[LOCKED] cpuminer-opt v3.12.3, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner

[Epsylon3]

i didnt trace to understand but xmr rejects the shares..

else i also use fedora 22 and 23, not yet centos... and ive an ubuntu 15.10 but dont really like it and some Slackware usb sticks

[1714135242]

1714135242

[1714135242]

1714135242

[1714135242]

1714135242

[1714135242]

1714135242

[joblo]

i didnt trace to understand but xmr rejects the shares..

else i also use fedora 22 and 23, not yet centos... and ive an ubuntu 15.10 but dont really like it and some Slackware usb sticks

I pulled support for cryptonight at the last minute because I broke it. Use Wolf0's for now.
Yeah I know I promissed. Oh well.

Slackware? Old school.

[Epsylon3]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

[joblo]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

Cool. I didn't mean slack was obsolete, just that people who like it are old school.
I've played with it but never any real work. At one time I had 8 different distros
multibooted on 2 20GB HDDs running on a pentium 1. Now the're all in VMs.

A guy I used to work with was a slackware fan. Give him the keyboard, toss the mouse,
and he could do magic. He's was also pretty sharp in networking, knew his protocols
inside out.

[zTheWolfz]

As for the Ubuntu 15.10 I think it really depends on what version of it you get GNOME "Willy Wolf"  version VS the Ubuntu Desktop
version you get from the Ubuntu main web page. I found the Gnome Desktop version to work much better than the one I got from
there main site with the purple background vs Blue background with the Willy Wolf version. The one with the purple back ground is
very laggy especially once the miners is started, but not so with the other version & each was setup the same with VM.

Edit: Just to correct this...
Turns out it wasn't the software but what options are picked at install that causes the lag!  
Don't pick anything extra at the format of the HDD screen and all should be fine.
One of the options was changing how the HDD was formatted & its lay out.

I'm resetting the 1st 3 I setup now with the Willy Wolf version, on number 2 at the moment & almost done with it then,
on to the other two if all works the same as the first version did on this one rig.

Edit: Packages I have to install in order for it to compile:

sudo apt-get install libssl-dev

sudo apt-get install libcurl4-openssl-dev

sudo apt-get install g++

Just a side note for anyone compiling this. I don't think the order matters in which each is
installed this is what I have to do on the systems I have setup so far.

[joblo]

Edit: Packages I have to install in order for it to compile:

sudo apt-get install libssl-dev

sudo apt-get install libcurl4-openssl-dev

sudo apt-get install g++

Just a side note for anyone compiling this. I don't think the order matters in which each is
installed this is what I have to do on the systems I have setup so far.

Thanks, I'll add that to the build instructions in the next release.

[zTheWolfz]

Numbers are looking very good on the 3 I have setup with v3.03.
2xSR2 have 24 cores if you count HT cores 1xSR2 has 20 cores counting HT. "E5620+E5645 CPU"

Stock Clock 3.2GHz 1002 KH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 24 cores. No mining video cards.

OC 3.33Ghz 924.80 kH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 22 cores. 2x R270 and why I left 2 unused by the VM. << should get a little better numbers once I set this one full 24 cores.

OC 3.6Ghz 790 KH/s 17 of 20 cores used in the command line VB set to 20 cores. 2x R270x
 
I've found odd numbers with some free cores seems to give just a little better KH/s.
the free cores helps keep my video cards running at there max MH/s. Full load on all
CPU cores hurts the video cards & no real improvement to the CPU scores either.
This is due to running in a VBox, learned this back with Folding@Home, so nothing new there.

[joblo]

Numbers are looking very good on the 3 I have setup with v3.03.
2xSR2 have 24 cores if you count HT cores 1xSR2 has 20 cores counting HT. "E5620+E5645 CPU"

3.2GHz 1002 KH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 24 cores. No mining video cards.

3.33Ghz 924.80 kH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 22 cores. 2x R270 and why I left 2 unused by the VM. << should get a little better numbers once I set this one full 24 cores.

3.6Ghz 790 KH/s 17 of 20 cores used in the command line VB set to 20 cores. 2x R270x
 
I've found odd numbers with some free cores seems to give just a little better KH/s.
the free cores helps keep my video cards running at there max MH/s. Full load on all
CPU cores hurts the video cards & no real improvement to the CPU scores either.
This is due to running in a VBox, learned this back with Folding@Home, so nothing new there.

Thanks for posting your results. Running all cores does afffect GPU performance on the same machine
and we don't want to do that. It's also cool you can do it in a VM.

[joblo]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

Mining with an Intel GPU? I need to look into that.

[zTheWolfz]

Numbers are looking very good on the 3 I have setup with v3.03.
2xSR2 have 24 cores if you count HT cores 1xSR2 has 20 cores counting HT. "E5620+E5645 CPU"

3.2GHz 1002 KH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 24 cores. No mining video cards.

