Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2018, 11:40:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 ... 191 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner  (Read 417446 times)
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 03:31:41 AM
 #561

Evp, AFAIK, is an abstraction layer of openssl which automatically selects the best instruction set based on the current cpu. Not sure it applies to this project, maybe to hodlcoin or others with "standard" algos.

OK, it's associated with openssl, The only thing close I found for the acronym was enhanced virus protection.
Few coins use openssl for their hashing algos so I don't see the point, and hodl already uses it for both the
AES_NI and non-AES_NI implementations.

@joblo:

    You are already using it in hodl.cpp:

                        EVP_EncryptInit(&ctx, EVP_aes_256_cbc(), key, iv);
                        EVP_EncryptUpdate(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData, &outlen1, cacheMemoryOperatingData2, cacheMemorySize);
                        EVP_EncryptFinal(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData + outlen1, &outlen2);
                        EVP_CIPHER_CTX_cleanup(&ctx);

All that I'm saying is that you shouldn't do anything else but let it run by itself. in other words, don't try to select the best arch; just use native and don't fork the source code to use 'special case' for AES-NI, since EVP will select it automatically. Meaning: don't use '#ifdef AES_NI', it's not necessary.

Hope that I'm clear this time Smiley
 

I beg to differ. The NO_AES_NI check is needed to prevent the compiler from trying to compile AES_NI instructions
on an incompatible CPU. Without it the compile fails.

Then just get rid of that code, you don't need that part because like I already said: EVP algo will detect AES-NI capability and will use it automatically. You don't need extra code for that, just get ride of it.

I already did and it works perfect.

If you've been digging into the code you realize I have implemented both existing hodl miners, the original hodlminer and the
AES optimized hodlminer-wolf. The original hodlminer uses EVP so why is it slower than Wolf? Openssl/evp is likely a general
purpose tool while the Wolf miner is optimized for the specific task.

If you've followed previous discuusions about design changes you'll know I'm a tough sell. Without going into
detail there are only three things that would motivate me to make design changes to a stable product:
support for more algos, higher hashrates or Windows support.



Ok, the optimized Wolf miner runs slower than EVP when the machine is AES-NI capable. Again, I'm just giving you a suggestion, you are free to do whatever you want of course Smiley

Whenever you got the time, just give it a try on a machine with AES-NI running just EVP and you will see what I'm talking about. And I'm just talking about the part for hodlcoin, wich is the only part that I've checked out.

Did you mistype your first sentence? If evp was faster than Wolf I would have expected a more emphatic response.
If it is faster how do I implement it?

It is faster and you already did. EVP is already implemented in the file hodl.cpp It will select AES-NI automatically if the machine has it. All you need to do is get rid of the Wolf code and let your own code by itself; it will select AES-NI automatically, you don't have to change anything.

Just try it and you will see.

Note: get rid of all the code that you are using for the AES-NI section in the hodlcoin source, you don't need it.

You're full of shit, Wolf is 30% faster.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
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.
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
1544787616
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544787616

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1544787616
Reply with quote  #2

1544787616
Report to moderator
GoldTiger69
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 502


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2016, 03:39:27 AM
 #562

Evp, AFAIK, is an abstraction layer of openssl which automatically selects the best instruction set based on the current cpu. Not sure it applies to this project, maybe to hodlcoin or others with "standard" algos.

OK, it's associated with openssl, The only thing close I found for the acronym was enhanced virus protection.
Few coins use openssl for their hashing algos so I don't see the point, and hodl already uses it for both the
AES_NI and non-AES_NI implementations.

@joblo:

    You are already using it in hodl.cpp:

                        EVP_EncryptInit(&ctx, EVP_aes_256_cbc(), key, iv);
                        EVP_EncryptUpdate(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData, &outlen1, cacheMemoryOperatingData2, cacheMemorySize);
                        EVP_EncryptFinal(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData + outlen1, &outlen2);
                        EVP_CIPHER_CTX_cleanup(&ctx);

All that I'm saying is that you shouldn't do anything else but let it run by itself. in other words, don't try to select the best arch; just use native and don't fork the source code to use 'special case' for AES-NI, since EVP will select it automatically. Meaning: don't use '#ifdef AES_NI', it's not necessary.

Hope that I'm clear this time Smiley
 

I beg to differ. The NO_AES_NI check is needed to prevent the compiler from trying to compile AES_NI instructions
on an incompatible CPU. Without it the compile fails.

