Bitcoin Forum
March 20, 2019, 06:25:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner  (Read 419070 times)
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 09, 2018, 03:26:53 PM
 #3201

New in v3.7.9

Partial 4way optimizations for veltor, skunk, polytimos, lyra2z.

Thank you for the update and for you great work. Is lyra2z same as lyra2z330 and lyra2zoin?

No, lyra2z is for zcoin.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
100% New Software
PC, Mac, Android, & HTML5 Clients
Krill Rakeback
Low Rake
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
Bad Beat Jackpot
SwC Poker Relaunch
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1553063149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553063149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1553063149
Reply with quote  #2

1553063149
Report to moderator
1553063149
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553063149

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1553063149
Reply with quote  #2

1553063149
Report to moderator
nizzuu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 193
Merit: 100

Cryptocurrency enthusiast


View Profile
January 10, 2018, 08:14:06 AM
 #3202

Interesting https://github.com/skywind3000/FastMemcpy

Seems that one differs from cpuminer-opt's one from avxdefs.h. Don't know if it's faster or not.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 10, 2018, 03:12:48 PM
 #3203

Interesting https://github.com/skywind3000/FastMemcpy

Seems that one differs from cpuminer-opt's one from avxdefs.h. Don't know if it's faster or not.

Interesting and probably faster because it's benchmark tested. He had the benefit of seeing the results
and tweaking. I gave up on super-optimizing memcpy and went with a simpler approach because all I
wanted was to avoid some the overhead to detect alignment, odd sizes and vector capabilities.
Most of the memcpy in cpuminer is with aligned data and integral sizes.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
Salazarian2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 12:05:38 AM
 #3204

Finally I can mine with the tool on my ubuntu server and realized that the difficulty for cryptonight is pretty high thus resulting in a low mining performance. This has already been discussed before.

Now I have 10 ubuntu servers with ryzen 1700X CPUs.

Is there anyway to bundle the hashing power together to mine as one unit in order to get atleast the threshold needed to have a "stable" mining performance rather than just doing a stopNgo mining?

If all 10 servers mine with their standalone hashing power VS. bundling them as one hashing unit. Is there any way to do this to mine for nicehash servers?

Sincerely
cristiancs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 01:56:54 AM
 #3205

Hi, i have a little problem, i have a dual E5649, when i set the thread count to 12 i have like 400 H/s with cryptonight, but when i set the thread count to 24 i have like 270 H/s, i was thinking that maybe if i set the --cpu-affinity to some value i can run another instance that use the other 12 cores.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 03:19:21 AM
 #3206

Finally I can mine with the tool on my ubuntu server and realized that the difficulty for cryptonight is pretty high thus resulting in a low mining performance. This has already been discussed before.

Now I have 10 ubuntu servers with ryzen 1700X CPUs.

Is there anyway to bundle the hashing power together to mine as one unit in order to get atleast the threshold needed to have a "stable" mining performance rather than just doing a stopNgo mining?

If all 10 servers mine with their standalone hashing power VS. bundling them as one hashing unit. Is there any way to do this to mine for nicehash servers?

Sincerely

Stratum proxy.

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

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 03:28:37 AM
 #3207

Hi, i have a little problem, i have a dual E5649, when i set the thread count to 12 i have like 400 H/s with cryptonight, but when i set the thread count to 24 i have like 270 H/s, i was thinking that maybe if i set the --cpu-affinity to some value i can run another instance that use the other 12 cores.


How do you know it's not using both CPUs? What about the obvious, don't set the thread count and use the default?
Also don't force me to make assumptions like what OS you're using, miner version, how/if you compiled etc.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
Salazarian2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 03:32:53 AM
 #3208

Finally I can mine with the tool on my ubuntu server and realized that the difficulty for cryptonight is pretty high thus resulting in a low mining performance. This has already been discussed before.

Now I have 10 ubuntu servers with ryzen 1700X CPUs.

Is there anyway to bundle the hashing power together to mine as one unit in order to get atleast the threshold needed to have a "stable" mining performance rather than just doing a stopNgo mining?

If all 10 servers mine with their standalone hashing power VS. bundling them as one hashing unit. Is there any way to do this to mine for nicehash servers?

Sincerely

Stratum proxy.

Is there a tutorial how to establish it with xmr-stak or would I need a specific miner with the proxy support?

Sincerely
nsummy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 111


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 03:40:52 AM
 #3209

Finally I can mine with the tool on my ubuntu server and realized that the difficulty for cryptonight is pretty high thus resulting in a low mining performance. This has already been discussed before.

