 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
v1.02 still
Thanks for testing. you should use the new version v1.04 because it has more checks like cpu verification of the dagfile. This is useful when overclocking. The average function take the average of 200 jobs sent to the gpu. if a job is small the average will fluctate more. Perhaps better to display the 10min average here in the future versions. Yeah I didn't see the new version till I was a little way through it, the hashes are the highest average seen in the 8-10min range, but the fluctuation were only about 1-1.5 |
|
|
|
"recommended settings" core clock 1400 - memclock 2150 (running at 2140) same as before 10min run / at least 2 shares Team Red 'config A544' - 38.83 / autoconfig(A672) - 53.65 v1.02 still Xintensity = -1: 64.61 - 165w Xintensity = 1: 58.90 - 157w Xintensity = 12: 62.92 - 162w Xintensity = 24: 63.11 - 164w Xintensity = 36: 63.77 - 165w Xintensity = 48: 65.21 - 167w Xintensity = 78: 65.51 - 167w Xintensity = 128: 65.71 - 167w Xintensity = 240: 65.66 - 167w Xintensity = 360: 65.80 - 168w Xintensity = 512: 65.92 - 170w no invalid shares Looking to try and update the bios to increase the max memclock, if I can get it to work will post another set of config/test What is the look back on the average hash? It seems to fluctuate alot more then I would think an average should at the 10 minute mark etheremine, nanopool, f2pool, sparkpool etc all good. 2miners also pays uncle blocks (don't really endorse them but fyi) |
|
|
|
|
teamred miner: 58.8
s-eth.2miners.com:2020 (ethash) DIFFICULTY: 2.03 EPOCH: 440
(At least 2 shares/10 mins at each intensity)
'Stock' settings - 6800xt (2400 clock / 1990 mem)
Xintensity = -1: 62.32
Xintensity = 1: 58.51 - 213W
Xintensity = 12: 61.10
Xintensity = 24: 61.94
Xintensity = 36: 62.03
Xintensity = 48: 62.11
Xintensity = 78: 62.15
Xintensity = 128: 62.33
Xintensity = 240: 62.60
Xintensity = 360: 62.64
Xintensity = 512: 62.70 - 230W
No shares reject
will update this post tomorrow with better memory times then stock (just got the card so haven't set it up fully for mining)
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity on your screenshots, it shows using CL drivers 471.41, however, when I start the miner mine is showing it is using 330.0 is that normal for an AMD card?
I've also tried the --xintensity parameter from 12 upto 240 and -1 (12, 24, 36, 48, 64, 120, 240) and while it does seem to 'bog' my system down more at the higher intensities, my hashrash stays between 57-59. Pool: 2miners, us server, Card: AMD 6800XT on adrenalin 21.30.15.01
Also note in your screenshot you show the 'Xintensity' line, I am not seeing that on mine (I did check to make sure I was using the correct version)
|
|
|
|
Planning to re-add neoscrypt after the bug fix release.
I mostly removed alexis as it had api issues if more than 4 cards were in the same system and on gtx 1080, 1080TI palgin was Minimaly slower less than half a MH/s. I will re-add it as a optional miner soon for those with 4 cards or less per rig.
Right now I am trying to get the update notifications to work.
Have you tried the Klaus/8.16 as the miner for neoscrypt, seems to give the best hash. Also is there a way to set intensities for the miners to use? |
|
|
|
Its funny that zpool steals 15% even if you dont exchange your coins. I was trying to mine Bulwardk (BWK) there today, didn't want to get robbed by zpools' exchange rates so decided to get paid in BWK. The pool found a block my last 50 earnings tab shows: Name Amount Percent mBTC Time Bulwark (nist5) 0.144400 BWK 0.385% 0.08421262 70m ago But Total Earned tab shows: 0.12669564 BWK  Why do people still use this pool? So, 1) even if you choose to mine w/ the same coin, your mining 'rewards' are still pegged to the amount of BTC those coins earned. 2) you are still charged the 5% exchange fee even if not 'exchanging' (b/c as I said in 1 you technically are). No matter your payout coin it goes like this: reward > BTC > your payout coin. The pool has a fee (2% for nist5) and the exchange to BTC has a fee (5%). Which means you would pay 0.010108 in fees. So .1444 -.010108 = 0.134292. So you still have a difference of .00759636 when you factor in the static costs, which is 5% difference between expected and actual (far cry from 15% 'extra'). And when looking over the BWKs prices on the pay you posted on crypotia, there are more then enough greater then 5% prices swings downward to account for that. Since most likely BWK has to be valued twice before you get your earnings, once when the pool exchanges for BTC and then again when it exchanges for your equivalent of BWK (BWK started out around 0.0007 then trended downward before finishing at 0.00063). This is the main reason I get paid out in BTC, and why I suspect that the non-btc payouts are 'use at your own risk.' Nothing on here is more than conjecture and misleading information. The 'evidence' is sp_'s screenshots, but they lack timestamps to validate and he is using polenex which I am pretty sure is not the exchange zpool uses for lbry. But unless every auto-converting pool is also taking 20% zpool should show results that are lower than other pools. When ran side by side (and assuming both pools have the same coins and other variables corrected for). But the several side by sides that have been done and posted and the ones I did (when I do my next one I'll post results) show zpool either the same, very slightly below, above, or way above I just don't see it. |
|
|
|
@Blissz
I really like what you have done modifiying the firmware but i have one suggestions, which i am pretty sure will ease the issue some ppl have when configuring theire miners regarding the dev fee.