Then just get rid of that code, you don't need that part because like I already said: EVP algo will detect AES-NI capability and will use it automatically. You don't need extra code for that, just get ride of it.

I already did and it works perfect.

If you've been digging into the code you realize I have implemented both existing hodl miners, the original hodlminer and the
AES optimized hodlminer-wolf. The original hodlminer uses EVP so why is it slower than Wolf? Openssl/evp is likely a general
purpose tool while the Wolf miner is optimized for the specific task.

If you've followed previous discuusions about design changes you'll know I'm a tough sell. Without going into
detail there are only three things that would motivate me to make design changes to a stable product:
support for more algos, higher hashrates or Windows support.



Ok, the optimized Wolf miner runs slower than EVP when the machine is AES-NI capable. Again, I'm just giving you a suggestion, you are free to do whatever you want of course Smiley

Whenever you got the time, just give it a try on a machine with AES-NI running just EVP and you will see what I'm talking about. And I'm just talking about the part for hodlcoin, wich is the only part that I've checked out.

Did you mistype your first sentence? If evp was faster than Wolf I would have expected a more emphatic response.
If it is faster how do I implement it?

It is faster and you already did. EVP is already implemented in the file hodl.cpp It will select AES-NI automatically if the machine has it. All you need to do is get rid of the Wolf code and let your own code by itself; it will select AES-NI automatically, you don't have to change anything.

Just try it and you will see.

Note: get rid of all the code that you are using for the AES-NI section in the hodlcoin source, you don't need it.

You're full of shit, Wolf is 30% faster.

That's what you get when you are trying to help.

Never mind, forget all that I told you. Have a nice one.

I can help you to restore/recover your wallet or password.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234619.0
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 03:45:27 AM
 #563

Evp, AFAIK, is an abstraction layer of openssl which automatically selects the best instruction set based on the current cpu. Not sure it applies to this project, maybe to hodlcoin or others with "standard" algos.

OK, it's associated with openssl, The only thing close I found for the acronym was enhanced virus protection.
Few coins use openssl for their hashing algos so I don't see the point, and hodl already uses it for both the
AES_NI and non-AES_NI implementations.

@joblo:

    You are already using it in hodl.cpp:

                        EVP_EncryptInit(&ctx, EVP_aes_256_cbc(), key, iv);
                        EVP_EncryptUpdate(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData, &outlen1, cacheMemoryOperatingData2, cacheMemorySize);
                        EVP_EncryptFinal(&ctx, cacheMemoryOperatingData + outlen1, &outlen2);
                        EVP_CIPHER_CTX_cleanup(&ctx);

All that I'm saying is that you shouldn't do anything else but let it run by itself. in other words, don't try to select the best arch; just use native and don't fork the source code to use 'special case' for AES-NI, since EVP will select it automatically. Meaning: don't use '#ifdef AES_NI', it's not necessary.

Hope that I'm clear this time Smiley
 

I beg to differ. The NO_AES_NI check is needed to prevent the compiler from trying to compile AES_NI instructions
on an incompatible CPU. Without it the compile fails.

Then just get rid of that code, you don't need that part because like I already said: EVP algo will detect AES-NI capability and will use it automatically. You don't need extra code for that, just get ride of it.

I already did and it works perfect.

If you've been digging into the code you realize I have implemented both existing hodl miners, the original hodlminer and the
AES optimized hodlminer-wolf. The original hodlminer uses EVP so why is it slower than Wolf? Openssl/evp is likely a general
purpose tool while the Wolf miner is optimized for the specific task.

If you've followed previous discuusions about design changes you'll know I'm a tough sell. Without going into
detail there are only three things that would motivate me to make design changes to a stable product:
support for more algos, higher hashrates or Windows support.



Ok, the optimized Wolf miner runs slower than EVP when the machine is AES-NI capable. Again, I'm just giving you a suggestion, you are free to do whatever you want of course Smiley

Whenever you got the time, just give it a try on a machine with AES-NI running just EVP and you will see what I'm talking about. And I'm just talking about the part for hodlcoin, wich is the only part that I've checked out.

Did you mistype your first sentence? If evp was faster than Wolf I would have expected a more emphatic response.
If it is faster how do I implement it?

It is faster and you already did. EVP is already implemented in the file hodl.cpp It will select AES-NI automatically if the machine has it. All you need to do is get rid of the Wolf code and let your own code by itself; it will select AES-NI automatically, you don't have to change anything.

