1627
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Claymore's ZCash AMD GPU Miner v12.1 (Windows/Linux)
|
on: February 24, 2017, 06:14:28 PM
|
Miner does not use 1.88 factor in calculations, using it is a bad idea because it is theoretical factor and real implementation may be not so good. Therefore miner just counts all solutions found, and time that was spent. If algorithm implementation has a bug that causes 1.8 factor, it will cause less number of solutions and less calculated hashrate. So this idea is wrong. I still think it's related to pool. What pool do you use? I will put all my polaris cards to it and check 2-3 daily hashrates to see hashrate deviations.
Claymore I found your bug...seems like shares are dropped when there is high network latency in your share queue (time after block is found on network, network disconnects, pool disconnects etc). Either there is a bug in your share queue that not properly submitting queued shares, or when you do regain connection to pool, you dump all the shares at once to pool and pool software might be blocking/loosing those submits. Below you can see a test of my theory, network is manually dropped at 12:58:22 and reconnected at 12:58.36 and in that time system finds 18 shares, but only 15 reach the pool. This issue is obviously magnified by larger rigs since the faster the system finds shares the more shares will eventually be dropped if there is a network latency, so it explains why you or others might not see the same behavior. Maybe put in a slight delay(10-20ms) between queued shares so they are not all dumped at the pool at same time?
|
|
|
1628
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Claymore's ZCash AMD GPU Miner v12.1 (Windows/Linux)
|
on: February 22, 2017, 11:54:24 PM
|
Miner does not use 1.88 factor in calculations, using it is a bad idea because it is theoretical factor and real implementation may be not so good. Therefore miner just counts all solutions found, and time that was spent. If algorithm implementation has a bug that causes 1.8 factor, it will cause less number of solutions and less calculated hashrate. So this idea is wrong. I still think it's related to pool. What pool do you use? I will put all my polaris cards to it and check 2-3 daily hashrates to see hashrate deviations.
flypool
|
|
|
1629
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Claymore's ZCash AMD GPU Miner v12.1 (Windows/Linux)
|
on: February 22, 2017, 10:43:01 PM
|
Hmm so I can confirm there is some weird stuff going on with claymore v12 and polaris hash reporting. First shot is claymore 24h average v12.1 right before I switched to optiminer 1.6.2. Second is optiminer after 24 hours. Claymore reports exactly 2804 average hashrate miner side which should equal ~2750 poolside after dev fee is taken out. Poolside reports over 100mh less than that though. Optiminer reports 2734, which is exactly what pool is reporting at 2731 Whats more interesting is that Claymore on a 280x rig reports the exact hashrate minus fee that the pool reports. At first I thought this was either a pool/hashrate bug issue, but the fact that optiminer reports the correct hashrate, and the 280x rigs report correct with claymore. My guess is that either there is a bug with polaris hash reporting (i hope) or he couldn't reach optiminer performance on polaris, so he bumped his numbers by 5% to make it look like his miner is faster 1. Hashrate is calculated in the same way for all cards, so Polaris cards cannot get different numbers related to 280X calculations. Your idea about adding 5% on polaris is wrong too. 2. You know I don't care about Linux much. In Windows you can easily see that my miner is the fastest for Polaris because the difference is significant; in Linux speeds must be similar. If you get bad numbers on pool and think that it's because of the miner, don't use it, you have a choice. My opinion: it's something related to pool calculation, for ZEC I always get more hashrate variations on pools side than for ETH mining. Yes he hasn't optimized his polaris kernel under windows, so that makes sense. What does not make sense is that your miner reports a certain hashrate that is not matched on the pool. Your miner does not produce any invalid shares or errors so its not that, and the pool calculates shares the same way for both miners, so if it was calculating wrong for your shares it would be wrong for optimizer's shares as well (pool does not care where valid shares come from, calculation is simply #shares/time). Hash rate variation also is not it since this is a 24 hour average. The miner is simply submitting less shares to the pool than it *should* based on the hashrate calculated by your miner. So again either your hashrate calculation is wrong, or shares are "disappearing." The only explanation that would explain a correct hashrate calculation, but less "valid" shares being retuned by your kernel is that for your Polaris ASM implementation you have optimized it to the point that the theoretical solutions per iteration (which is what I'm assuming your hashrate calculation is based on), is slightly less than its supposed to be (i.e. 1.8 instead of 1.88).
