 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Can't wait to give v0018 a try - so many cool new features! @fullzeroIn the next version could you add this fix for Intel Hyperthreading being broken on Skylake and Kaby Lake processors - resulting in crashes? For now people with these processors (Pentium up to Xeon) should disable Hyperthreading until BIOS fix. Several of my boards don't have a BIOS update, and for Skylake processors, the microcode fix is better than the BIOS update (FYI, this is not Debian specific, but to any OS including Ubuntu, which is based on Deb) https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00308.htmlInstructions are here: https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode |
|
|
|
Is anybody else experiencing nvOC hang / lockup to the point of needing a hard powerdown when Genoil crashes? I can log in but when I try to close the miner and shutdown the OS becomes locked up. I am wondering if it is hardware related? I am only using 4GB of ddr4 is that enough??? I believe I will be going back to Claymore. I can't seem to get Genoil stable even dialed 300mc back from Claymore. I will reimage a USB stick and go back to Claymore to see if stability comes back.
Having more ram would probably help; I use 8gb on most of my rigs and I have achieved multi day stability with the ones that are using genoil by previously lowing the clocks / adjusting the powerlimits whenever a soft crash occurred. On a 4 x 1060 rig I use 1.1GB of RAM. On a 6 x 1060 rig I use 1.3GB of RAM. Unless there are spikes of memory usage or a memory leak somewhere, I don't see why 4GB would be more than enough. It certainly shouldn't have any effect on Genoil stability. Genoil seems to give comparable/better hash rates even with lower clocks and power limits than Claymore requires. I've found that dropping the clocks has definitely increased stability without reducing hash rate. |
|
|
|
@Fullzero - thanks so much. This is working so well for me.  A few requests if I could be be so selfish: 1) Can you confirm that this version of Genoil the optimizations merged from this pull request? Seems like people are getting 6%-10% performance improvement on GTX 1060's ( https://github.com/Genoil/cpp-ethereum/pull/228) 2) Any chance of adding in the Creep Miner for Burstcoin (proof of capacity) mining ( https://github.com/Creepsky/creepMiner). Then we'd have GPU, CPU, and Hard Drive mining in one! 3) Beyond cleaning out headers, are there other ways to get the image smaller so we can have more disk space, and/or offer a bigger image because most of us are using 32GB thumb drives? I like to add a few personalizations but don't have the space to download all the dependencies and make the apps Keep up the great work! 1 - yes this is new cuda implementation I used when compiling Genoil: the hash changes DRAMITACALLY as you increase the memory clock; however most of these clocks are currently unstable. I suspect most of the individuals who have reported 10% gains; did so before having a soft crash and realizing that although the client is capable of significantly higher hashrates; it is not stable with most of them. In my experience with this; I have found running the client with less cards is more stable and can reach higher OC (thus more gains). 2 - I will add this to the list. 3 - You can extend the primary partition on any key / ssd; by connecting it to a computer with nvOC that has already booted and clicking the ubuntu launcher at the top left and typing gp then click Gparted. Find the sdb drive select the larger partition; it it is mounted unmount it; then rightclick and select resize and set the max size. click the green checkmark to execute the change, wait for completion and it should be ~17gb larger. I am planning on increasing the image to 32gb + add the cmds to enable Claymore / other clients to use 16gb VM in a later version. Awesome! You rock. What's your address for sending hashes? |
|
|
|
@Fullzero - thanks so much. This is working so well for me. A few requests if I could be be so selfish: 1) Can you confirm that this version of Genoil the optimizations merged from this pull request? Seems like people are getting 6%-10% performance improvement on GTX 1060's ( https://github.com/Genoil/cpp-ethereum/pull/228) 2) Any chance of adding in the Creep Miner for Burstcoin (proof of capacity) mining ( https://github.com/Creepsky/creepMiner). Then we'd have GPU, CPU, and Hard Drive mining in one! 3) Beyond cleaning out headers, are there other ways to get the image smaller so we can have more disk space, and/or offer a bigger image because most of us are using 32GB thumb drives? I like to add a few personalizations but don't have the space to download all the dependencies and make the apps Keep up the great work! |
|
|
|
I wanted to give some feedback, after a lot of research and feedback from Fullzero I would recommend to anyone that it issuing a 4-6 GPU system to use 8GB of RAM minimum instead of 4GB. I have been running my system now for 5 days and have not had any "random freezes/crashes" even with pushing some OCs in testing the new ver 0017. I think this is something we overlook.
