Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 07:49:18 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Genesis Mining Presents: SGMiner-GM - now with Zawawa's GG! [Updated 17/01/2017]  (Read 120801 times)
toptek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
September 25, 2016, 07:44:02 PM
 #101

Claymore  is ok if you like being told you have to tip then forced to . I plan to tip for this one as soon as i can . I would have with Claymore  or even paid to unlock no tipping .
Goat says: "Bitcoin is NOT Illegal in Thailand. There is no law against Bitcoin in Thailand!"
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513021758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021758
Reply with quote  #2

1513021758
Report to moderator
1513021758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021758
Reply with quote  #2

1513021758
Report to moderator
1513021758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021758
Reply with quote  #2

1513021758
Report to moderator
Za1n
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
September 25, 2016, 07:58:01 PM
 #102

Can anyone tell me if this miner does stale share submits?  It didn't look like it does, and maybe someone can save me the trouble of digging through the source code.


It does submit the stale shares. I saw in the command window, it says stale share detected, submitting.

Yes, it looks to have stales submitted by default. I believe you can disable this behavior with the
Code:
--no-submit-stale
in command line or with
Code:
"no-submit-stale" : true
in the config file.
OhGodAGirl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149

Look, I'm really not that interesting. Promise.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2016, 08:47:07 PM
 #103

After looking at my HW errors and explaining to someone last night in another thread what xI vs I vs rI it occurred to me that the shotgun approach I was using was flawed.

At the settings I was using I was making the GPU work 10 times harder and essentially getting 33mh by loading up the work and accepting the HW.  

So today I used some reasoning- although it is limited by my understanding of "4-way" vs "8-way".  The other quote I accepted was the one made by Oh-God-it's a Girl earlier in this thread.  SHe stated that HW errors are normal, when in fact they are not normal.

So I started from scratch using the info I have on hand.  Global work has been accepted as 16384 or a variation of that number.  Plugging that into the xI formula and knowing a 390 has 2818 shaders the xI equivalent would be about 5.81.  It decreased the HW works but hashrate is about 20mh.  I then decreased the worksize by a factor of 4 to 64 (only because everything in mining is a factor -lol - and we went from 8 way to 4 way) and I increased the the xI by 2^4 and get about 93.  Also increase the xI without decreasing the worksize increased HW.  Plugging those numbers into the miner I am getting respectable Hash rates of about 28mh on a 390 with 1100/1250 with very few HW.  

A little more tweaking and will increase the worksize and double the xI since it appears more threads are available with this miner using 4-way (at least I think)

I said that SOME HW errors are normal. Which they are, according to Wolf0. You should be averaging 1-2ish. Correct?

I never say anything without making sure it's fact. =P

If you're seeing a few, it's normal. As in, expected behavior. We've not figured out why they come in just yet, and how to avoid them.

Also, see NaN's comment here:

@OhGodAGirl

Big thanks Smiley

My last questions:
1) sgminer shows hashrate like this: 21.70M/20.21Mh/s - is this 20.21Mh/s my card's hashrate? I got 22 Mh/s @ CM ...
2) WU: 20-21/m for such hashrate - is it OK?

TIA
The first value is an exponential moving average of your hash rate. Therefore, this value is a good measure of your current hash rate after a few minutes. The second value is an average over the whole run time and it should be equal to the first value after a few hour, if the pool connection is stable. One Radeon RX 480 8GB does about 23.8 MH/s with stock clocks and your card seems to be close to 21.7 MH/s (you have to run it longer).
The WU (work units) are used to calculate the number of HW errors. Let's assume your card mines with an average of 20 MH/s and has an error rate of 2%. Then the expected WU value would be 20/m * (1-0.02) = 19.6/m. The hardware errors are normal, but they aren't shown by other Ethereum miners. A defective card typically produces 10 times more hardware errors then a working one.

1P1C58d4CUiEokjoAfWiZVTogZFAeAfawh
OhGodAGirl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149

Look, I'm really not that interesting. Promise.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2016, 08:48:06 PM
 #104

Claymore  is ok if you like being told you have to tip then forced to . I plan to tip for this one as soon as i can . I would have with Claymore  or even paid to unlock no tipping .

Thank you toptek, it's super appreciated. A lot of love, sweat and tears was put into this! And anger. Lots of anger. So. Much. Anger.

