Claymore's Dual Ethereum AMD+NVIDIA GPU Miner v15.0 (Windows/Linux)

[micalith]

Hey Claymore

Cannot resolve 'eu1.ethermine.org'
ETH: Stratum - Cannot connect to eu1.ethermine.org:5555
DevFee: ETH: Stratum - Failed to connect, retry in 20 sec...

my settings are correct and I am mining normally. But your devfee settings are not working and the mining doesn't continue if this is not fixed. Such a great problem. I kept getting this error many times and I lost bunch of times. Tell me what to do if I wasn't controling my screens? I was gonna lose a night maybe?

[bategojko74]

I don't mind the honestly won millions but
I don't understand people that accept to be lied: you have been charged 1.3% when it is clearly stated that you should be charged 1%.

Oh, another newbie states that I'm a thief. I don't care when you get crazy numbers like 39 or 19M$, you can even call me the richest person of this planet, I don't mind.
But if you call me a thief and state that I lie about devfee rate, show some proofs.

Oops, Sorry. I am in mistake. Your devfee is honest but your hashrate is fake with about 1.5% higher. Everybody can see that by subtracting the pool hash rate from your hashrate doesn't gives 1% (devfee) difference but gives about 2.5% which means that your real hashrate is about 1.5% lower.

So you were talking about fake devfee rate 1.3%, now it's fine but there is fake hashrate 1.5%, right? Where do you take these numbers? Ok, probably you have own good source of them.
From my experience, I always see a couple of percents fluctuations in hashrate on pool side, and usually it's a bit less than miner shows because miner shows raw hashrate, i.e. it ignores devfee, stale and invalid shares, startup time, dag creation file and other minor things. But pool has to calculate miner's speed from shares only so there is some small error rate there, always. And hashrate that you see on the pool is "final" hashrate, it's always a bit lower.
Anyway, if you don't like hashrate that you see, or don't believe it - just use some other miner that shows better numbers or numbers that you believe. I even saw reports like "I tried miner X and now I see +10% shares on pool", so some people think that they get a lot more than 1.5% after changing miner You can try this way too and find the best miner for you, no one forces you to use my miner if you don't like it.
PS. I assume that you don't use "devfee cut" tools or cracks, in this case miner really may show some fake hashrate, read Readme for details.

Forget the network connections and pools. I really have my own great source of data - it's called common sense. Just take all the shares (accepted + incorrect + rejected) from your log and the averaged stated speed (this needs some elementary programming skills - not applicable to 99.5% of the people who will read this) also from your log for a statistically long enough period (a week, a month or more). Use some basic math (I am not gonna give free math lessons here) having in mind the difficulty of the pool and the time the miner have worked and if you have applied the math properly you will easily find that the stated hashrate is about 1.5% higher than the real one. As easy as pie.

[Claymore]

I don't mind the honestly won millions but
I don't understand people that accept to be lied: you have been charged 1.3% when it is clearly stated that you should be charged 1%.

Oh, another newbie states that I'm a thief. I don't care when you get crazy numbers like 39 or 19M$, you can even call me the richest person of this planet, I don't mind.
But if you call me a thief and state that I lie about devfee rate, show some proofs.

Oops, Sorry. I am in mistake. Your devfee is honest but your hashrate is fake with about 1.5% higher. Everybody can see that by subtracting the pool hash rate from your hashrate doesn't gives 1% (devfee) difference but gives about 2.5% which means that your real hashrate is about 1.5% lower.

So you were talking about fake devfee rate 1.3%, now it's fine but there is fake hashrate 1.5%, right? Where do you take these numbers? Ok, probably you have own good source of them.
From my experience, I always see a couple of percents fluctuations in hashrate on pool side, and usually it's a bit less than miner shows because miner shows raw hashrate, i.e. it ignores devfee, stale and invalid shares, startup time, dag creation file and other minor things. But pool has to calculate miner's speed from shares only so there is some small error rate there, always. And hashrate that you see on the pool is "final" hashrate, it's always a bit lower.
Anyway, if you don't like hashrate that you see, or don't believe it - just use some other miner that shows better numbers or numbers that you believe. I even saw reports like "I tried miner X and now I see +10% shares on pool", so some people think that they get a lot more than 1.5% after changing miner You can try this way too and find the best miner for you, no one forces you to use my miner if you don't like it.
PS. I assume that you don't use "devfee cut" tools or cracks, in this case miner really may show some fake hashrate, read Readme for details.