What makes you think that there's a need for additional RAM? Top is showing that I'm not using more than about 1.2GB with four cards. I'll test this weekend on my 6 GPU system, but doubt it would use more than 2GB |
|
|
|
Fullzero, thank you for integrating Genoil and other improvements! One question - Does the Genoil build incorporate these optimizations? Seems like people are getting at least 6% performance improvement on GTX 1060's https://github.com/Genoil/cpp-ethereum/pull/228
|
|
|
|
Anyone using the MSI Z170-A Pro for more than 4 GPUs?
I've got mine set to Gen 1 and >4GB in the BIOS. All the cards show up fine and Claymore recognizes all of them, but when Claymore starts and gets to Create GPU Buffer on the last card (GPU0), the system hangs.
I'm on Win10 Anniversary with latest Nvidia drivers. I've got 4GB RAM installed and virtual memory set to 16GB (16384MB). These are all EVGA GTX 1060 SC 3GB Cards.
Any ideas?
i dont like Windows for mining... but what psu do you have? are gpus on stock settings? I have that motherboard and i am mining with 6 gpu as well... I remember i had to update the bios to the last version and enable the 4g decoding I have to check when i go in the office for be sure. But it run 6 gpu very good I have the same Mainboard. I run 7GPUs GTX 1070 on that. Here a great Youtube Video about Bios settings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR-FkpU2KfII have 4GB RAM, Windows 10 X64 I had some troubles. So I had to install Windows 10 in UEFI Modus with GPT. Oh yes i forgot you have to transform windows 10 in uefi mode gpt. If you have difficulty in this you can use aoemi partition assistant it will transform your mbr into gpt in 3 seconds without struggling.... I had to transform gpt hard drive and boot for all my rigs otherwise you won't be able to use more than 4 gpu Thanks for these suggestions. I'll give them a try tonight. Yes, even at stock settings can't get past the Create Buffer step before a hard hang I'm starting to think it might be the PSU's. I'm running two RaidMax 850W Gold PSUs. Maybe it's not liking that. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone using the MSI Z170-A Pro for more than 4 GPUs?
I've got mine set to Gen 1 and >4GB in the BIOS. All the cards show up fine and Claymore recognizes all of them, but when Claymore starts and gets to Create GPU Buffer on the last card (GPU0), the system hangs.
I'm on Win10 Anniversary with latest Nvidia drivers. I've got 4GB RAM installed and virtual memory set to 16GB (16384MB). These are all EVGA GTX 1060 SC 3GB Cards.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
Looking for advice about motherboards
I'm thinking about consolidating my 4x GPU rigs into 7 or 8 GPU rigs.
1) Is either of these better than the other? ASUS PRIME H270-PLUS -or- MSI Z270-A PRO
2) How reliable are the m.2 to pci-e adapters? Are there some that are better than others?