Now I have 10 ubuntu servers with ryzen 1700X CPUs.

Is there anyway to bundle the hashing power together to mine as one unit in order to get atleast the threshold needed to have a "stable" mining performance rather than just doing a stopNgo mining?

If all 10 servers mine with their standalone hashing power VS. bundling them as one hashing unit. Is there any way to do this to mine for nicehash servers?

Sincerely

If you are pointing them at nicehash they are already being bundled.  The scenario you are thinking of would only occur if you have 10 servers each individually mining to a wallet.
Salazarian2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 03:43:20 AM
 #3210

Finally I can mine with the tool on my ubuntu server and realized that the difficulty for cryptonight is pretty high thus resulting in a low mining performance. This has already been discussed before.

Now I have 10 ubuntu servers with ryzen 1700X CPUs.

Is there anyway to bundle the hashing power together to mine as one unit in order to get atleast the threshold needed to have a "stable" mining performance rather than just doing a stopNgo mining?

If all 10 servers mine with their standalone hashing power VS. bundling them as one hashing unit. Is there any way to do this to mine for nicehash servers?

Sincerely

If you are pointing them at nicehash they are already being bundled.  The scenario you are thinking of would only occur if you have 10 servers each individually mining to a wallet.

All my 10 servers mine to the same wallet and same pool.

Does this mean that their hash performance is bundled?

So basicly the more servers I would have (due to current cryptonight situation) the better it is to achieve a more stable performance ratio?

BTW my current performance:
https://i.imgur.com/IaMrWvv.png

I want to avoid these downtimes...
cristiancs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 04:17:38 AM
 #3211

Hi, i have a little problem, i have a dual E5649, when i set the thread count to 12 i have like 400 H/s with cryptonight, but when i set the thread count to 24 i have like 270 H/s, i was thinking that maybe if i set the --cpu-affinity to some value i can run another instance that use the other 12 cores.


How do you know it's not using both CPUs? What about the obvious, don't set the thread count and use the default?
Also don't force me to make assumptions like what OS you're using, miner version, how/if you compiled etc.
Sorry,

I know im not using both looking at "top"

https://i.imgur.com/zdz7I0B.png

Interesting i have a little better performance using taskset -c 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 before the ./cpuminer (i expected to get better performance with even or odd cores considering that when i run numactl -H i get the even cores on one node and odd on the other)

If i don't set the thread count it uses all the cores but the performance drops to ~300 H/s.

Miner version is 3.7.9 and was compiled following the instructions on https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/blob/master/RELEASE_NOTES , im mining XMR and the OS is Centos 7.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 06:01:56 AM
 #3212

Hi, i have a little problem, i have a dual E5649, when i set the thread count to 12 i have like 400 H/s with cryptonight, but when i set the thread count to 24 i have like 270 H/s, i was thinking that maybe if i set the --cpu-affinity to some value i can run another instance that use the other 12 cores.


How do you know it's not using both CPUs? What about the obvious, don't set the thread count and use the default?
Also don't force me to make assumptions like what OS you're using, miner version, how/if you compiled etc.
Sorry,

I know im not using both looking at "top"



Interesting i have a little better performance using taskset -c 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 before the ./cpuminer (i expected to get better performance with even or odd cores considering that when i run numactl -H i get the even cores on one node and odd on the other)

If i don't set the thread count it uses all the cores but the performance drops to ~300 H/s.

Miner version is 3.7.9 and was compiled following the instructions on https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/blob/master/RELEASE_NOTES , im mining XMR and the OS is Centos 7.

You're reading top wrong. With 12 threads it's using 12 of the 24 logical cores. You have 12 physical cores with 12 threads.
You're jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Now the issue is clear. Your problem is the number of miner threads, not the cpu affinity. For cryptonight the optimum thread
count is: threads = L3 cache size / 2MB. Your CPUs have 12 MB each so that's 12 threads. Default affinity should spread them
over all physical cores.

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

Activity: 154
Merit: 22


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 09:11:29 AM
 #3213

Can anybody explain me what is the meaning of "4way optimization" or give me a link to read about it? Will this optimization also be available for the hodl algorithm in the future? Thanks a lot!
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 02:42:08 PM
 #3214

Can anybody explain me what is the meaning of "4way optimization" or give me a link to read about it? Will this optimization also be available for the hodl algorithm in the future? Thanks a lot!


It's all in this thread.

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

Activity: 11
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 08:01:31 PM
 #3215

CPU affinity is not working as expected (by me Smiley) on dual Xeon E5-2460v3 on Windows 2012 R2
I want to use only 1 thread per physical core on both the CPUs, but I'm not able to do it.