Just try it and you will see.

Note: get rid of all the code that you are using for the AES-NI section in the hodlcoin source, you don't need it.

You're full of shit, Wolf is 30% faster.

That's what you get when you are trying to help.

Never mind, forget all that I told you. Have a nice one.

Are you serious? That's a pretty childish response.

If evp is so much better and is already implemented in the orignal hodlminer Why is it so much slower than Wolf?

You've made a substantial claim without any data. My data contradicts your claims, Your move.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
GoldTiger69
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 502


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2016, 04:39:11 AM
 #564

Look, I was giving you a suggestion, but you said I'm full of shit. So that's it.

If you are saying that EVP on machines that are AES-NI is slower than Wolf's, it's all fine, I really don't care. On my AMD FX machine EVP is faster than Wolfs. Period.

I already wasted too much time in something that it's not even my business, I thought I was giving you a good advise, my bad.

I apologize if my claim was wrong. (on my machine it's true, but maybe on yours isn't, I don't care anymore)

Like I said, have a nice night, it's time for to go to bed.

I can help you to restore/recover your wallet or password.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234619.0
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1087


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 07:36:37 AM
 #565

Wolf0 doesn't have an AMD cpu and it is indeed slower on that kind of processor.
Still, EVP can only be applied to algos which use plain AES, which are very few.
The others need specific code, like joblo is making.

joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 01:48:18 PM
 #566

Look, I was giving you a suggestion, but you said I'm full of shit. So that's it.

If you are saying that EVP on machines that are AES-NI is slower than Wolf's, it's all fine, I really don't care. On my AMD FX machine EVP is faster than Wolfs. Period.

I already wasted too much time in something that it's not even my business, I thought I was giving you a good advise, my bad.

I apologize if my claim was wrong. (on my machine it's true, but maybe on yours isn't, I don't care anymore)

Like I said, have a nice night, it's time for to go to bed.

There's no need to pout. You're making a claim that the AES_NI optimized hodlminer-wolf is slower than the
original on AMD CPUs with AES_NI. That is a serious claim and no one else has reported this so you need proof.
This goes beyond being childish, you have made a serious charge against a respected dev whio was paid to
develop the AES_NI enhanced miner.

You've already gone too far, you need to follow through with proof or make a full retraction with an apology to Wolf.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
GoldTiger69
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 502


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2016, 06:21:50 PM
 #567

Look, I was giving you a suggestion, but you said I'm full of shit. So that's it.

If you are saying that EVP on machines that are AES-NI is slower than Wolf's, it's all fine, I really don't care. On my AMD FX machine EVP is faster than Wolfs. Period.

I already wasted too much time in something that it's not even my business, I thought I was giving you a good advise, my bad.

I apologize if my claim was wrong. (on my machine it's true, but maybe on yours isn't, I don't care anymore)

Like I said, have a nice night, it's time for to go to bed.

There's no need to pout. You're making a claim that the AES_NI optimized hodlminer-wolf is slower than the
original on AMD CPUs with AES_NI. That is a serious claim and no one else has reported this so you need proof.
This goes beyond being childish, you have made a serious charge against a respected dev whio was paid to
develop the AES_NI enhanced miner.

You've already gone too far, you need to follow through with proof or make a full retraction with an apology to Wolf.

You have to calm down, I haven't make any charge against nobody, what are you talking about? listen to your self!

All I did was telling you that on my machine, EVP was using AES-NI and it is faster than wolfs code. Period. There is no 'charges' against nobody, please!!

And like I said, that only applied to the source code on the hodlcoin, I even told you the file where it was used: hodl.cpp

My suggestion was that you could use EVP alone (whitout wolfs code) because it uses AES-NI automatically. Where is the accusation??

You are making a stupid and simple suggestion a matter way, way out of proportion. You doesn't even understand that I was trying to suggest something to improve your code.

So, end of the story. I'm not gonna continue with this stupid conversation, it went from a simple suggestion to "charges against a respected dev'. Go figure!

I can help you to restore/recover your wallet or password.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234619.0
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 06:41:59 PM
 #568

Look, I was giving you a suggestion, but you said I'm full of shit. So that's it.

If you are saying that EVP on machines that are AES-NI is slower than Wolf's, it's all fine, I really don't care. On my AMD FX machine EVP is faster than Wolfs. Period.