|
|
|
|
A tip and a question: Tip: If you're tuning your GPUs to reduce power, nvidia-smi can be quite helpful. I open it in a second ssh session so I can watch the miner output in the main window and the GPU in the second. You can run it with this (refreshes every 0.1 seconds): Question: My rig is using about 50W more than it should as compared to same Eth mh/s under windows. I've got cclock set to -35 and mclock set to 820. pl is set to 75. I get ~23mh/s, which is what I'm shooting for. from the nvidia-smi output it looks like the problem is that three of the cards (this rig is 3x PNY and 1xEVGA) are not honoring the powerlimit. Still new to tuning nvidia cards until linux. Any ideas? +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 378.13 Driver Version: 378.13 |
|-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| GPU Name Persistence-M| Bus-Id Disp.A | Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan Temp Perf Pwr:Usage/Cap| Memory-Usage | GPU-Util Compute M. |
|===============================+======================+======================|
| 0 GeForce GTX 106... Off | 0000:01:00.0 On | N/A |
| 35% 63C P2 73W / 75W | 2742MiB / 3012MiB | 100% Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| 1 GeForce GTX 106... Off | 0000:02:00.0 Off | N/A |
| 46% 72C P2 95W / 75W | 2219MiB / 3013MiB | 99% Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| 2 GeForce GTX 106... Off | 0000:03:00.0 Off | N/A |
| 44% 70C P2 94W / 75W | 2219MiB / 3013MiB | 99% Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| 3 GeForce GTX 106... Off | 0000:07:00.0 Off | N/A |
| 43% 69C P2 94W / 75W | 2219MiB / 3013MiB | 98% Default |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
Update: Apparently quite a few people are experiencing this issue with GTX 1060's https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/1011804/linux/nvidia-smi-not-fully-supported-on-gtx-1060/. In this case, mine is a PNY 3GB version which someone else is having issues with as well. Unclear as to whether this is a driver bug or somehow related to particular motherboards (a Gigabyte z97 SOC Force in my case). |
|
|
|
First, thank you so much fullzero for this. I've rolled my own in the past, so this was a nice find and saved me a lot of trouble to do my own. Have a couple of questions 1) I'm using 4 x PNY GTX 1060 3GB cards on a Gigabyte Z97 SOC Force motherboard. Under Win10 with power 70, cclock 150, and mclock 850 I consistently get ~23 Mh/s. With nvOC with the same settings I get 21.4 Mh/s. Increasing the mclock doesn't seem to increase the hashrate. cclock at 100 doesn't seem to make a difference either. My oneBash looks like this: COIN="ETH"
POWERLIMIT="70" # YES NO
INDIVIDUAL_POWERLIMIT="NO" # YES NO
__CORE_OVERCLOCK=150
MEMORY_OVERCLOCK=850
INDIVIDUAL_CLOCKS="NO" # YES NO
When the bash file starts it shows that the attributes are set, but it appears that the clock settings aren't taking effect. I don't see any errors thrown when Claymore starts up except that the cuda library doesn't have a version number. 2) I added a couple of parameters to the Eth command line, but it doesn't seem to pick them up. For instance, when try to interactively change the dcri it tells me that i need to set -asm 1, but that is already set in the bash file. if [ $COIN == "ETH" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/9.0/ethdcrminer64'
ETHADDR="$ETH_ADDRESS/$ETH_WORKER"
if [ $ETHERMINEdotORG == "YES" ]
then
ETHADDR="$ETH_ADDRESS.$ETH_WORKER"
fi
until $HCD -epool $ETH_POOL -ewal $ETHADDR -epsw x -mode 1 -esm 0 -estale 0 -asm 1 -dcri 12
do
echo "FAILURE; reinit in 5" >&2
sleep 5
done
fi
Any recommendations would be much appreciated. Windows 10 sucks for mining - so much babysitting, so hoping to get this tweaked and running well. Powerlimits in windows are in percent TDP; in linux they are in watts. Thus a powerlimit of 70 in windows is .7 * 120 watts or whatever the TDP is (84 watts if the card TDP is 120); while 70 in linux is 70 watts. I would recommend comparing Windows and linux powerlimits with a kill-a-watt to get them exactly equal; but most likely a 3gb 1060 has a 120 or 125 watt TDP. Also linux OC offsets are scaled differently than windows; you will need to use higher offsets to get the same results in linux. In regards to Claymore ETH settings; the Claymore readme says -asm is for AMD only. I haven't tested this but -dcri 30 (or any valid number) is only supposed to work with mode 1 (ETH only) if -asm mode is used. fullzero, thank you for the quick reply. This was hugely helpful. So strange that Windows is percentage of TDP and linux is watts. The PNY 1060-3's are 120W TDP, so I've set it at 84 in linux. I'll check it out with my power meter. I increased the mclock to 1500, which is getting me about 22.7 Mh/s now. I'll keep playing with it, but I see that the nvidia control panel has a max of 2000 for memory, whereas it's 1000 in afterburner on Windows. It seems like the offset might be 2:1 on linux, so my 850 would be 1700 on linux. Finally, with the dcri, you're right. I have a mix of AMD and nvidia cards, so just assumed it worked on nvidia. Tried it on a Windows nvidia only rig, and it gives the same error, so pretty sure dcri tuning doesn't work with nvidia cards. Thanks again, this rocks! |