I'm testing v3.7.9 with the following cmd line:
cpuminer-aes-avx2 -a lbry -t 16 --cpu-affinity 0xAAAAAAAA  [...]

I'd like to spread the threads over the 16 available physical cores, but I'm only able to saturate 16 logical processor of the first CPU:
http://i68.tinypic.com/saupo5.png

No matter what I set in the affinity option, I always obtain the same result.
If I start cpuminer with "-t 1" I get 526 kH/s per CPU, when I start it with "-t 16" I obtain only 249 kH/s per CPU.

On a single CPU system with 8 cores and 16 logical cpu, I'm able to obtain exactly what I want with affinity.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 11, 2018, 10:26:15 PM
 #3216

CPU affinity is not working as expected (by me Smiley) on dual Xeon E5-2460v3 on Windows 2012 R2
I want to use only 1 thread per physical core on both the CPUs, but I'm not able to do it.

I'm testing v3.7.9 with the following cmd line:
cpuminer-aes-avx2 -a lbry -t 16 --cpu-affinity 0xAAAAAAAA  [...]

I'd like to spread the threads over the 16 available physical cores, but I'm only able to saturate 16 logical processor of the first CPU:


No matter what I set in the affinity option, I always obtain the same result.
If I start cpuminer with "-t 1" I get 526 kH/s per CPU, when I start it with "-t 16" I obtain only 249 kH/s per CPU.

On a single CPU system with 8 cores and 16 logical cpu, I'm able to obtain exactly what I want with affinity.


Like the pevious guy you're creating a problem where there is none. Use the default affinity and don't make assumptions.
If you want to see which physical cores are working look at their temperature.

If you have a problem after that post debug output.

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

Activity: 193
Merit: 100

Cryptocurrency enthusiast


View Profile
January 12, 2018, 06:22:42 AM
Last edit: January 12, 2018, 07:14:28 AM by nizzuu
 #3217

I want to use only 1 thread per physical core on both the CPUs, but I'm not able to do it.

Use the tool I've posted a few posts above (msg27696971) to identify physical cores, and then use the appropriate affinity mask.

Do not underestimate the correct affinity setting, some algos (like lyra2*) are spread between all cores if thread count < core count, e.g. u have 4 cores but wanna use 2 threads, than u may get all 4 cores 50% utilized, and that is not what you usually want :-)

Interesting and probably faster because it's benchmark tested. He had the benefit of seeing the results
and tweaking. I gave up on super-optimizing memcpy and went with a simpler approach because all I
wanted was to avoid some the overhead to detect alignment, odd sizes and vector capabilities.

I've just benched that variant for cryptonight (using it in skein, keccak, jh and blake256) and sse2 build, setting correct L3 cache size in header manually for 4 particular cpu pieces (Pentium G620, Pentium G4600, i3-7350k and i5-7600)

So, the speed "boost" for resulting hashrate is ~ +0,006% yay Grin And this also costs +5% for resulting binary size.

Will continue soon with other algos, got an interest for avx version together with avx algos.
cida
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 11
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 12, 2018, 08:34:56 AM
Last edit: January 12, 2018, 09:42:21 AM by cida
 #3218

CPU affinity is not working as expected (by me Smiley) on dual Xeon E5-2460v3 on Windows 2012 R2
I want to use only 1 thread per physical core on both the CPUs, but I'm not able to do it.

I'm testing v3.7.9 with the following cmd line:
cpuminer-aes-avx2 -a lbry -t 16 --cpu-affinity 0xAAAAAAAA  [...]

I'd like to spread the threads over the 16 available physical cores, but I'm only able to saturate 16 logical processor of the first CPU:
http://i68.tinypic.com/saupo5.png

No matter what I set in the affinity option, I always obtain the same result.
If I start cpuminer with "-t 1" I get 526 kH/s per CPU, when I start it with "-t 16" I obtain only 249 kH/s per CPU.

On a single CPU system with 8 cores and 16 logical cpu, I'm able to obtain exactly what I want with affinity.


Like the pevious guy you're creating a problem where there is none. Use the default affinity and don't make assumptions.
If you want to see which physical cores are working look at their temperature.

If you have a problem after that post debug output.

I already tried to use default affinity and I got the same result.
I'll check temperature and I'll report the result.

