 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
|
Just tried version 1.2.7 on a rather up-to-date Mac, and OpenCL still isn't detected. For now I'm assuming the following bit in the configure file is to blame: case $target in
*-*-mingw*)
have_x86_64=false
have_win32=true
PTHREAD_FLAGS=""
;;
x86_64-*)
have_x86_64=true
;;
*-*-darwin*)
have_x86_64=false
OPENCL_FLAGS="-framework OpenCL"
;;
*)
have_x86_64=false
;;
esac
The Mac I have here is a 64bit machine and identifies itself as "x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0", which means that the "*-*-darwin*" case is never reached. Changing the case statement to the following enables OpenCL: case $target in
*-*-mingw*)
have_x86_64=false
have_win32=true
PTHREAD_FLAGS=""
;;
x86_64-*-darwin*)
have_x86_64=true
OPENCL_FLAGS="-framework OpenCL"
;;
x86_64-*)
have_x86_64=true
;;
*-*-darwin*)
have_x86_64=false
OPENCL_FLAGS="-framework OpenCL"
;;
*)
have_x86_64=false
;;
esac Unfortunately, I'm still getting the following error when makeing: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -I./compat/jansson -I./lib -I./lib -O3 -Wall -MT cgminer-main.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/cgminer-main.Tpo -c -o cgminer-main.o `test -f 'main.c' || echo './'`main.c
In file included from main.c:34:
compat.h:5: error: conflicting types for 'suseconds_t'
/usr/include/sys/types.h:250: error: previous declaration of 'suseconds_t' was here
make[2]: *** [cgminer-main.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [all] Error 2
Look at the code again. The wildcards are used to allow for the x86_64 and apple portions of the name. In this case, *-*-darwin* translates to "anything"-"anything"-darwin"anyrevision" which means that the darwin case is being reached. I feel that they problem you are having may be more driver or dependency related. But kudos on trying to fix it yourself. But the darwin case sets x86_64 to false, so it isn't going to work. |
|
|
|
From the bitp.it thread:
and btw, the current shares are displayed wrong, I think they are over 1 million shares till now, but there are only 438000 displayed.
The shares and scoring system are currently correct, and working fine. Those API and stats in the top bar are driven via static files. Perhaps a cron task has failed to update them, I will look into it. Edit: Bitp.it fixed their stuck share problem. Re-enabled them and we will see how stable they are. What kind of scoring are they using? May not be worth hopping. They also don't list any past shares. The lack of transparency isn't good. |
|
|
|
Guys, I heard in this topic someone downcloked memory on 69XX. Still not sure how to downclock memory from 1375 to lower clocks on 6950@70 and on pure 6970
Tried to do this via MSIAF but it's still keeping constant 1375 clocks.
Same question for the overclock, trying to overclock my 6970 over than 950mhz via MSIAF and Power +20% immediately reset in CCC causing constant GPU mhz jumps from 900 to 980. How to hold Power +20% and OC more than 950?
P.S. No M/hash increase/change on my 2 6950@70 and single 6970 with 11.7 preview and sdk 2.4
915mhz - 393 m/hash
910mhz - 385 m/hash
950mhz - 410 m/hash
I had same problem as you on my 6870 but was able to downclock memory using clocktweak. However, there is no performance gain. If anything, it might be slightly slower. |
|
|
|
a solution to btc guild and deepbit delayed stats ?
1) run a bitcoin client for each of this pools on different ports
2) config that bitcoin clients to allow the connection ONLY to this pools
3) record the time for the new block found whit each bitcoin clients, check this time against normal "new block" event, the time on the bitcoin clients should be lower
4) suppose that if the time is lower the pool got block and change the hopper on that pool
if the hopper mine at pool X and the bitcoin client is connected only on pool Z when pool Z get new block the "announcement" goes from the pool Z to bitcoin client and normal scenario from the pool Z to pool X then to the hopper
I don't think that would work. BTCG will still report new block for anyone who finds it, not necessarily just BTCG. |
|
|
|
thanks I thought I looked everywhere. They didnt hide it or anything huh? Surprised it wasnt down a broken flight of stairs in a darken room with a sign on the door saying beware of leopard. What I am wondering is why it switched off of mtred and went back to ozcoin before hitting the magic 43% or whatever number. Try as I might, I cant seem to figure out the logic in the hopper but I havent tried to look too much at the code. No kidding right? I was freaking out a little when I saw: Current Balance 0.00000000 BTC Total Earned 0.00000000 BTC and no payment in my wallet. They really need to add an unconfirmed balance. As for the logic of bithopper, I have no clue either. I gotta say it works though. Ive only been mining with it for like 36 hours but the first 24 has made me a believer. For ozcoin your earnings are here: https://ozco.in/blocks.php |
|
|
|
|
btcg no longer reporting pool shares at all?