I already wasted too much time in something that it's not even my business, I thought I was giving you a good advise, my bad.

I apologize if my claim was wrong. (on my machine it's true, but maybe on yours isn't, I don't care anymore)

Like I said, have a nice night, it's time for to go to bed.

There's no need to pout. You're making a claim that the AES_NI optimized hodlminer-wolf is slower than the
original on AMD CPUs with AES_NI. That is a serious claim and no one else has reported this so you need proof.
This goes beyond being childish, you have made a serious charge against a respected dev whio was paid to
develop the AES_NI enhanced miner.

You've already gone too far, you need to follow through with proof or make a full retraction with an apology to Wolf.

You have to calm down, I haven't make any charge against nobody, what are you talking about? listen to your self!

All I did was telling you that on my machine, EVP was using AES-NI and it is faster than wolfs code. Period. There is no 'charges' against nobody, please!!

And like I said, that only applied to the source code on the hodlcoin, I even told you the file where it was used: hodl.cpp

My suggestion was that you could use EVP alone (whitout wolfs code) because it uses AES-NI automatically. Where is the accusation??

You are making a stupid and simple suggestion a matter way, way out of proportion. You doesn't even understand that I was trying to suggest something to improve your code.

So, end of the story. I'm not gonna continue with this stupid conversation, it when from a simple suggestion to "charges against a respected dev'. Go figure!

You don't realize the sum of your claims. You claim the original hodlminer is faster than Wolf's AES_NI optimized version.
I'm not saying it isn't true in your case but you need to show proof to convince me. I can't replicate your results and
they in fact prove the opposite.  You're on AMD and I'm on Intel, there're may be something there that should be pursued but you
haven't given me anything I can work with. You're coming accross as a troll. Prove me wrong.

The original hodlminer was not promoted to use AES_NI and Wolf was contracted to implement one. His version
produced higher hashrates and no one has complained. Either no one is mining hodl with AES enabled AMD CPUs,
they aren't paying attention, or you're wrong. There is some foundation to your claim because Wolf is optimized
for Intel, its performance on AMD may not be optimum. You can provide the answer if you stop throwing a hissy
fit and stick to the issue. It's up to you.

Edit: In your last 5 posts you haven't provided one piece of new information. Instead you're acting like a spoiled child
whining because I didn't give you praise. Grow up.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
Jullovich1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 06:56:14 PM
 #569

Is a windows version available?



joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 11:05:25 PM
 #570

I've retested blakecoin in cpuminer-opt v3.1.18 and it is now listed as supported.

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
April 28, 2016, 11:06:25 PM
 #571

Is a windows version available?


Clearly you write more posts than you read. Go back a couple of pages.

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

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 01, 2016, 11:07:21 AM
 #572

I have problem with CentOs 6.5 (final). I try lo install with build.sh command but i have problems (i'm windows user.. i don't know more about Cheesy ). Someone know how to install on CentOS 6.5? Specific parameters on configure command?

Thank you. great job
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
May 01, 2016, 12:13:29 PM
 #573

I have problem with CentOs 6.5 (final). I try lo install with build.sh command but i have problems (i'm windows user.. i don't know more about Cheesy ). Someone know how to install on CentOS 6.5? Specific parameters on configure command?

Thank you. great job

There should be no special procedure for centos. If this is your first time it is likely you are missing some
dependencies. Some new ones were added recently to support new algos. Post your errors if you still have
problems.

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

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 02, 2016, 01:05:54 PM
 #574

I have problem with CentOs 6.5 (final). I try lo install with build.sh command but i have problems (i'm windows user.. i don't know more about Cheesy ). Someone know how to install on CentOS 6.5? Specific parameters on configure command?

Thank you. great job

There should be no special procedure for centos. If this is your first time it is likely you are missing some
dependencies. Some new ones were added recently to support new algos. Post your errors if you still have
problems.

I went on Ubuntu... after some dep install and fix I compiled it! but i think i have a problem.. :

Code:
         **********  cpuminer-opt 3.1.18  ***********
     A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
     with AES_NI extension.
     BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT
     Forked from TPruvot's cpuminer-multi with credits
     to Lucas Jones, elmad, palmd, djm34, pooler, ig0tik3d,
     Wolf0 and Jeff Garzik.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v3 @ 2.30GHz
   CPU arch supports AES_NI...YES.
   SW built for AES_NI........YES.
   Algo supports AES_NI.......YES.
Start mining with AES_NI optimizations...

