Hello fellow enthusiasts! If my hashrate would have been 6.5 mh, how often should I have found the block, an average ? I can see 4 out of 6 rigs successfully connecting to one wallet for mining , but 2 others are getting [2014-11-24 12:06:19] HTTP request failed: Operation timed out after 30997 milli
seconds with 0 out of -1 bytes received
[2014-11-24 12:06:19] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
is there any limit on amount of connected rigs per wallet ? 6.5 MH/s out of 280 MH/s network hashrate would give you an average block time of 45ish minutes. Default number of RPC threads in the wallet is 4, increasing that will allow for more connections to be handled. Command line or .conf, rpcthreads=somethinglargerthan4. |
|
|
|
And the results are in, this is from the most recent binary that's on github: [2014-11-21 14:37:51] DEBUG: hash <= target
Hash: 00000000b86e98efcc6d5a3f317121a8c4f43105d0c56bfe32375fa5dde554a7
Target: 00000000c0de0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[2014-11-21 14:37:51] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 3776 khash/s
[2014-11-21 14:37:51] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 3776 khash/s (yay!!!)
|
|
|
|
Added a couple of addresses on the github readme. BTC: 1QD25HSCF8EAxUTYj2XsXZNGBi7RvQ21p8
SPR: SfSEcVQGhbXvPQ2hkTj3vxSd9PEZA12efa
Yay, you are SPR rich  ...first 100bucks are out... will do more while mining. Cheers, now only if there were a lot more buys for the coins  |
|
|
|
If anybody feels like mining Spreadcoin.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg9607661#msg9607661Apparently the official OpenCL miner does something like 0.55 MH/s on a 280X while a factory OC GTX 750 Ti does something like 1.65 MH/s and a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 hits 3.8 MH/s on my CUDA version. There's a definite NVIDIA advantage there for now, the AMD number seems very low and will probably improve drastically in the future. Whether or not the coin is worth mining is a whole different question. tsiv, Are you having issues with your 970? Every block my 970 finds is orphaned. I'm gonna have to go with a "nope" [2014-11-21 14:11:45] DEBUG: hash <= target
Hash: 00000000bc7be9dce1d8702da12390920749bc3254f68db97b3d57d787ecd9ba
Target: 00000000d3b90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[2014-11-21 14:11:45] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 3821 khash/s
[2014-11-21 14:11:46] accepted: 54/58 (93.10%), 3821 khash/s (yay!!!)
I'll check that I'm actually running the latest binary instead of some earlier version, I'll get back to you on that. |
|
|
|
tsiv - big thanks again!
i'll spread some coins with you... just write your address somewere (github is always a good place).
nice to see you here still around, while a lot of people shut down their rigs.
@djm and I owe you a bunch of CSD... thank you too for your skminer.
Added a couple of addresses on the github readme. BTC: 1QD25HSCF8EAxUTYj2XsXZNGBi7RvQ21p8
SPR: SfSEcVQGhbXvPQ2hkTj3vxSd9PEZA12efa
|
|
|
|
i have troubles with sgminer and spreadminer from this topic
maybe x64 is the reason ?
"I have troubles" doesn't really tell much and I don't know about the sgminer version but I'm happily running the CUDA miner on Win 7 x64 so that probably isn't the problem. |
|
|
|
Where do I find cudart32_65.dll? nvidia wont start without it  Thanks I replaced the latest release with one that includes the dll. Runs fine without it for me but that might be because I have the SDK installed. https://github.com/tsiv/spreadminer/releasesThanks! Now it opening, but I still can't mine. *** Spreadminer 0.1 - a SpreadX11 miner for nVidia GPUs ***
based on ccminer 1.2 Copyright 2014 Christian Buchner, Christian H.
based on pooler-cpuminer 2.3.2 (c) 2010 Jeff Garzik, 2012 pooler
SpreadX11 additions by tsiv
[2014-11-21 10:33:52] 2 miner threads started, using 'spreadx11' algorithm.
