Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2018, 01:50:13 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 ... 191 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner  (Read 412724 times)
Nik4691
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 19, 2016, 04:58:28 PM
 #1461

here are the results (surprised me that the packaged builds did better on lyra2*, last time i tested them they where worse):

fx-8320e:


Thanks, those are the results I expected. Next release i will drop the btver1 build and recommend AMD users choose the Intel build
with the same features.
trying to run this miner on my desk top but I crashes right away

I have and dual core Pentium g4400 cpu (Sandy bridge)

cpuminer-core-avx2 -a zcoin -o stratum+tcp://xzc.pool.mn:2428 -u user -p x

any help ?
No AVX2 or even AVX for this processor.
Use the cpuminer-corei7.exe kenel.
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
1534557013
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534557013

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534557013
Reply with quote  #2

1534557013
Report to moderator
Madmach
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 19, 2016, 06:04:24 PM
 #1462

Hi, After several hours mining displays "Unauthorized worker".
After rebooting cpu-miner its all OK. I have AMD FX,  cpuminer-btver1 -a lyra2z -o stratum+tcp://xzc.suprnova.cc:5595 -u user.worker -p pass
felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 12:27:30 AM
 #1463

what about renaming the binaries to the corresponding arch?

4.8.x didnt include this (thats why you where not able to compile westmere, or in general other arch's by their name)

gcc 4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0 and 6.2.0 indicate the following:

core2 == core2
corei7 == nehalem
corei7-avx == sandybridge
core-avx-i == ivybridge
core-avx2 == haswell

missing in 4.8.x:

westmere (4.9.4)
broadwell (4.9.4)
skylake (6.2.0)

i suppose there is no easy way to upgrade gcc in a mingw environment on windows, im using gnustep which is the current version and only ships with gcc 4.8.x sadly

i also attempted cross compiling but ran into issues with linking the libs in the last step, has anybody done that before?

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 01:11:41 AM
 #1464

what about renaming the binaries to the corresponding arch?

4.8.x didnt include this (thats why you where not able to compile westmere, or in general other arch's by their name)

gcc 4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0 and 6.2.0 indicate the following:

core2 == core2
corei7 == nehalem
corei7-avx == sandybridge
core-avx-i == ivybridge
core-avx2 == haswell

missing in 4.8.x:

westmere (4.9.4)
broadwell (4.9.4)
skylake (6.2.0)

i suppose there is no easy way to upgrade gcc in a mingw environment on windows, im using gnustep which is the current version and only ships with gcc 4.8.x sadly

i also attempted cross compiling but ran into issues with linking the libs in the last step, has anybody done that before?

I just defaulted to the gcc arch but I'm flexible. A case could also be made for going strictly by the best feature like is displayed
by the miner.

Using the Intel brand doesn't help with AMD users who are unfamiliar with them. The newer architectures have the best
feature in their name so AMD users can key on that (assuming the issue of compatibility and performance of Intel builds
on AMD CPUs is resolved).

I'm also considering dropping core-avx-i as their is no specifically targetted code for this arch. If there are any performance differences
over corei7-avx it's all from the compiler. I would like to hear if there are users with Ivybridge CPUs that get lower perfomance using
corei7-avx vs core-avx-i.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
mikhan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 08:34:15 AM
 #1465

tried cpuminer-xzc, it shows weird (?) 220-230 kh/s hashrate but a pool shows about 60-70 h/s, 48 threads

are you referring to ocminers cpuminer-xzc or cpuminer-opt by joblo?

please share the parameters used to start the miner for further debug, might just be a wrong algo specified
this one is from https://github.com/ocminer/cpuminer-xzc/releases
command line: cpuminer -a lyra2rev2 -o stratum+tcp://xzc.suprnova.cc:5595 -u ***.*** -p *** -t 48
mikhan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 08:54:58 AM
 #1466

so this is default (no -t) run of joblo's miner on dual xeon e5-2690v3
48 threads

(pls don't mind *-3.4.5 folder name, it's a clean 3.4.Cool
-t 12

felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 09:36:07 AM
 #1467

yup those numbers could add up to the actual hashrate, try with very low core nums like 3,4,5 and post the results, this algo is very memory bound, more cpu power doesnt speed things up but can make things worse actually

also if this system is using multiple cpu you will need to spread the few threads on the other processors to achive maximum hashpower (to use multiple memories), i dont know if this is possible with plain threads (procs work fine) other option would be to start multiple cpuminer for each cpu with low thread count