I am all for it and i am pretty sure that others dont mind either that you get a fair share for your work.
I have 5 D3's myself and configuring those machines aint that easy, because each of them has different settings to be applied that the HW errors disappear.
The issue i have is, that after each reboot / configuration change (voltage, adresses, ....) you start mining on your dev pools (after some seconds), this makes it intense to check if my OWN settings are valid.
My suggestion is, please start mining your 1.5% fair share not at each and every reboot / configuration change, but once the miner has run for its 2 hours. So i am only asking you to change the first time you mine for yourself, after 2h you start with your rotation.
Thanks again.
Heard that be4? The simple reason he doesn't mine at the end of the 2hour period is that it is incredibly easy to configured something that would restart the miner at 1hr 59mins and thus circumvent the dev pool fee. |
|
|
|
this is not a mining software itself, only a firmware mod ,
it does not deserve the developer's fee, and this is also a hidden charge, no one can be sure from it.
also the development process is still ongoing and it does not provide additional revenue.
If the algorithm was added, the developer fee was completely worth it.
seems as , it uses the units for experimantal and take share from the profit from them hiddenly
the common thing , mining software takes shares the profit. No one give lifetime profit share to modding.
do not confuse the minds please.
Its not hidden you can see it in the kernal log, its also on the top level post. If you don't think the dev is worth it for 'just a mod' of the firmware, then don't pay it just use bitmain stock firmware, no is forcing you to use it. Honestly if he could actually add additional algo's to the miner he could charge a lot more then 1.5% dev fee. |
|
|
|
 BlissZ- Hey man, i'm all in favor of your firmware, and the fact that you tag in a "DevFee" for your time. I just wanted to clear up how much the DevFee really is. In previous notes, you indicated you lowered from 1.66% to 1.5%. Now, I'm not trying to nit pick here, but over the last several days, I have monitored this thing, and it clearly appears that DevFee is much closer to about 2.3%. I have been monitoring the accepted shares that are being sent when you mine at SuprNova vs when I am getting mining credit at SuprNova. And it has consistently maintained between 2.2%-2.4% over several days with the ratio of shares submitted to your DevFee pool versus what I'm actually submitting. Further, when I look at my hourly/daily hashrate averages on the pool, vs what im reporting my average to be on the hardware, im seeing results that align to further validate that 2.2%-2.4% is being used as a DevFee. I'm raising this issue up because maybe there is something wrong here with my hardware or calculations? Maybe others can chime in? What splits are you all seeing? At the end of the day, I have ZERO problem with a Dev taking a DevFee for their time. All I ask is that they provide a transparent answer about the time slice they are taking. Your time slices seem to kick in each hour, and last roughly 1 minute and 25 seconds per hour. Which breaks down to about 2.3% DevFee. Maybe you can shed some light on the results I'm seeing, because based on your 1.5% DevFee, it should be less than 60 seconds per hour. Again, i'm not accusing you of cheating here. I could be wrong in my calculations. If I'm not wrong, and others are seeing the same thing, all I ask is you are transparent about your DevFee, and let people choose to run, or not to run, your firmware. Have you tried looking at the kernel log for the amount of time it spends on the dev pools? This is from mine: Nov 28 06:37:20 (none) local0.warn cgminer[12668]: Switching to pool 3 stratum+tcp://dash.suprnova.cc:9995 Nov 28 06:39:10 (none) local0.warn cgminer[12668]: Switching to pool 0 stratum+tcp://x11.mine.zpool.ca:3533 you'll notice it spends 1 min 50 seconds on the dev pool, and it does this every 2 hours so 110 seconds / 7200 = .0152 or 1.52%. Shares and all the other jazz are not whats important its the amount of time it spends mining the dev pool vs your pool. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the fan fix blissz, couldn't replicate the problem, but had a feeling it had to do with when there's a network interruption, much relieved it's fixed. Had chips go to 114 degrees on one machine before I noticed and quickly intervened. Error rate was higher than normal after that on that machine even after restarting, but after a short cooldown period they are working perfectly again, guess I dodged a bullet.
Also received my end Nov batch d3 and the fans on this model is of a poorer quality, different model, lower amp and much louder than the fans on other batches, a shame since my other d3's were all much quieter with the custom firmware and now the new machine just tops out the overall noise level again.
Do your fans also run at different RPMs? |
|
|
|
|