[2014-11-21 10:33:52] HTTP request failed: Recv failure: Connection was aborted
[2014-11-21 10:33:52] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
[2014-11-21 10:34:22] HTTP request failed: The requested URL returned error: 403 Forbidden
[2014-11-21 10:34:22] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
Any idea? If you used the spreadcoin.conf from the cudaminer thread, you also might want to add rpcallowip=127.0.0.1 Mine looks something like this: server=1
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcuser=putrpcusernamehere
rpcpassword=putrpcpasswordhere
Unless you have a separate mining rig you can forget about the other rpcallowip line. It's there just to allow connections from other computers in your local network and if you're mining on the same computer that the wallet is running on, all you need is 127.0.0.1. Edit: Haven't really looked into it, not sure if a missing allowip also results in a 403 Forbidden. Could also be just a mismatch with the username/password between your conf and miner command line, double check just to make sure. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I was too fast  Is it recommended to have a different u/p in the bat? How are tied to a conf.file? can't find it anyhow the usual suspects works rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=pass
rpcallowip=192.168.8.* (your lan or local ip!)
listen=1
daemon=1
server=1
logtimestamps=1
Thanks again Now it asks for cudart32_65.dll? nvidia wont start without it Thanks In case you didn't have a chance to check the Spreadcoin thread yet, I replaced the latest zip with one that has cudart32_65.dll included. |
|
|
|
If anybody feels like mining Spreadcoin.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg9607661#msg9607661Apparently the official OpenCL miner does something like 0.55 MH/s on a 280X while a factory OC GTX 750 Ti does something like 1.65 MH/s and a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 hits 3.8 MH/s on my CUDA version. There's a definite NVIDIA advantage there for now, the AMD number seems very low and will probably improve drastically in the future. Whether or not the coin is worth mining is a whole different question. just curious what did you change (compared to x11) to have it working (haven't understood a lot of what he was saying) ? Not so much change than add. Changes would be in the RPC code and Blake. You need more data than just the header that also has more stuff in it than the common 88 bytes and you'll be feeding Blake 185 bytes, and those 185 have stuff that changes every 64 nonces instead of just replacing the nonce for every hash. From there on it's just X11. Calculating the new fields (that change every 64 nonces) in the header is done using sha256 (88 bytes from the block header), some modular arithmetic (add sha256 hash from previous step to a 256-bit value, multiply by another 256-bit value and reduce to mod ... some 256-bit value), and to finish it off with sha256 of the entire block including the transactions in it, padded to 200000 bytes and you actually process the 200000 byte block twice which makes for a total of 6251 sha256 block transformations, making it the slowest thing in the hash. |
|
|
|
Where do I find cudart32_65.dll? nvidia wont start without it Thanks I replaced the latest release with one that includes the dll. Runs fine without it for me but that might be because I have the SDK installed. https://github.com/tsiv/spreadminer/releases |
|
|
|
Latest release works with compute 3.0 too, slow as hell though compared to 5.0. |
|
|
|
If anybody feels like mining Spreadcoin.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg9607661#msg9607661Apparently the official OpenCL miner does something like 0.55 MH/s on a 280X while a factory OC GTX 750 Ti does something like 1.65 MH/s and a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 hits 3.8 MH/s on my CUDA version. There's a definite NVIDIA advantage there for now, the AMD number seems very low and will probably improve drastically in the future. Whether or not the coin is worth mining is a whole different question. |
|
|
|
something interesting : http://epsy.linuxd.org/ccminer/sample.htmBoth are working on the same pool, first is windows with a MSI, second (epsytour) is linux with also the same MSI and a gigabyte black edition (both cards are reporting higher hashrate). Check the Shares/minutes and accepted count... almost the same :/ That would be how vardiff works, higher hash rate leads to higher difficulty to hit the pool's configured share rate target. Or am I missing the point? |
|
|
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely not sure I really followed... but the hashrate in jpc is divided by two, because it hashes only on certain chain where it is faster and doesn't look at the slowest one... (because of large imbalance is hashrate of the various chain of algo, it is globaly faster to ignore few algo combination rather than computing everything blindly...) Therefore the total hashrate before the division isn't the total hashrate for every possible algo combination but only those computed by ccminer. Hence the reason why it is divided by two... (I will spare you the probability calculation which says it is the right thing to do  ) Don't know the reason for quark (ask Christian), could be a similar reason since there are also various random chains... Sounds dead-on correct, didn't actually think of that. Quark starts with two relatively fast algos, third would be groestl or skein depending on one bit in the second algos output but the nonces that lead down the groestl branch get discarded. Dividing by two isn't exactly right but it's a statistically fair estimate of the actual hashes finished. |
|
|
|
hmm... no... one 750Ti card do 10MH
That would be a 100% boost compared to ccminer 1.2, either you're a wizard or there's something funky with your rate calculations. Not to say you and sp_ haven't done a good job on optimizing various algos, but I do find the latter a lot more likely |
|
|
|
I've been running ccminer 1.0 for some time now on a quark based coin with a couple of GT640 (DDR5, CC3.5), CUDA 5.5, driver 331.38. It runs well but I'm wondering if I can expect any performance gains from ccminer 1.2 and the deps that go along with it?