|
|
|
First, thank you so much fullzero for this. I've rolled my own in the past, so this was a nice find and saved me a lot of trouble to do my own. Have a couple of questions 1) I'm using 4 x PNY GTX 1060 3GB cards on a Gigabyte Z97 SOC Force motherboard. Under Win10 with power 70, cclock 150, and mclock 850 I consistently get ~23 Mh/s. With nvOC with the same settings I get 21.4 Mh/s. Increasing the mclock doesn't seem to increase the hashrate. cclock at 100 doesn't seem to make a difference either. My oneBash looks like this: COIN="ETH"
POWERLIMIT="70" # YES NO
INDIVIDUAL_POWERLIMIT="NO" # YES NO
__CORE_OVERCLOCK=150
MEMORY_OVERCLOCK=850
INDIVIDUAL_CLOCKS="NO" # YES NO
When the bash file starts it shows that the attributes are set, but it appears that the clock settings aren't taking effect. I don't see any errors thrown when Claymore starts up except that the cuda library doesn't have a version number. 2) I added a couple of parameters to the Eth command line, but it doesn't seem to pick them up. For instance, when try to interactively change the dcri it tells me that i need to set -asm 1, but that is already set in the bash file. if [ $COIN == "ETH" ]
then
HCD='/home/m1/9.0/ethdcrminer64'
ETHADDR="$ETH_ADDRESS/$ETH_WORKER"
if [ $ETHERMINEdotORG == "YES" ]
then
ETHADDR="$ETH_ADDRESS.$ETH_WORKER"
fi
until $HCD -epool $ETH_POOL -ewal $ETHADDR -epsw x -mode 1 -esm 0 -estale 0 -asm 1 -dcri 12
do
echo "FAILURE; reinit in 5" >&2
sleep 5
done
fi
Any recommendations would be much appreciated. Windows 10 sucks for mining - so much babysitting, so hoping to get this tweaked and running well. |
|
|
|
Whats is you best sellers price for 7 btc.
The straight answer to your question is that via Bitcoin-Brokers.org you will pay Bitstamp price +12%. From the help ticket I submitted to Bitcoin Brokers: Here is your quote and instructions for purchasing these bitcoins.
Transaction ID (sample)
This seller sells BTC for Bitstamp +10%
Bitcoin-Brokers fee on this transaction is 2%
The exact total of your order is $ (sample)In my case, I wanted 3 BTC so at a current Bitstamp price of $589.46 my price to purchase would be $589.46 + 10% + 2% = $589.46 + $58.95 + $11.79 = $660.20. For 3 BTC the total comes to $1980.60. That's a hefty 12% convenience fee of $212.22, and way too steep IMHO. A 2% markup is acceptable, as I was lead to believe reading on this thread and another thread on Bitcoin Talk forum. You will NOT be able to procure BTC via Bitcoin-Brokers.org for Bitstamp price + 2%. For 7 BTC you will pay $4621, which will be a whopping $495 above market price after the fees are paid. Your first post on the forums and it's a rant? Seems fishy. Regardless, I think you're missing the point of Dan's service. First, anyone can try to sell Bitcoins at any price they want. If you don't like the price, shop elsewhere. Very simple. For people who are comfortable buying Bitcoins locally (I'm not) then you can go that route, though the mark up can still be quite steep. Otherwise, you'll have to go the route of getting an account on an exchange, getting verified, sending the wire transfers and incurring all of the related fees. For many people that's worth all the hassle. If that's your preference, then you should do that. But you won't be getting your coins quickly or without some expense (e.g. wire transfer fees). I've been using Dan's service since it started and have done a ton of transactions. I rarely use anyone else. For me, I like the same-day speed and the personal touch. He does a great job vetting buyers and sellers alike. I've never been scammed. If I need to make a special arrangement, there's a real person I can talk to in Dan who will sort it out. On his side he's doing a ton of work processing these transactions individually and his sellers have costs that need to be covered as well. I could have saved a bit of money here and there, but Dan's service has been reliable and stress-free for me. My suggestion would be to think about your needs. If Dan's service isn't right for you, use another service that is right for you. Bashing Dan's service isn't helping anyone. |
|
|
|
when does mining for CAI end? what block?