3.33Ghz 924.80 kH/s 21 of 24 cores used in the command line VB set to 22 cores. 2x R270 and why I left 2 unused by the VM. << should get a little better numbers once I set this one full 24 cores.

3.6Ghz 790 KH/s 17 of 20 cores used in the command line VB set to 20 cores. 2x R270x
 
I've found odd numbers with some free cores seems to give just a little better KH/s.
the free cores helps keep my video cards running at there max MH/s. Full load on all
CPU cores hurts the video cards & no real improvement to the CPU scores either.
This is due to running in a VBox, learned this back with Folding@Home, so nothing new there.

Thanks for posting your results. Running all cores does afffect GPU performance on the same machine
and we don't want to do that. It's also cool you can do it in a VM.

Even on the one I don't use a video card to mine on you will never get a true 100% load on all CPU
cores while running in a VB about 89% is max load you can get threw a VB.

[pallas]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

Cool. I didn't mean slack was obsolete, just that people who like it are old school.
I've played with it but never any real work. At one time I had 8 different distros
multibooted on 2 20GB HDDs running on a pentium 1. Now the're all in VMs.

A guy I used to work with was a slackware fan. Give him the keyboard, toss the mouse,
and he could do magic. He's was also pretty sharp in networking, knew his protocols
inside out.

I started using Linux with Slackware 2.0 :-)

[pallas]

Is it correct that "SSE2: No"?
AFAICS, it runs fast anyway.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz
AES_NI: No.
SSE2: No, start mining without optimizations...

[2016-01-26 10:17:55] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] 4 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] Stratum difficulty set to 0.016
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 1821843
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 108239
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #1: 57.09 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #0: 56.81 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #2: 53.73 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:02] CPU #3: 52.40 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #0: 56.23 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #3: 53.29 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #1: 56.55 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #2: 56.11 kH/s

[zTheWolfz]

Forgot to mention the numbers I last posted are from mining x11. More numbers coming I'll just add to this post.

System: EVGA SR2 Intel x2 OC 3.3Ghz 21 cores in VB

x15.usa.nicehash.com:3339
[2016-01-26 03:37:10] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 412.61 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:37:17] CPU #15: 19.77 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:37:17] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 412.80 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:37:30] CPU #0: 19.72 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:37:30] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 413.08 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:37:33] CPU #6: 19.66 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:37:33] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 413.08 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:37:35] CPU #18: 19.68 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:37:37] Stratum difficulty set to 0.01
[2016-01-26 03:37:37] x15.usa.nicehash.com:3339 x15 block 85823

quark.usa.nicehash.com:3345
[2016-01-26 03:40:46] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 881.24 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:40:59] CPU #2: 42.48 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:40:59] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 880.33 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:41:03] CPU #11: 42.58 kH/s
[2016-01-26 03:41:03] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 881.15 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 03:41:10] Stratum difficulty set to 0.02

x13.usa.nicehash.com:3337
[2016-01-26 10:20:38] accepted: 159/159 (100.00%), 480.78 kH/s yes!
[2016-01-26 10:21:23] x13.usa.nicehash.com:3337 x13 block 875258


Oh well looks like NiceHash server went off line, I'll do more test at a later time.

[joblo]

Is it correct that "SSE2: No"?
AFAICS, it runs fast anyway.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz
AES_NI: No.
SSE2: No, start mining without optimizations...

[2016-01-26 10:17:55] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] 4 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] Stratum difficulty set to 0.016
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 1821843
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 108239
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #1: 57.09 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #0: 56.81 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #2: 53.73 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:02] CPU #3: 52.40 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #0: 56.23 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #3: 53.29 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #1: 56.55 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #2: 56.11 kH/s

Nope, it's a bug. I think it will be irelevant when I implement X86_64 compiling.
But  "-march=x86_64" won't configure. I don't know if it's the wrong target name or
if GCC has dumped support for it. Maybe I need to install some compat packages.  

Edit: just checking your output again. even though it says no for SSE2 it should
still the SSE2 kernel. Formyour hashrate it appears to be normal for  and i5 SSE2.
I guess the early corei didn't have AES_NI. Do you want to give it try to make sure?
Just edit cpu-miner.c:1949 and hardcode cpu_aesni=true. Then compile with AES_NI
enabled and let me know if it works.

Thanks

Edit2: I intalled the x86_64 cross compiler and it still doesn;t work.

[joblo]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

Mining with an Intel GPU? I need to look into that.

No source? I want to import the Intel GPU mining. I wanna expand my territory.

[pallas]

Is it correct that "SSE2: No"?
AFAICS, it runs fast anyway.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz
AES_NI: No.
SSE2: No, start mining without optimizations...

