cgminer has a particular format for its conf file. Do you have the syntax all proper? Commas and { }'s all in the right places?

-- Smoov

It looks like the LTC network switched over about 20min ago... showing no v8 and below in the desired version graph now. (not counting the mean indicators)

-- Smoov

With all the talk of ROI... (and admittedly, my eyes kept blurring out at all of the talk and figures and assumptions), I don't remember exactly what exchange rate people were assuming when working out their ROI numbers to begin with.

So, are people assuming that the price is going to stay the same as they are now?

-- Smoov

Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt?

-- Smoov

Well, you still need to set up all of your configuration in the conf file too...

-- Smoov

On Win7, I have several different shortcuts set up, which loads up different conf files depending on what I want to mine.

The only command line option is similar to "-c cgminer(BTC).conf", with all of my other options in the conf file.

Give that -c flag a shot?

-- Smoov

It is a good thing rav3n_pl isn't prone to gloating...

-- Smoov

Fair enough.

Yeah, definitely not a high priority thing, but if ya happen to be doing something else in that pile of code.

Thank you.

-- Smoov

Like I said... without the ability to disable that feature for myself, I won't be very likely to trade there...

I don't expect you to make it optional, just to get me to trade there... just offering my reason for my choice.

If it doesn't prevent my placing an order, due to insufficient funds, then it isn't acceptable.

From what I've heard, one of the strengths of your system(s) is the amount of features that you have been making available that sites like GLBSE lacked, for the users' benefit. Giving us the flexibility to tailor our experience according to our individual trading habits and preferences, is an important thing to have, and the particular one I'm talking about is SOOOO EASY to implement, so I just don't understand the unwillingness to allow us a choice, and force this system on those who don't want it.

Take it however you want, but that is my thought about it. >shrugs<

-- Smoov

Then knock yourself out, use it all you want to. I don't want to forbid anyone from using it if they don't want to. I just don't want it imposed on anyone who does not want it, either. I don't even want the possibility of over-extending myself in my orders. If I don't have the cash to cover all of my orders, I want my attempt to be blocked.

(this is kinda similar to a big argument I had with my bank with my debit card, when they would still allow charges I didn't have the money to cover, and then charge me overdraft fees. if I don't have the money in my account, then decline the transaction. they finally relented once they realized I wasn't going to let it go)

Overall, unless there is some solid reason why a change has to be imposed on everyone, many features only need to be optional so we can pick and choose how we want to trade.

-- Smoov

Well, if you get to that point, then it wouldn't be much further, to total up the value of my current bids, plus the one I'm trying to make, and if the result is a negative number, then to not place the order and show an "Insufficient Funds" on the screen, with a checkbox in a settings area to enable/disable this.

It isn't that far to make it optional, and give us more flexibility.

Sorry, but I would be less likely to trade there, without it.

-- Smoov

Is this optional? Personally, I dislike this behavior, and the way I like to trade, is to have the cash reserved for every bid I place.

This is something that is really something for the individual investor, and instead of allowing me to place bids I don't have the funds for, I want it to tell me I no longer have available funds to cover that bid.

This way, I always _know_ that the bids I place, are going to stay put, and not disappear just because someone dumped a lot on another issue, that I may not have been wanting to buy into as much as another issue.

A one-size-fits-all solution, for either side of this, doesn't work. Being able to customize our trading experience for ourselves is a big plus.

-- Smoov

Thank you so much for this.

CGminer is doing MUCH better at stabilizing at temperature quickly, instead of over-correcting like it had been doing over a longer period of time.

My bad-fan card clocked all the way down to 600, until the heat dissapated a minute later, then dipped below hysterisis, then rose back up by 10's back to 830 with no problem, then when the temp rose again, gradually this time, the fan and clock were able to react more smoothly, stabilizing quickly, and are now sitting stable at around 85% fan, 760 clock, and 74C degrees. As the temp drops tonight, it should get back up to 830 with the outside air being fed in at ~15C degrees.

This is much appreciated.

The only errors I have seen so far, is a couple 'method not found' errors, which appear to come only when the pools are initially probed. I assume this is when checking for stratum. They don't interrupt anything, and mining fires right up as usual. (the pools don't have stratum support)
(W32 binary on Win7)

-- Smoov

I believe that if someone does get the i0c code current with the other coins (ixc too for that matter), that Vircurex would be willing to relist it.

But yeah, the inefficient memory usage was just getting to be too much of a problem. I'm thinking of taking it out of my auto-run list as well. Computer is at the point where it is swapping memory in and out a lot more than I like.

-- Smoov

Some malware people have been including the miners (including cgminer) as a payload in their trojans to get their botnets mining for them.

I keep sending false positive reports in, explaining that they are just payload, and if they are going to keep flagging them, at least flag them as a low threat so we can just click 'ignore'.