[2016-05-02 15:03:08] 2 miner threads started, using 'hodl' algorithm.
[2016-05-02 15:03:08] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hodl.suprnova.cc:4693
[2016-05-02 15:03:17] Stratum difficulty set to 1
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] hodl.suprnova.cc:4693 hodl block 48575
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] CPU #0: 206 H, 2.31 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] CPU #1: 193 H, 2.17 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:09] CPU #1: 21 H, 0.90 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:10] accepted: 1/1 (100%), 227 H, 3.21 H/s yes!
[2016-05-02 15:05:14] CPU #0: 30 H, 1.09 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:14] accepted: 2/2 (100%), 51
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
May 02, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
 #575

I have problem with CentOs 6.5 (final). I try lo install with build.sh command but i have problems (i'm windows user.. i don't know more about Cheesy ). Someone know how to install on CentOS 6.5? Specific parameters on configure command?

Thank you. great job

There should be no special procedure for centos. If this is your first time it is likely you are missing some
dependencies. Some new ones were added recently to support new algos. Post your errors if you still have
problems.

I went on Ubuntu... after some dep install and fix I compiled it! but i think i have a problem.. :

Code:
         **********  cpuminer-opt 3.1.18  ***********
     A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
     with AES_NI extension.
     BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT
     Forked from TPruvot's cpuminer-multi with credits
     to Lucas Jones, elmad, palmd, djm34, pooler, ig0tik3d,
     Wolf0 and Jeff Garzik.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v3 @ 2.30GHz
   CPU arch supports AES_NI...YES.
   SW built for AES_NI........YES.
   Algo supports AES_NI.......YES.
Start mining with AES_NI optimizations...

[2016-05-02 15:03:08] 2 miner threads started, using 'hodl' algorithm.
[2016-05-02 15:03:08] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://hodl.suprnova.cc:4693
[2016-05-02 15:03:17] Stratum difficulty set to 1
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] hodl.suprnova.cc:4693 hodl block 48575
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] CPU #0: 206 H, 2.31 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:04:46] CPU #1: 193 H, 2.17 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:09] CPU #1: 21 H, 0.90 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:10] accepted: 1/1 (100%), 227 H, 3.21 H/s yes!
[2016-05-02 15:05:14] CPU #0: 30 H, 1.09 H/s
[2016-05-02 15:05:14] accepted: 2/2 (100%), 51


That's a pretty low hashrate, you should be getting about 10 times that rate.
You're only running 2 threads, is that intentional? Does the hashrate remain that
low or does it increase and stabilize over time? The only thing I can think of that would
cause it is RAM. How much do you have and are you swapping?

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
May 10, 2016, 01:04:29 AM
 #576

cpuminer-opt v3.2 is released. This is a restructuring release with no new algos or optimizations.

   - algo_gate is now used to select RPC version in many instances
   - Significant restructuring of algo_gate with realignment and
     renaming of many functions to be more descriptive and logical.
   - Some gate functions were removed or replaced with variables.
   - Code cleanup, fixed some compile warnings.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0lVSGQYLJIZTzR2WU1NRGpYRnM/view?usp=sharing

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
th3.r00t
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
May 10, 2016, 06:51:32 AM
 #577

cpuminer-opt v3.2 is released. This is a restructuring release with no new algos or optimizations.

   - algo_gate is now used to select RPC version in many instances
   - Significant restructuring of algo_gate with realignment and
     renaming of many functions to be more descriptive and logical.
   - Some gate functions were removed or replaced with variables.
   - Code cleanup, fixed some compile warnings.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0lVSGQYLJIZTzR2WU1NRGpYRnM/view?usp=sharing

Nice!

I think that this version has a serious bug - on ZR5 it submits one share and after that all rejects due to duplicate share.
Code:
         **********  cpuminer-opt 3.2  ***********
     A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
     with AES_NI extension.
     BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT
     Forked from TPruvot's cpuminer-multi with credits
     to Lucas Jones, elmad, palmd, djm34, pooler, ig0tik3d,
     Wolf0 and Jeff Garzik.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
   CPU arch supports AES_NI...YES.
   SW built for AES_NI........YES.
   Algo supports AES_NI.......YES.
Start mining with AES_NI optimizations...