|
|
|
|
Discovered a 2.5.684.212 SDK  But numbers seem to be the same. |
|
|
|
request
can you add the option to put 2/3/4 workers per pool in pwds.py
You could just run more bitHoppers on different ports. How would it know which client is which worker? |
|
|
|
Still using HTTP POST for long poll?  cgminer version 1.2.6 - Started: [2011-07-16 10:39:11]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(5s):2.6 (avg):4.9 Mh/s] [Q:13 A:0 R:0 HW:0 E:0% U:0.00/m]
TQ: 3 ST: 0 LS: 0 SS: 0 DW: 17 LW: 10 LO: 2 RF: 0 I: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPU 0: [11.7 Mh/s] [Q:16 A:0 R:0 HW:0 E:0% U:0.00/m]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2011-07-16 10:39:17] Resumed retrieving work from server
[2011-07-16 10:39:18] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, flushing work queue
[2011-07-16 10:39:20] Server not providing work fast enough, generating work locally
[2011-07-16 10:39:20] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, flushing work queue
[2011-07-16 10:39:21] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, flushing work queue
[2011-07-16 10:39:22] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, flushing work queue
[2011-07-16 10:39:22] Resumed retrieving work from server
[2011-07-16 10:39:23] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, flushing work queue |
|
|
|
|
Did a pool get dropped from the stats? My total shares decreased by about 20%.
|
|
|
|
There are three sets of clock speeds: Level0: 2D Level1: intermediate - limits? Level2: 3D The levels can not be the same, there has to be a gap of ~10Mhz or so. Level 1 has to be in between level 0 and level 2. With -r -l you can read out all clock speed levels. Depending on these you can determine mem clock values to try. Level0 may or may not be the lower limit. You could try with these hidden options if your mem clock speed level 1 is higher than your desired mem clock speed level 2: -y -a all -m 200 -memlevel0 (only necessary if memlevel0 clock it is lower than your desired memlevel2 clock) raise the value if you get an error (Bios limit!) -y -a all -m 302 -memlevel1 has to be above level0 and below the level2 clock speed you want to set -y -a all -m 330 changes level2 (= default target) I hope it helps. For most cards ClockTweak will do this automatically but there seems to be an issue with some of the 6xxx cards and/or latest drivers. I will redo this for the next release. That was it. After using -r -l to see m0 is already at 750 and m1 at 1050, I used -y -a all -m 800 -memlevel1. At that point I can use afterburner to change all the way down to 300. I think with memlevel1 at 1050 it was stuck at 1050. Hashing rates don't see any improvement but there is a noticeable temp drop. Do voltages have the same level0, level1 restriction? I have level2 voltage set lower than both level0 and level1. Also noticed a small bug: -v VOLTAGE, --voltage VOLTAGE Set voltage for level 2 [mV]. Example: - c 1050 |
|
|
|
latest download : mcaffee deletes ufasoft\bitcoin-miner.exe : claims trojan Generic.tfr!d
Can confirm this. Same thing here. |
|
|
|
|
I was getting insane rates of stale shares on my 6730 (20 accepted, 80+ stales). I thought it was my system but switched to BTCGuild and it's much improved (127/11). Not sure what it is I didn't have this problem until yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Well, at least it doesn't seem they have automations in place for banning hoppers... it might be that you triggered something since most likely a few people mined with the default accounts - thus making you look like a botnet. Bitclockers seem very fishy (abnormally "bad luck" with some wild claims their bitcoind is being hacked or something), and they claim to have a different payout system now. Next on the possible features list: logging in on websites + "manually" paying out asap to make sure you don't loose money when/if being banned. Edit: Another possible pool would be x8s.de. Stats are openly available + live --> but only after a login. Edit2: MtRed just found a block - and just take a look at that sudden 100 GH/s hash rate increase! https://mtred.com/site/page/view/about.htmlAnd the moment I mentioned their 1 month bad luck in the thread they now have good luck. Their bad luck starts on June 15. Just a follow up, seems the stales is still the same, it evened out at 10% stales (was ~15% before your last fix) and doesnt seem to be a ozco.in issue. I notice it actually on btcguild aswell with LP still, strange that no one else using bithopper is reporting this, unless they to lazy Mine isn't that high. I don't have stats since poclbm doesn't track it, but it's less than 10% for sure: localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:00:53, def52202, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:01:33, 8cd52f20, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:01:42, 9e7ada0c, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:01:44, 9b32622d, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:27, 54be5614, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:28, f26f6d65, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:29, 4ed9c523, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:31, 773171c4, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:34, f6a1ce11, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:02:50, 465e0050, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:03, 9e67fe05, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:15, a30828d9, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:16, 6d664135, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:28, 2b85be70, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:34, 1c11aac7, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:03:40, ccf82762, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:04:03, b5cfb474, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:04:12, 3c4f25cf, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:04:17, 85206078, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:04:40, 06f78bbd, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:04:55, 229beaf5, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:05:07, ae85dd8f, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:05:11, 635da02e, accepted