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
mikhan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 12:59:44 PM
 #1468

@felix
you mean your fork or joblo's one?
btw i got 256 gb of ram on that dual xeon server
will follow your advices later...
felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 01:16:31 PM
 #1469

@felix
you mean your fork or joblo's one?
btw i got 256 gb of ram on that dual xeon server
will follow your advices later...

i only have a copy of the src in my github acc, no modifications made, im talking about joblos cpuminer-opt

the amount of memory is largely irrelevant, its more the speed from cpu to memory that dictates the hashpower

my xeon e3 has 8 cores, though using more than 4 cores does not result in more hashpower

with 2x 24 threads (2 cpu) i assume the optimum thread count per cpu is about 6-10, maybe a bit more or less depending on the power of each individual core

now on linux placing procs on specific cpus is easy, not sure how to do this on windows.

im unsure how cpuminer-opt handles the placement of threads in a multi cpu environment, if you only specify 12 threads (6 per cpu) it might spread them on cpu0 and cpu1, but it might also spread them only on cpu0 which would result in only half the hashpower

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
t2yax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


Arianee:Smart-link Connecting Owners,Assets,Brands


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 02:50:04 PM
 #1470

i've tried zcash mining in windows with mobile ivy bridge cpu.it just stops.i mean windows error.

arianee
• • • ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Smart-link Connecting Owners, Assets And Brands
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • • •
Discord
Telegram ⊐●⊏ Reddit
Twitter ⊐●⊏ Instagram
Medium ⊐●⊏ Linkedin
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 03:42:44 PM
 #1471

@felix
you mean your fork or joblo's one?
btw i got 256 gb of ram on that dual xeon server
will follow your advices later...

i only have a copy of the src in my github acc, no modifications made, im talking about joblos cpuminer-opt

the amount of memory is largely irrelevant, its more the speed from cpu to memory that dictates the hashpower

my xeon e3 has 8 cores, though using more than 4 cores does not result in more hashpower

with 2x 24 threads (2 cpu) i assume the optimum thread count per cpu is about 6-10, maybe a bit more or less depending on the power of each individual core

now on linux placing procs on specific cpus is easy, not sure how to do this on windows.

im unsure how cpuminer-opt handles the placement of threads in a multi cpu environment, if you only specify 12 threads (6 per cpu) it might spread them on cpu0 and cpu1, but it might also spread them only on cpu0 which would result in only half the hashpower

Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.


I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 06:51:26 PM
 #1472

The branding Intel uses for Celeron CPUs is misleading and is causing confusion with some users.
First the model number don't match the generation, ie some G4xxx models are branded as Skylake
but Skylake Pentiums are the 6xxx series.

But more importantly Celerons are cost reduced and stripped of some advanced technology, including AVX
and AVX2. Therefore the AVX and AVX2 builds will not work on Celerons. The Westmere build is likely the
most featured compile that can be used with Celerons.

I will update the readme file included in the binary package of the next release to clarify.

I would also like to remind users to always read the readme file before reporting problems and to provide a
clear problem description and supporting data. I will ignore any reports without data.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 07:58:33 PM
 #1473

Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.


I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.

afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly.

increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 08:42:52 PM
 #1474

Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.


I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.

afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly.

increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower

That wasn't the point. A single CPU has access to 4 memory channels instead of 2 doubling the memory bandwidth, The 2nd CPU
is still overkill.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 08:54:45 PM
 #1475

Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.


I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.

afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly.

increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower

That wasn't the point. A single CPU has access to 4 memory channels instead of 2 doubling the memory bandwidth, The 2nd CPU
is still overkill.

i dont seem to understand your point


taken a system with multiple (say 2) cpu sockets exists and both cpus are present:

- each cpu has dual or quad memory channel (if its dual or quad doesnt matter in this scenario)
- each cpu gives X H/s, like a normal single cpu system would, just two cpu+ram on one mobo
- each cpu uses their own dual/quad memory channel

using one cpu produces X H/s, using both cpu produces 2x X H/s

taken a system with a single cpu socket exists:

- the cpu has dual memory channels

upgrading the dual channel to quad channel through a mobo/cpu upgrade results in (likely) doubled hashrate


im missing the point where a second cpu doesnt speed up the total hashrate of the system if the second cpu has its own memory channels

or do you imply the one cpu should use the other dual channel memory for the other cpu and thus doubling its memory bandwith? cause that wont work afaik

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 09:40:42 PM
 #1476

Given the 12 thread performance was similar to 48 it looks like it was using both CPUs. With only one CPU I would expect the
performance to drop by half.