[2016-05-10 09:47:54] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://ziftrpool.io:3032
[2016-05-10 09:47:54] 8 miner threads started, using 'zr5' algorithm.
[2016-05-10 09:47:57] Stratum difficulty set to 0.001
[2016-05-10 09:47:57] ziftrpool.io:3032 zr5 block 613501
[2016-05-10 09:47:58] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 84.38 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] accepted: 1/1 (100%), 62.55 kH, 84.38 kH/s yes!
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.76 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] accepted: 1/2 (50%), 62.55 kH, 106.76 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.13 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] accepted: 1/3 (33%), 62.55 kH, 107.13 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.00 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] accepted: 1/4 (25%), 62.55 kH, 107.00 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.15 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] accepted: 1/5 (20%), 62.55 kH, 107.15 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.72 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] accepted: 1/6 (17%), 62.55 kH, 106.72 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.09 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] accepted: 1/7 (14%), 62.55 kH, 107.09 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.65 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] accepted: 1/8 (12%), 62.55 kH, 106.65 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] accepted: 1/9 (11%), 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:04] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s
^C[2016-05-10 09:48:04] SIGINT received, exiting

BitSend ◢◤Clients | Source
www.bitsend.info
█▄
█████▄
████████▄
███████████▄
██████████████
███████████▀
████████▀
█████▀
█▀












Your Digital Network | 10MB Blocks
Algo: XEVAN | DK3 | Masternodes
Bitcore - BTX/BTC -Project












BSD -USDT | Bittrex | C.Gather | S.Exchange
Cryptopia | NovaExchange | Livecoin
CoinPayments | Faucet | Bitsend Airdrop













████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████

████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
May 10, 2016, 12:41:24 PM
 #578

cpuminer-opt v3.2 is released. This is a restructuring release with no new algos or optimizations.

   - algo_gate is now used to select RPC version in many instances
   - Significant restructuring of algo_gate with realignment and
     renaming of many functions to be more descriptive and logical.
   - Some gate functions were removed or replaced with variables.
   - Code cleanup, fixed some compile warnings.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0lVSGQYLJIZTzR2WU1NRGpYRnM/view?usp=sharing

Nice!

I think that this version has a serious bug - on ZR5 it submits one share and after that all rejects due to duplicate share.
Code:
        **********  cpuminer-opt 3.2  ***********
     A CPU miner with multi algo support and optimized for CPUs
     with AES_NI extension.
     BTC donation address: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT
     Forked from TPruvot's cpuminer-multi with credits
     to Lucas Jones, elmad, palmd, djm34, pooler, ig0tik3d,
     Wolf0 and Jeff Garzik.

Checking CPU capatibility...
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
   CPU arch supports AES_NI...YES.
   SW built for AES_NI........YES.
   Algo supports AES_NI.......YES.
Start mining with AES_NI optimizations...

[2016-05-10 09:47:54] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://ziftrpool.io:3032
[2016-05-10 09:47:54] 8 miner threads started, using 'zr5' algorithm.
[2016-05-10 09:47:57] Stratum difficulty set to 0.001
[2016-05-10 09:47:57] ziftrpool.io:3032 zr5 block 613501
[2016-05-10 09:47:58] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 84.38 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] accepted: 1/1 (100%), 62.55 kH, 84.38 kH/s yes!
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.76 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] accepted: 1/2 (50%), 62.55 kH, 106.76 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:47:59] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.13 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] accepted: 1/3 (33%), 62.55 kH, 107.13 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.00 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] accepted: 1/4 (25%), 62.55 kH, 107.00 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:00] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.15 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] accepted: 1/5 (20%), 62.55 kH, 107.15 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.72 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] accepted: 1/6 (17%), 62.55 kH, 106.72 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:01] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.09 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] accepted: 1/7 (14%), 62.55 kH, 107.09 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:02] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 106.65 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] accepted: 1/8 (12%), 62.55 kH, 106.65 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] accepted: 1/9 (11%), 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s nooooo
[2016-05-10 09:48:03] reject reason: duplicate share
[2016-05-10 09:48:04] CPU #0: 62.55 kH, 107.12 kH/s
^C[2016-05-10 09:48:04] SIGINT received, exiting


Bug confirmed, under investigation.

Edit: I had broken ZR5 and fixed it and apparently broke it again I missed the second break because I can get a
few (I've seen up to 5) accepts before the duplicate shares start.

