kH/W 64.99 MH/s 64.99 MH/s 160/0/0 (100.00) 485m [2021-10-11 20:07:37.418] 2470.18 kH/W 389.84 MH/s 389.85 MH/s 845/1/0 (99.88) |
|
|
|
Is there a thread link to this suggestion?
Also, would that increase more stale shares submitted since we are increasing the xintensity?
Scroll a few pages back and look at the pictures. Miningpoolhub pay 100% for stale shares so it doesn't matter. 2miners, nanopool, wollypooly 100% as well. ezil.me 70% , hiveon.com 80%. Flexpool, ethermine, nicehash, binance pay 0%. So the configuration of the mining software needs to be changed accordingly Note that the ethereum blockchain rewards stale work/blocks. They are called uncle blocks. The uncle blocks are protecting the security of the blockchain. For bitcoin based blockchains stale work is not rewarded and not needed. Thanks for the explanation. I updated the xintensity to 352 and currently mining on miningpoolhub.com. Will provide results in the next 8-10 hours. |
|
|
|
On miningpoolhub try --xintensity 352 (suggested by one of the other users)
Is there a thread link to this suggestion? Also, would that increase more stale shares submitted since we are increasing the xintensity? |
|
|
|
|