I take that back. Adding another CPU doesn't increase memory bandwidth. A dual CPU is overkill, an i7 is overkill. The only way
to improve performance is with LGA2011 which has a 4 channel memory controller.

afaik each cpu has its own memory, so using multiple cpu actually should multiply the hashpower by the amount of cpus used. if one cpu wants to access the memory of another cpu it would need to do so via qpi. each memory bus per cpu is unique and shouldnt slow down other cpus, only qpi access slows down significantly.

increasing cpu <-> memory speeds should also increase the hashpower

That wasn't the point. A single CPU has access to 4 memory channels instead of 2 doubling the memory bandwidth, The 2nd CPU
is still overkill.

i dont seem to understand your point


taken a system with multiple (say 2) cpu sockets exists and both cpus are present:

- each cpu has dual or quad memory channel (if its dual or quad doesnt matter in this scenario)
- each cpu gives X H/s, like a normal single cpu system would, just two cpu+ram on one mobo
- each cpu uses their own dual/quad memory channel

using one cpu produces X H/s, using both cpu produces 2x X H/s

taken a system with a single cpu socket exists:

- the cpu has dual memory channels

upgrading the dual channel to quad channel through a mobo/cpu upgrade results in (likely) doubled hashrate


im missing the point where a second cpu doesnt speed up the total hashrate of the system if the second cpu has its own memory channels

or do you imply the one cpu should use the other dual channel memory for the other cpu and thus doubling its memory bandwith? cause that wont work afaik

My mistake, I was assuming shared memory.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
felixbrucker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
October 20, 2016, 09:48:46 PM
 #1477

My mistake, I was assuming shared memory.

ah yes, with shared memory a second cpu would not speed things up

i suppose shared memory only exists in specific systems nowadays?

         nicehash
      
                     BUY & SELL hashing power
    Mine bitcoin, ethereum, monero, zcash, dash, litecoin and others
      
       LEARN MORE
       at nicehash.com
      
My9bot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 243
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 09:52:17 PM
 #1478

hey can you look at zcash algo??
https://github.com/nicehash/nheqminer
thx

I'm better with code than with words-SatoshiNakamoto
Espers [ESP]SiteOnBlockchain
alexcrownjr
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 09:58:27 PM
 #1479

cant build on Centos 7 6x

Code:
In file included from algo/hodl/hodl-gate.h:1:0,
                 from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:2:
./algo-gate-api.h:126:49: error: using typedef-name ‘json_t’ after ‘struct’
 bool ( *work_decode )            ( const struct json_t*, struct work* );
                                                 ^
In file included from ./miner.h:38:0,
                 from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:
/usr/include/jansson.h:53:3: note: ‘json_t’ has a previous declaration here
 } json_t;
   ^
In file included from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:0:
./miner.h:526:20: warning: ‘algo_names’ defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
 static const char *algo_names[] = {
                    ^
make[2]: *** [algo/hodl/cpuminer-hodl.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make: *** [all] Error 2


installed
sudo yum groupinstall 'Development Tools'

sudo yum install tmux gmp-devel jansson-devel openssl-devel boost-devel git automake gcc make curl-devel
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1016


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 10:59:02 PM
 #1480

cant build on Centos 7 6x

Code:
In file included from algo/hodl/hodl-gate.h:1:0,
                 from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:2:
./algo-gate-api.h:126:49: error: using typedef-name ‘json_t’ after ‘struct’
 bool ( *work_decode )            ( const struct json_t*, struct work* );
                                                 ^
In file included from ./miner.h:38:0,
                 from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:
/usr/include/jansson.h:53:3: note: ‘json_t’ has a previous declaration here
 } json_t;
   ^
In file included from algo/hodl/hodl.cpp:1:0:
./miner.h:526:20: warning: ‘algo_names’ defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
 static const char *algo_names[] = {
                    ^
make[2]: *** [algo/hodl/cpuminer-hodl.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/stas/cpuminer-opt'
make: *** [all] Error 2


installed
sudo yum groupinstall 'Development Tools'

sudo yum install tmux gmp-devel jansson-devel openssl-devel boost-devel git automake gcc make curl-devel

I think there were errors before this, I need to see the first ones. Also please provide some of the more mundane
info like the version, where you downloaded from and the build commands you used.

Edit: Try uninstalling jansson-devel. It looks like there is a bug in configure that can't handle when jansson is installed
on the system.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
Pages: « 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 ... 191 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!