I never found the first break with code analysis, I simply backed out until it worked and recoded from there.
I have found an intermediate build that worked before the second break and will recode again with more extensive
testing so I can identify experimentally what exactly broke it. It's not the preferred approach but it is effective.

I've got 42 accepts @ 100% with the current test build.

Edit2:  I've reimplemented most of the changes between the last stable build and v3.2 without breaking anything,
but I saved the best for last. I want to cleanup the code a bit first and do more testing before tackling the likely
culprit.

Edit3: I have almost everything reimplemented and zr5 still works. That means I have no idea what the bug was
but I fixed it. I'm getting tired so I 'll wait till tomorrow, do another review and more testing before release.

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

Activity: 83
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 10, 2016, 07:20:05 PM
 #579

I've noticed that some algos misreport their benchmark results if you run it under --benchmark with --time-limit.

A good example is c11:

Code:
cpuminer-opt --benchmark --time-limit 120 -a c11
This will run and will show steady 700kHs on my i7 4770, but at the end it will spur up and report 1791kHs.

I am automating the benchmarks and caught this too late -- cpuminers show a single-line result as last line in hashes per second.

I extract that and put into mining profitability calculation as seen here: https://hmage.net/minerstats.php#cpu_i7_4770_oc
I then graph that to see the trends here: http://grafana.hmage.net/dashboard/db/miner-stats

As a result, I will need to manually rerun all benchmarks that showed cpuminer-opt as favourable.

[EDIT]: Same with sib -- last line reports 1333333, but real speed is 486350.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


View Profile
May 10, 2016, 08:30:48 PM
 #580

I've noticed that some algos misreport their benchmark results if you run it under --benchmark with --time-limit.

A good example is c11:

Code:
cpuminer-opt --benchmark --time-limit 120 -a c11
This will run and will show steady 700kHs on my i7 4770, but at the end it will spur up and report 1791kHs.

I am automating the benchmarks and caught this too late -- cpuminers show a single-line result as last line in hashes per second.

I extract that and put into mining profitability calculation as seen here: https://hmage.net/minerstats.php#cpu_i7_4770_oc
I then graph that to see the trends here: http://grafana.hmage.net/dashboard/db/miner-stats

As a result, I will need to manually rerun all benchmarks that showed cpuminer-opt as favourable.

[EDIT]: Same with sib -- last line reports 1333333, but real speed is 486350.

I haven't paid any attention to benchmark other than a sanity test before connecting to a pool.
Didn't realize anyone was using it for anything useful.

I know of one change I made that can affect first and last result, I moved the share submission up
before the hash display. The change never produced a significant improvement but I never backed
it out. I'll look into it further when I solve the ZR5 problem,

Edit: I presume the error you are seeing is in the "Benchmark:" hashrate display. I don't see how the change
I mentioned above could have caused this. Furthermore this display uses a unique formatting function.
I don't think it's my bug. I had made another change which would show a lower benchmark rate because I
was counting the entire miner thread loop time instead of just the scan time but, again, I don't see how that change
could have produce the error you are seeing.

The "Benchmark" rate should be the same number as the previous "Total" rate because it is using the same variable.
This suggests a formatting error. Anyway I'll have to investigate further tomorrow.

Edit2: This is what I get, I don't see the problem.

Code:
[2016-05-11 09:39:03] CPU #5: 246.93 kH, 47.87 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:03] CPU #2: 122.98 kH, 50.54 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:03] CPU #0: 55.23 kH, 48.31 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:04] CPU #6: 52.29 kH, 48.96 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:04] CPU #1: 167.29 kH, 55.89 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:04] CPU #3: 260.19 kH, 46.91 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:04] CPU #7: 49.19 kH, 57.17 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:04] Total: 1206.99 kH, 406.06 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:06] CPU #7: 262.14 kH, 115.02 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:06] Total: 1419.94 kH, 463.92 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:07] CPU #5: 262.14 kH, 67.54 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:08] CPU #4: 262.14 kH, 52.88 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:08] CPU #0: 262.14 kH, 55.62 kH/s
[2016-05-11 09:39:08] Benchmark: 463.92 kH/s
463916


Edit3: I ran the test several times with both algos and alway produced the correct result.
Could your script be misinterpreting? Without further information on how to reproduce
I consider this issue closed.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
ETH: 0x72122edabcae9d3f57eab0729305a425f6fef6d0
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 ... 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!