Yer just going to have to add them to the exclusion lists. You'll have to put it in at least two places. One is the shield settings, and in the scan settings. I couldn't tell you exactly where right now, I am not at that computer.

I just put the entire folders for them as exceptions, and also excepted all of the blockchain files too, or avast will be constantly scanning them whenever they change.

-- Smoov

ps: only download the miners from the official sources/threads!

Thank you...

From my observations, I only see it occur when the temp falls below the target-temp minus hysteresis, when the heat the sensors have picked up has finally dissipated enough. As long as the temp stays above target-temp minus hysteresis, it raises back up gradually again from the bottom range I specified.

If that helps narrow it down some.

-- Smoov

What creating a different type of controller for every combination out there? I'm not even asking for that.

When the temp is below temp-target, don't slam the clock up to max, raise it one step at a time instead, and don't drop the fan fast, lower it one step at a time.

A couple if-statements, and that's it... why complicate it with pretending you'd have to make new algorithms for every card out there?

I know you think I'm stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid.

Believe it or not, this _is_ an issue that the auto-fan and auto-gpu aren't behaving as well as they should be, and all it is, is how fast it adjusts the fan and clock speed. There is NO reason why, just because the temp drops below temp-target minus hysteresis, that the clock speed has to be pushed back up to max, instead of being raised step by step the same as it does as if the temp is within the hysteresis.

-- Smoov

Ok, one of my cards has a fan on it that is dying, but it has given me a chance to observe a behavior in cgminer that, I believe, needs tweaking, when it comes to auto-fan and auto-gpu.

I notice repeatedly, that the temps of my card are fluctuating a lot, and this is why...

I'm using the following options (I was using hysteresis 4, changed it to 2 a few days ago thinking it might do better at holding the temp on card #2 set to 2 instead, didn't work out that way)

"auto-fan" : true,
"auto-gpu" : true,
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "600-825,600-825",
"gpu-fan" : "0-85,0-85",
"gpu-memdiff" : "200,200",
"intensity" : "9,5",
"temp-hysteresis" : "2",
"temp-target" : "70,70",
"temp-overheat" : "80,80",
"temp-cutoff" : "90,90"

What ends up happening, is the #2 card, immediately sets up at 825 engine, 50 fan, upon startup.

Ok... would rather have it start out of the gate at default with 85 fan, but no big deal, it'll find its sweet spot in a few minutes, right? wrong...

There is some lag time between the heat being generated, and the sensor picking it up, so my temp is constantly fluctuating at least 5 degrees.

First, since the temp hasn't risen yet, cgminer starts stepping down the fan. Usually with bigger steps when the temp is below 68. At the same time, the clock is already at 825, and is building up heat. By the time the sensors pick it up, it is raising the fan speed quickly up to 85, at which point the temp is usually over 72-73, and then starts dropping the clock speed step by step to generate less heat.

So far so good. It will make its way, most of the time, all the way down to 600 before the temp starts to come down. The fan speed gets reduced along the way as expected... but when my temp finally drops below 68 degrees, instead of gradually bringing the clock speed back up 1 step at a time like I would expect, it slams it back up to full in one go, from 600-650 directly to 825 again.

Since the temp is still low, the fan speed continues to be reduced, until finally the heat being generated, reaches the sensor, which then starts ramping up the fan again, quickly, as the sensor's temp is rising fast, and the cycle continues, over and over and over again.

These temp fluctuations can't be good at all for the card. Granted, the fan on that card isn't operating as efficiently as it used to, but it is still running, it just doesn't spin as freely as it should. This just gave me a chance to see auto-fan and auto-gpu do its thing over a long period of time.

I have observed my card's temp fluctuate like this for days now, never finding a sweet-spot to settle into, which I would expect it should, since the card does cool down when the engine is at a certain point.

My suggestion would be a change in behavior to auto-fan and auto-gpu...

for auto-fan: allow the fan speed to rise as quickly as it needs to, but never lower it by more than a single step at a time.

for auto-gpu: allow the engine speed to fall as quickly as it needs to, but never raise it by more than a single step at a time.

It should never go directly to the maximum overclock speed, but get there gradually.

Making them adjust more slowly, in the direction that would raise the temp of the card, gives the sensors on the card more time to pick up the heat being built up, since heat isn't an instant indicator, there is some lag time for heat to propogate, but don't limit how fast the card can react when the temp needs to be cut down.

The rationale is, that while the sensor may think the card's chips are at 80-85 degrees that instant, those chips may actually be at 90-95, but that the heat just hasn't reached the sensor yet, giving the chips even more of a pronounced heat/cool cycle than they should.

-- Smoov

'I want to link my Bitcointalk name with BTCJam's. Verification code: bf3f6c1a-82b5-41b4-8033-7a4b67875baa'

-- Smoov

Right... I stand corrected...

But I was still correct on the rest.

-- Smoov