But if my assumption is wrong, why single thread has double rate x CPU than multi-threads?
Beside that, thank you for your great piece of software and for your attention.
--- EDIT ---
My assumption is confirmed by HWMonitor
http://i68.tinypic.com/4jt2xv.png http://i68.tinypic.com/rvixom.png

--- EDIT2 ---
Here's the output with debug enabled
Code:
C:\Program Files\cpumin>cpuminer-aes-avx2 -a lbry -t 16 -D -o stratum+tcp://xxxx -u xxxx -p xxxx

         **********  cpuminer-opt 3.7.9  ***********
     A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
     with AES_NI and AVX2 and SHA extensions.
     BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT

CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz.
SW built on Jan  8 2018 with GCC 5.3.1.
CPU features: SSE2 AES AVX AVX2.
SW features: SSE2 AES AVX AVX2.
Algo features: SSE2 AVX AVX2 SHA.
Start mining with AVX2.

[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 13 to cpu 13 (mask 2000)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://xxxx
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0 (mask 1)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 14 to cpu 14 (mask 4000)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 1 to cpu 1 (mask 2)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 2 to cpu 2 (mask 4)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 3 to cpu 3 (mask 8)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 4 to cpu 4 (mask 10)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 5 to cpu 5 (mask 20)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 6 to cpu 6 (mask 40)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 7 to cpu 7 (mask 80)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] 16 miner threads started, using 'lbry' algorithm.
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 8 to cpu 8 (mask 100)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 9 to cpu 9 (mask 200)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 15 to cpu 15 (mask 8000)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 10 to cpu 10 (mask 400)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 11 to cpu 11 (mask 800)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Binding thread 12 to cpu 12 (mask 1000)
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Stratum session id: deadbeefcafebabe8681430000000000
[2018-01-12 10:31:44] Stratum difficulty set to 256
[2018-01-12 10:31:47] stratum extranonce subscribe timed out
[2018-01-12 10:31:47] DEBUG: job_id='34b9' extranonce2=00000000 ntime=1f24d637
[2018-01-12 10:31:47] xxxx asks job 13497 for block 303984
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #6: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #7: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #14: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #1: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #0: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #15: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #9: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #8: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #13: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #12: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #3: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #2: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #5: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #4: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #11: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:48] CPU #10: 131.07 kH, 158.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] DEBUG: job_id='34ba' extranonce2=00000000 ntime=1f24d637
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] lbry block 303985, diff 427620.506
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #0: 707.05 kH, 243.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #6: 706.87 kH, 243.22 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #5: 706.71 kH, 243.17 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #10: 706.25 kH, 244.32 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #7: 706.67 kH, 243.15 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #8: 705.90 kH, 242.89 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #4: 706.64 kH, 243.14 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #13: 706.68 kH, 243.16 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #1: 707.15 kH, 243.32 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #3: 704.80 kH, 242.51 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #2: 704.64 kH, 242.45 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #11: 706.47 kH, 243.08 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #14: 706.79 kH, 243.19 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #12: 706.55 kH, 243.11 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #9: 706.03 kH, 242.93 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:31:51] CPU #15: 706.02 kH, 242.93 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:46] DEBUG: job_id='34bb' extranonce2=00000000 ntime=1f24d637
[2018-01-12 10:32:46] xxxx asks job 13499 for block 303985
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #2: 14.55 MH, 249.27 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #8: 14.57 MH, 249.31 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #1: 14.60 MH, 249.55 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #11: 14.59 MH, 249.31 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #15: 14.58 MH, 249.16 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #12: 14.59 MH, 249.28 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #3: 14.55 MH, 248.66 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #14: 14.59 MH, 249.36 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #13: 14.59 MH, 249.32 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #5: 14.59 MH, 249.33 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #7: 14.59 MH, 249.32 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #6: 14.59 MH, 249.39 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #4: 14.59 MH, 249.24 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #9: 14.58 MH, 248.30 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #0: 14.60 MH, 248.52 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:32:50] CPU #10: 14.66 MH, 249.45 kH/s
[2018-01-12 10:33:42] DEBUG: job_id='34bc' extranonce2=00000000 ntime=1f24d637
[2018-01-12 10:33:42] xxxx asks job 13500 for block 303985
...
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
January 12, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
 #3219

Cpuminer can only use cores it can see. If it won't use the second package it's because it can't see it.
That's an OS issue.

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

Activity: 11
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 12, 2018, 03:36:33 PM
 #3220

Cpuminer can only use cores it can see. If it won't use the second package it's because it can't see it.
That's an OS issue.


 Huh
HWMonitor (and many other softwares) can see the second CPU, so IMHO it's not an OS issue.
If you want to further investigate the issue, I can do testing for you.
Thank you again.
Pages: « 1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 »
  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!