Yes, can someone please answer this question. If it's 28 coins per block, then 1.6 million would be mined at about block 57142. We're at about 49600 right now, leaving a difference of about 7542 blocks. At 1.75 mins per block that would take 220 hours. I don't want to mine after the 1.6 million are exchanged as the CAI coins will be worthless, but how do we know what block to stop?  Also, is the ~32k CAIx on coin swap the last that will be exchanged? |
|
|
|
|
I'm looking to buy at least 5,000 miles from someone to top off my United Mileage Plus account so I can buy a award ticket.
PM me if you have some to sell/transfer.
Can pay in BTC, LTC, or other alt coins.
|
|
|
|
I am getting a lot user banned messages, causing cgminer to failover to a different pool. Is there something I need to change? I have two workers, each coming from a separate but stable IP (not static but hasn't changed in months).
the only way to get banned is by submitting lots of invalid shares or continually trying to authenticate using a worker name that doesn't exist. [2013-12-10 23:33:34] pool 3 JSON stratum auth failed: [
-2,
"Worker temporarily banned. Try back in 60 seconds.",
null
]
[2013-12-10 23:34:34] pool 3 JSON stratum auth failed: [
-2,
"Worker temporarily banned. Try back in 60 seconds.",
null
]
[2013-12-10 23:35:35] pool 3 JSON stratum auth failed: [
-2,
"Worker temporarily banned. Try back in 60 seconds.",
null
] This is what I'm seeing. It's the same worker name across many rigs. Some seem to encounter the problem, others do not. But all have the same workername/pw as they get it from the same script Ideas? |
|
|
|
|
I am getting a lot user banned messages, causing cgminer to failover to a different pool. Is there something I need to change? I have two workers, each coming from a separate but stable IP (not static but hasn't changed in months).
|
|
|
|
|
We have made three USD wire transfer withdrawals starting from June 12th (8 days before their USD wire transfer suspension announcement). They told me that even though I requested the first of the wire transfers before the announcement it was still effected.
We have not yet received any of our wire transfers and have had no updates to our support tickets or emails. 5 weeks and counting. It's very worrisome
Has anyone else received a wire transfer in the past month, whether USD, EUR, or JPY?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Everyone!
Looking for someone who is interested to buy some/all of 8 btc in exchange for Chase with QuickPay.
|
|
|
|
The interesting question for me is what will happen as more gfx card miners are driven to ltc by the arrival of asics in btc mining. A certain proportion of those miners will be cashing out their profits which you would expect to push ltc down relative to btc as it is comparatively illiquid.
Often difficulty and price are correlated. If LTC difficulty continues its massive rise (GPU BTC miners seeking a way to keep mining by switching to LTC) it will either require a continued rise in price or many miners will find themselves in an unprofitable situation. That's not to say that there couldn't be a situation where diff is high and prices are low. From what I understand in the fall of 2011 there was that kind of situation with BTC where difficulty was still coming down but prices hit something like $2.50. A lot of people got out. Barring a situation like that, perhaps we'll see price and diff continue their ascent. Afterall, I think many people like the features of LTC and would like to see an alternative to BTC. |
|
|
|
|