[2016-01-26 10:17:55] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] 4 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] Stratum difficulty set to 0.016
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 1821843
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 108239
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #1: 57.09 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #0: 56.81 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #2: 53.73 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:02] CPU #3: 52.40 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #0: 56.23 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #3: 53.29 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #1: 56.55 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #2: 56.11 kH/s

Nope, it's a bug. I think it will be irelevant when I implement X86_64 compiling.
But  "-march=x86_64" won't configure. I don't know if it's the wrong target name or
if GCC has dumped support for it. Maybe I need to install some compat packages.  

Edit: just checking your output again. even though it says no for SSE2 it should
still the SSE2 kernel. Formyour hashrate it appears to be normal for  and i5 SSE2.
I guess the early corei didn't have AES_NI. Do you want to give it try to make sure?
Just edit cpu-miner.c:1949 and hardcode cpu_aesni=true. Then compile with AES_NI
enabled and let me know if it works.

Thanks

It doesn't support AES, it's a Nehalem.
I think the miner should be compiled with the best "-march" as it will impact the performance of most kernels, regardless how far your optimisations will go.
On a side note, I've found out that -march=native may lead to slower binaries than -march=<the best for your cpu>

[joblo]

Is it correct that "SSE2: No"?
AFAICS, it runs fast anyway.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz
AES_NI: No.
SSE2: No, start mining without optimizations...

[2016-01-26 10:17:55] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] 4 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] Stratum difficulty set to 0.016
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 1821843
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 108239
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #1: 57.09 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #0: 56.81 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #2: 53.73 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:02] CPU #3: 52.40 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #0: 56.23 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #3: 53.29 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #1: 56.55 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #2: 56.11 kH/s

Nope, it's a bug. I think it will be irelevant when I implement X86_64 compiling.
But  "-march=x86_64" won't configure. I don't know if it's the wrong target name or
if GCC has dumped support for it. Maybe I need to install some compat packages.  

Edit: just checking your output again. even though it says no for SSE2 it should
still the SSE2 kernel. Formyour hashrate it appears to be normal for  and i5 SSE2.
I guess the early corei didn't have AES_NI. Do you want to give it try to make sure?
Just edit cpu-miner.c:1949 and hardcode cpu_aesni=true. Then compile with AES_NI
enabled and let me know if it works.

Thanks

It doesn't support AES, it's a Nehalem.
I think the miner should be compiled with the best "-march" as it will impact the performance of most kernels, regardless how far your optimisations will go.
On a side note, I've found out that -march=native may lead to slower binaries than -march=<the best for your cpu>

AFAIK corei7-avx is tops do you know of anything better?

[joblo]

Is it correct that "SSE2: No"?
AFAICS, it runs fast anyway.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz
AES_NI: No.
SSE2: No, start mining without optimizations...

[2016-01-26 10:17:55] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hashpower.co:3533
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] 4 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] Stratum difficulty set to 0.016
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 1821843
[2016-01-26 10:17:56] hashpower.co:3533 x11 block 108239
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #1: 57.09 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #0: 56.81 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:01] CPU #2: 53.73 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:02] CPU #3: 52.40 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #0: 56.23 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #3: 53.29 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #1: 56.55 kH/s
[2016-01-26 10:18:18] CPU #2: 56.11 kH/s

Nope, it's a bug. I think it will be irelevant when I implement X86_64 compiling.
But  "-march=x86_64" won't configure. I don't know if it's the wrong target name or
if GCC has dumped support for it. Maybe I need to install some compat packages.  

Edit: just checking your output again. even though it says no for SSE2 it should
still the SSE2 kernel. Formyour hashrate it appears to be normal for  and i5 SSE2.
I guess the early corei didn't have AES_NI. Do you want to give it try to make sure?
Just edit cpu-miner.c:1949 and hardcode cpu_aesni=true. Then compile with AES_NI
enabled and let me know if it works.

Thanks

I intalled the x86_64 cross compiler and it still doesn't work.

[joblo]

not exactly : http://ccminer.org/slackex/

Cool. I didn't mean slack was obsolete, just that people who like it are old school.
I've played with it but never any real work. At one time I had 8 different distros
multibooted on 2 20GB HDDs running on a pentium 1. Now the're all in VMs.

A guy I used to work with was a slackware fan. Give him the keyboard, toss the mouse,
and he could do magic. He's was also pretty sharp in networking, knew his protocols
inside out.

I started using Linux with Slackware 2.0 :-)

RH 5.2 for me, bought the CDs. I discovered Slack around v5 or 6, when PV was sick
and out of action for a while.

[pallas]

It doesn't support AES, it's a Nehalem.
I think the miner should be compiled with the best "-march" as it will impact the performance of most kernels, regardless how far your optimisations will go.
On a side note, I've found out that -march=native may lead to slower binaries than -march=<the best for your cpu>

AFAIK corei7-avx is tops do you know of anything better?

The best is your right chipset name:

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html