localhost:8337 14/07/2011 14:05:13, 646692dd, accepted
localhost:8337 289858 khash/s |
|
|
|
Does anyone know why im getting these API errors for bitclockers/bitpit ? Error in user api for bitp
"[Failure instance: Traceback: <type 'exceptions.ZeroDivisionError'>: float division by zero\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1076:gotResult\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1063:_inlineCallbacks\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:361:callback\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:455:_startRunCallbacks\n--- <exception caught here> ---\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:542:_runCallbacks\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:65:selectsharesResponse\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:55:parse_bitp\n]"
"[Failure instance: Traceback: <type 'exceptions.ZeroDivisionError'>: float division by zero\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1076:gotResult\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:1063:_inlineCallbacks\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:361:callback\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:455:_startRunCallbacks\n--- <exception caught here> ---\n/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py:542:_runCallbacks\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:65:selectsharesResponse\n/home/miner1/bitHopper/stats.py:39:parse_bitclockers\n]"
I'm getting the same thing.... Because you have no submitted shares for them. |
|
|
|
I'm disappointed to report,20mh on 6850. Maybe CGMINER is not configured optimally? This is what i'm using as of the moment. -w 256 -g 7 --intensity 9
Try -v 2 as well. Since it may pick v 4. But you really should be on -w 128 for a 6850 I think. I lose 5mh/s going from 128 to 256 on a 6870. |
|
|
|
===============================================================================
ClockTweak v0.9.0b - bitcoinX.com/clocktweak/
===============================================================================
ERR: ADL API function: ADL_Display_PossibleMode_WinXP_Get is missing.
Exploring up to 20 adapters:
A.#:0 r:4 ID:12750272 Name:"AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series" Active:1 GPU:0
A.#:1 r:4 ID:12750272 Name:"AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series" Active:0 GPU:0
A.#:2 r:4 ID:12750272 Name:"AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series" Active:0 GPU:0
A.#:3 r:4 ID:12750272 Name:"AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series" Active:0 GPU:0
A.#:4 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 4 could not be initialized
A.#:5 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 5 could not be initialized
A.#:6 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 6 could not be initialized
A.#:7 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 7 could not be initialized
A.#:8 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 8 could not be initialized
A.#:9 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 9 could not be initialized
A.#:10 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 10 could not be initialized
A.#:11 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 11 could not be initialized
A.#:12 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 12 could not be initialized
A.#:13 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 13 could not be initialized
A.#:14 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 14 could not be initialized
A.#:15 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 15 could not be initialized
A.#:16 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 16 could not be initialized
A.#:17 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 17 could not be initialized
A.#:18 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 18 could not be initialized
A.#:19 r:-1 explore_adapters: adapter 19 could not be initialized
valid adapters: [0, 1, 2, 3]
gpuAdapters: [0]
Reading data:
#0: Temp:70 Load:99 Fan:NA CoreL2:950 MemL2:1050 mVoltL2:1175
6870 - XFX ( http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/graphiccards/hd%206000series/6870.aspx?product=29192) I'm able to set a memclock of 300 and have it read back as 300 in clocktweak, but the card is likely still running at stock 1050. i can't underclock the memory at all in afterburner and CCC. hashrates are the same. |
|
|
|
Efficiency is kinda neat, but 15:57:40] btcguild efficiency: 873998.638431% sounds a little bit off... Reason: You only take into account the current difficulty. With this I really would be the king of all hoppers... but as I mined in the past already quite a bit (I'm one of the first miners there) this screws the results "a bit". Not just that, btcguild lost all past share count after the last DDOS. At least for me anyways. |
|
|
|
Thanks Sukrim and OCedHrt - you just saved me hours on eligius - not that that's bad thing, just not exciting. I owe you both. A pleasure! ozcoin seems really hot atm, so thanks for sharing that code! They also already have ~80 GH/s, so not too bad (one might get "stuck" if we include very tiny pools and the higher chance of getting scammed there is not in the calculation...  ) Let me give ozcoin a try as well, since stuck on eligius right now. I re-enabled bitclockers but re-adjusted their share count for their crappy luck (shares / (0.78 / 1.28)) or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