Forget the network connections and pools. I really have my own great source of data - it's called common sense. Just take all the shares (accepted + incorrect + rejected) from your log and the averaged stated speed (this needs some elementary programming skills - not applicable to 99.5% of the people who will read this) also from your log for a statistically long enough period (a week, a month or more). Use some basic math (I am not gonna give free math lessons here) having in mind the difficulty of the pool and if you have applied the math properly you will easily find that the stated hashrate is about 1.5% higher than the real one. As easy as pie.

You are correct, everybody can examine the logfile and find some better miner if don't like the results.
As easy as pie.

[bategojko74]

I don't mind the honestly won millions but
I don't understand people that accept to be lied: you have been charged 1.3% when it is clearly stated that you should be charged 1%.

Oh, another newbie states that I'm a thief. I don't care when you get crazy numbers like 39 or 19M$, you can even call me the richest person of this planet, I don't mind.
But if you call me a thief and state that I lie about devfee rate, show some proofs.

Oops, Sorry. I am in mistake. Your devfee is honest but your hashrate is fake with about 1.5% higher. Everybody can see that by subtracting the pool hash rate from your hashrate doesn't gives 1% (devfee) difference but gives about 2.5% which means that your real hashrate is about 1.5% lower.

So you were talking about fake devfee rate 1.3%, now it's fine but there is fake hashrate 1.5%, right? Where do you take these numbers? Ok, probably you have own good source of them.
From my experience, I always see a couple of percents fluctuations in hashrate on pool side, and usually it's a bit less than miner shows because miner shows raw hashrate, i.e. it ignores devfee, stale and invalid shares, startup time, dag creation file and other minor things. But pool has to calculate miner's speed from shares only so there is some small error rate there, always. And hashrate that you see on the pool is "final" hashrate, it's always a bit lower.
Anyway, if you don't like hashrate that you see, or don't believe it - just use some other miner that shows better numbers or numbers that you believe. I even saw reports like "I tried miner X and now I see +10% shares on pool", so some people think that they get a lot more than 1.5% after changing miner You can try this way too and find the best miner for you, no one forces you to use my miner if you don't like it.
PS. I assume that you don't use "devfee cut" tools or cracks, in this case miner really may show some fake hashrate, read Readme for details.

Forget the network connections and pools. I really have my own great source of data - it's called common sense. Just take all the shares (accepted + incorrect + rejected) from your log and the averaged stated speed (this needs some elementary programming skills - not applicable to 99.5% of the people who will read this) also from your log for a statistically long enough period (a week, a month or more). Use some basic math (I am not gonna give free math lessons here) having in mind the difficulty of the pool and if you have applied the math properly you will easily find that the stated hashrate is about 1.5% higher than the real one. As easy as pie.

You are correct, everybody can examine the logfile and find some better miner if don't like the results.
As easy as pie.

In fact I don't think that you have intentionally raised the hashrate. It seems to me, that you are a honest person. My suggestion is that there is a bug in your software in the way that you calculate the real hashrate. Such kind of bugs are just not appealing to be fixed. Please fix it for your users' sake.

[adaseb]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

[bategojko74]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

[Ursul0]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

I'm trying to follow but it's a bit confusing. So now you are claiming that the speed that the miner displays in console and reports to the pool is 1.5% higher than the actual one? and is that somehow related to your previous claim of Claymore taking higher than advertised devfee?

[Ursul0]

Did anyone succeeded in improving 1060 hashrate with any of v15 tighter straps and what's the rate/GPU?

This how it's most stable on phoenix for me:


Using strap 2 I'm able to see them doing over 26MH, but hashrate jumps around and eventually stabilizes around the same level.

[bategojko74]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

I'm trying to follow but it's a bit confusing. So now you are claiming that the speed that the miner displays in console and reports to the pool is 1.5% higher than the actual one? and is that somehow related to your previous claim of Claymore taking higher than advertised devfee?

I was wrong that Claymore is taking higher than the advertised devfee. But I am 1000% sure that Claymore shows and reports to pools (if he reports what he shows in console) about 1.5% higher hash rate than the real one.