bump Just test it, I know some versions are compiled for old card with compute 2.0. Maybe a Bombadil version or others ? Yep, official ccminer 1.1 upwards at https://github.com/cbuchner1/ccminer/releases should be significantly faster. Apparently there are indeed two versions of GT 640 according to https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus, with the DDR3 version being stuck with compute 2.1 (and can't run ccminer 1.1 or newer) and the DDR5 version is compute 3.5 so you just might be in luck and be able to run the latest versions. The official ccminer 1.2 should work fine for quark, you could also try djm's version from http://cudamining.co.uk/url/releases/member/2 (I think there are newer djm releases but the links might be buried somewhere in this thread). Edit: beaten by da bomba  |
|
|
|
Is there any ccminer for CUDA 3.0?
Well, that was a major brainfart on my part. Thought the Kepler shuffle instruction was available only from 3.5 up when it in fact was introduced in 3.0. New win32 binary with compute 3.0/3.5/5.0/5.2 at https://github.com/tsiv/ccminer/releases900-series card owners should also find this release more to their liking than the first one. Edit: Oh yea, somebody was asking for a compute 2.1 release. The SIMD kernel makes heavy use of shuffle and rewriting it or trying to dig up an old version that doesn't use shuffle just ... doesn't feel like something I want so spend my time on, sorry tsiv did you do any improvement on 5.0 since the one you posted a couple hrs ago? Depends on what you mean by 5.0. I did add a couple of tweaks that bumps the S3 hashrate up by something like 40% on a GTX 970 but I don't think it really helps the 750 Ti that much. And I can't test it right now as my 750 rig is rented |
|
|
|
1coin, S3 hash, blablabla https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=820302.msg9323320#msg9323320Something to get the NV people by until someone makes a decent release. It's already practically 100% djm's code (shavite that eats 80 bytes of input) in addition to cb's original x11 so I expect djm to add it to his fork... when he wakes up, I guess. Early bird gets the instamine, djm is clearly losing his touch I haven't instamined a coin in a long time... I don't have time at the moment, I have to (re)write the opencl miner for coinshield... (also I have many update to pass to my release, so it will take a bit longer... to be honest, if there is already an amd miner, there isn't much incentive for a fast nvidia release... the coin is already raped... ) True enough, personally I moonwalked away from the coin after the initial insta. Just figured I'd put out some kind of a CUDA miner since the OpenCL one was, unsurprisingly, not running very well on NV cards. what are the algo ? Shavite Skein Simd ? Might not be the best set of algo for NV (I have a somewhat faster skein on 900s see sk-1024 implementation) Yep, header > Shavite > SIMD > Skein > result. Apparently a 280X does around 8 MH/s, I hit 8.9 MH/s on a 750 Ti (fairly high factory OC) and 20 MH/s on a 970. No big advantage on either camp I guess. |
|
|
|
Is there any ccminer for CUDA 3.0?
Well, that was a major brainfart on my part. Thought the Kepler shuffle instruction was available only from 3.5 up when it in fact was introduced in 3.0. New win32 binary with compute 3.0/3.5/5.0/5.2 at https://github.com/tsiv/ccminer/releases900-series card owners should also find this release more to their liking than the first one. Edit: Oh yea, somebody was asking for a compute 2.1 release. The SIMD kernel makes heavy use of shuffle and rewriting it or trying to dig up an old version that doesn't use shuffle just ... doesn't feel like something I want so spend my time on, sorry Stuck.  Weird... Try the r3 version from https://github.com/tsiv/ccminer/releases/tag/v1.124-s3 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