|
|
|
1630
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Claymore's ZCash AMD GPU Miner v12.1 (Windows/Linux)
|
on: February 22, 2017, 06:57:41 PM
|
Hmm so I can confirm there is some weird stuff going on with claymore v12 and polaris hash reporting. First shot is claymore 24h average v12.1 right before I switched to optiminer 1.6.2. Second is optiminer after 24 hours. Claymore reports exactly 2804 average hashrate miner side which should equal ~2750 poolside after dev fee is taken out. Poolside reports over 100mh less than that though. Optiminer reports 2734, which is exactly what pool is reporting at 2731 Whats more interesting is that Claymore on a 280x rig reports the exact hashrate minus fee that the pool reports. At first I thought this was either a pool/hashrate bug issue, but the fact that optiminer reports the correct hashrate, and the 280x rigs report correct with claymore. My guess is that either there is a bug with polaris hash reporting (i hope) or he couldn't reach optiminer performance on polaris, so he bumped his numbers by 5% to make it look like his miner is faster
|
|
|
1632
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Pcie 1 to 3 Port 1X Switch Multiplier HUB Riser. Which motherboard works.
|
on: February 22, 2017, 05:55:11 PM
|
I should have a pretty interesting announcement on this front in the next few weeks ...if I were you guys don't buy anymore of these cheap switches (they suck and are not even designed properly), or even GPU risers. I will have something that will change the way we GPU mine spill the beans Cant spill everything yet, as im still finalizing design...but here are some teasers from my prototype system All the GPUs are 470s 4GB, would have more connected but only have one dev board built and ran out of 470s lol https://i.imgur.com/OQKf9QN.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/lkLSbNr.pngwill the software part of the solution (if not oob) be paid as well or OSS? i suppose running this on linux is by far easier as on windows another interesting concept i have thought of would be running linux as a base and passing through 4-6 gpus into a vm, one just needs to create multiple vms for windows and a single one for linux (or run it barebone) Yea linux image will be part of the solution and provided with the hardware (as well as BIOSes and anything non hardware needed to run it). Definitely wont run on windows.
|
|
|
1633
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Pcie 1 to 3 Port 1X Switch Multiplier HUB Riser. Which motherboard works.
|
on: February 21, 2017, 10:27:59 PM
|
I should have a pretty interesting announcement on this front in the next few weeks ...if I were you guys don't buy anymore of these cheap switches (they suck and are not even designed properly), or even GPU risers. I will have something that will change the way we GPU mine spill the beans Cant spill everything yet, as im still finalizing design...but here are some teasers from my prototype system All the GPUs are 470s 4GB, would have more connected but only have one dev board built and ran out of 470s lol
|
|
|
1634
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Antminer L3 - 250mh - 400watt Scrypt miner coming soon
|
on: February 21, 2017, 07:12:29 PM
|
Can you recommend an ATX PSU for these miners? 5PCIe Connectors / min. 400W? Since the Miner is quite silent I am not willing to put a noisy server psu next to it.... Thank you
Well you need a PSU with at least 5 pcie ports so that tends to push you up into a larger PSU than is really needed to run the L3. The EVGA 1000w P2 is a good PSU that can be used for GPU rigs and work well for the L3. Also the AX1200i also a good PSU, but both are oversized for this particular miner. Maybe some other users can chime in with their experiences with some smaller PSU's, but these are my go to PSU's around here for most things. 5 PCIE power ports for this miner is way over kill. Each board is about 100 watts, so you can easily power 2 with 1 line, so 3 total (2 for boards split, and one for controller). Just use splitters (make sure they are at least 18AWG) and youll be fine...you could also double split one line to power the controller (which uses basically no current), and get away with a total of 2 pcie lines per miner.
|
|
|
1638
|
Economy / Computer hardware / [WTS] 8x Sapphire Dual X R9 280x/7970s
|
on: February 16, 2017, 10:47:21 PM
|
Have 6 R9 280x Sapphires Dual X cardsand two Sapphire 7970s (those two are brand new from warrenty replacement few months ago). All cards run great, few off the dual X have fan issues (wobbly, but I keep them oiled and they still spin). SOLD
All cards also have custom BIOSes and can keep them on there...currently hash at 320 S/s on zcash on stock clocks.
|
|
|
1640
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Claymore's ZCash AMD GPU Miner v12.0 (Windows/Linux)
|
on: February 13, 2017, 11:38:56 PM
|
Claymore, you kick ass brother. Sped me up from 250 H/s to 300 H/s on Sapphire rx 470 and from 270 H/s to 320 H/s on Sapphire rx 480. I wish ZEC was at something over $40/coin but at least we are on par with other miners out there. This one appears stable as well, so it is appreciated that you took the time you needed to get it right.
Pascal + Eth would be interesting, since its pure SHA so might be able to get some nice numbers.
|
|
|
|