[Ursul0]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

I'm trying to follow but it's a bit confusing. So now you are claiming that the speed that the miner displays in console and reports to the pool is 1.5% higher than the actual one? and is that somehow related to your previous claim of Claymore taking higher than advertised devfee?

I was wrong that Claymore is taking higher than the advertised devfee. But I am 1000% sure that Claymore shows and reports to pools (if he reports what he shows in console) about 1.5% higher hash rate than the real one.

Ohh I see.
If you are into this kind of action can you maybe do all of us a favor and perform the same analysis on this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2647654.0
And maybe post here with numbers and such?
I know for myself I'd be very much interested to see the actual numbers. Thx.

[bategojko74]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

I'm trying to follow but it's a bit confusing. So now you are claiming that the speed that the miner displays in console and reports to the pool is 1.5% higher than the actual one? and is that somehow related to your previous claim of Claymore taking higher than advertised devfee?

I was wrong that Claymore is taking higher than the advertised devfee. But I am 1000% sure that Claymore shows and reports to pools (if he reports what he shows in console) about 1.5% higher hash rate than the real one.

Ohh I see.
If you are into this kind of action can you maybe do all of us a favor and perform the same analysis on this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2647654.0
And maybe post here with numbers and such?
I know for myself I'd be very much interested to see the actual numbers. Thx.

Interesting idea. I will collect one week log with my rig and post you the logs with extracted sample hashrates that form the averaged stated hashrate and all the calculation results. Thanks for the idea Ursul0.

[micalith]

I am having internet connection issues while mining. I checked some articles and tried the solution they offered but they didn't seem to be working for me. I tried a different source of internet and still, it doesn't work. The problem is, when I start to mine with my GPU, in 10 minutes, I lost the wi-fi connection. The modem is close to me, I haven't get the chance to use a cable but I don't think it will work. What is causing these problems?

[Smoreno]

Hey Claymore

Cannot resolve 'eu1.ethermine.org'
ETH: Stratum - Cannot connect to eu1.ethermine.org:5555
DevFee: ETH: Stratum - Failed to connect, retry in 20 sec...

my settings are correct and I am mining normally. But your devfee settings are not working and the mining doesn't continue if this is not fixed. Such a great problem. I kept getting this error many times and I lost bunch of times. Tell me what to do if I wasn't controling my screens? I was gonna lose a night maybe?

Check this port it´s a SSL port not a stratum one.

[micalith]

Hey Claymore

Cannot resolve 'eu1.ethermine.org'
ETH: Stratum - Cannot connect to eu1.ethermine.org:5555
DevFee: ETH: Stratum - Failed to connect, retry in 20 sec...

my settings are correct and I am mining normally. But your devfee settings are not working and the mining doesn't continue if this is not fixed. Such a great problem. I kept getting this error many times and I lost bunch of times. Tell me what to do if I wasn't controling my screens? I was gonna lose a night maybe?

Check this port it´s a SSL port not a stratum one.

It is not my mining pool and I don't have a control over it. It is the DevFee pool. My setting for the mining are working fine, but I can't mine for the devfee, it got stuck there and doesn't move, this is annoying a lot.

[adaseb]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

Another way to investigate this further would be for you to switch to a different miner and compare the results after a week or month of mining. I am pretty sure unless you are using the original ethminer included in the ethereum github you should get relatively the same speeds with ETH mining.

So use the other software and take into account the other dev fees and then analyse the results. Use the same rig and same clock settings.

The issue might be that there are lots of new jobs that get sent to the GPUs every few seconds, then when a new job is received the GPUs probably take time to send to the GPU threads and also the current job needs to be dropped and it might result in the 1% loss you are referring too.

How many GPUs do you mine with roughly? Most people with a rig or 2 don't really mind a 1% variance or so.

[RAKOT]

Did anyone succeeded in improving 1060 hashrate with any of v15 tighter straps and what's the rate/GPU?

This how it's most stable on phoenix for me:


Using strap 2 I'm able to see them doing over 26MH, but hashrate jumps around and eventually stabilizes around the same level.

Hello! How much power takes the rig on this speed ?

[Ursul0]

I know you can take a log file and if you have a long enough mining duration say 1 month, then you can easily add all the accepted+rejected+stale and get an accurate measurement and being within +- 1% is fairly close.

I think the 1% loss you are talking about is not related to the Claymore software but most likely due to the GPU drivers. I know with my AMD RX series GPUs there is a time when some GPUs hash a little slower for a few seconds and then resume the optimal speed. Been trying to figure out why it happens but couldn't and just left it the way it was because the speed loss was minimal. So find in your logs if your speed was always constant or did it slow down from time to time. You can probably find this easily with MS Excel when you load your log file.

Nobody is talking about speed fluctuations here. The averaged stated speed incorporates them. If miner does not work at some moment it prints 0.000 Mh/s in console (and log) and this zero is heaped when calculating the averaged speed and the number of samples is increased by one for this zero. Come on man use a little the last floor of your body. I talk that this averaged stated speed in console and in the log is 1.5% higher than the real one which can be calculated from the found shares (locally, not at the pools side), difficulty and the time that the miner has worked.

Another way to investigate this further would be for you to switch to a different miner and compare the results after a week or month of mining. I am pretty sure unless you are using the original ethminer included in the ethereum github you should get relatively the same speeds with ETH mining.

So use the other software and take into account the other dev fees and then analyse the results. Use the same rig and same clock settings.

The issue might be that there are lots of new jobs that get sent to the GPUs every few seconds, then when a new job is received the GPUs probably take time to send to the GPU threads and also the current job needs to be dropped and it might result in the 1% loss you are referring too.

How many GPUs do you mine with roughly? Most people with a rig or 2 don't really mind a 1% variance or so.

Yep. I already suggested bategojko74 will perform comparison analysis with Phoenix miner. that would be interesting.
Also if I understand correctly, he says that the total number of the actual shares produced on the machine according to the logs does not add up to the reported by the miner rate.

[Ursul0]

Did anyone succeeded in improving 1060 hashrate with any of v15 tighter straps and what's the rate/GPU?

This how it's most stable on phoenix for me:


Using strap 2 I'm able to see them doing over 26MH, but hashrate jumps around and eventually stabilizes around the same level.

Hello! How much power takes the rig on this speed ?

 
The miner shows 779W (-mclock +800 -powlim -35 -cclock +100 -tt 67), which should be the combined GPU consumption reported by the driver and it takes actual 975W from the wall - this is with Phoenix miner

With Claymore and strap 1 I've got up to 262MH but the power and hash rate fluctuate widely... hash from 220 to 262 and power goes from 945W to 975W.
It seems that I can make it stable around powlim -32 at 265MH and power around 1010W (still some occasional drops to 970W level)

[RAKOT]

Did anyone succeeded in improving 1060 hashrate with any of v15 tighter straps and what's the rate/GPU?

This how it's most stable on phoenix for me:


Using strap 2 I'm able to see them doing over 26MH, but hashrate jumps around and eventually stabilizes around the same level.

Hello! How much power takes the rig on this speed ?

 
The miner shows 779W (-mclock +800 -powlim -35 -cclock +100 -tt 67), which should be the combined GPU consumption reported by the driver and it takes actual 975W from the wall - this is with Phoenix miner

With Claymore and strap 1 I've got up to 262MH but the power and hash rate fluctuate widely... hash from 220 to 262 and power goes from 945W to 975W.
It seems that I can make it stable around powlim -32 at 265MH and power around 1010W (still some occasional drops to 970W level)

Thank you very much for the detailed answer. Thought to jump from red to green but it seems Ill get not so much power save . My rig of mixed 474-574 runs at the same 240Mhs ( 8 GPUs) - around 1060W from the wall (CM 15).

[Ursul0]

the timing of your question is perfect as I just got installed smart socket with power on/off function and wattmeter there. (my setup is very remote)
also I have on this rig 3*750W PSUs, there were two more vegas in the rig before, so it just stayed connected, wasting wattage and working not efficiently.

So now by lowering -powlim to -37 I run Phoenix at 247.5MH very stable at 945.5-946.4W from the wall

-mclock +800 -powlim -37 -cclock +100 -tt 67

At the same time with the same settings Claymore reports 240-247.2Mh and actual power from the wall fluctuates from 940W to 949W

@Claymore do you have any idea why the fluctuations in power draw?