1P1C58d4CUiEokjoAfWiZVTogZFAeAfawh
kilo17
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910

aka "whocares"


View Profile
September 25, 2016, 10:54:19 PM
 #105

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks

Bitcoin Will Only Succeed If The Community That Supports It Gets Support - Support Home Miners & Mining
OhGodAGirl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149

Look, I'm really not that interesting. Promise.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2016, 11:11:05 PM
 #106

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

1P1C58d4CUiEokjoAfWiZVTogZFAeAfawh
kilo17
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910

aka "whocares"


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 03:35:13 AM
 #107

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

I appreciate the input but I for one have found zero settings that are even remotely close to the other miners available, especially when applying modest overclocks.  I am not sure what is considered an acceptable number of HW, if it's 1-2 per GPU at startup, per hour or per day etc. I am able to get a low number (10%) but the hashrate is less than other available miners.

I have spent several days on 3 different rigs looking for good settings to apply to the whole farm but it has eluded me.  As much as I hate using Claymore's miner it is still the fastest one available on all counts and while I do not like being forced to pay the fee, at least he does provide support.

I do not mind paying for a miner that provides superior hashrates so if you decide to release another Kernal for sale let me know as I would be willing (I missed the last opportunity before it was sold to a private individual). 

Sorry Wolf0, I would have provided you guys the fees I was paying Claymore as a tip on my 5.7gh but as it stands, economically it doesn't make any sense for me to use a miner that is slower.

Good luck guys

Bitcoin Will Only Succeed If The Community That Supports It Gets Support - Support Home Miners & Mining
OhGodAGirl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149

Look, I'm really not that interesting. Promise.


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2016, 07:23:21 AM
 #108

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

I appreciate the input but I for one have found zero settings that are even remotely close to the other miners available, especially when applying modest overclocks.  I am not sure what is considered an acceptable number of HW, if it's 1-2 per GPU at startup, per hour or per day etc. I am able to get a low number (10%) but the hashrate is less than other available miners.

I have spent several days on 3 different rigs looking for good settings to apply to the whole farm but it has eluded me.  As much as I hate using Claymore's miner it is still the fastest one available on all counts and while I do not like being forced to pay the fee, at least he does provide support.

I do not mind paying for a miner that provides superior hashrates so if you decide to release another Kernal for sale let me know as I would be willing (I missed the last opportunity before it was sold to a private individual). 

Sorry Wolf0, I would have provided you guys the fees I was paying Claymore as a tip on my 5.7gh but as it stands, economically it doesn't make any sense for me to use a miner that is slower.

Good luck guys

I understand you're frustrated.

We're going to keep working on sgminer-gm - I wish I could provide you settings that would, guaranteed, work, but each card is unique - combine that with all the other factors and it's impossible to give you settings that 'just work' out of the box. Well, not impossible - but beyond our skill and scope right now.

Hopefully in the future, you'll try us again. If it doesn't work for you, economically you shouldn't use it. I totally agree. We'll keep working on it! Promise.

1P1C58d4CUiEokjoAfWiZVTogZFAeAfawh
kilo17
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910

aka "whocares"


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 07:29:36 AM
 #109

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

I appreciate the input but I for one have found zero settings that are even remotely close to the other miners available, especially when applying modest overclocks.  I am not sure what is considered an acceptable number of HW, if it's 1-2 per GPU at startup, per hour or per day etc. I am able to get a low number (10%) but the hashrate is less than other available miners.

I have spent several days on 3 different rigs looking for good settings to apply to the whole farm but it has eluded me.  As much as I hate using Claymore's miner it is still the fastest one available on all counts and while I do not like being forced to pay the fee, at least he does provide support.

I do not mind paying for a miner that provides superior hashrates so if you decide to release another Kernal for sale let me know as I would be willing (I missed the last opportunity before it was sold to a private individual). 

Sorry Wolf0, I would have provided you guys the fees I was paying Claymore as a tip on my 5.7gh but as it stands, economically it doesn't make any sense for me to use a miner that is slower.

Good luck guys

I understand you're frustrated.

We're going to keep working on sgminer-gm - I wish I could provide you settings that would, guaranteed, work, but each card is unique - combine that with all the other factors and it's impossible to give you settings that 'just work' out of the box. Well, not impossible - but beyond our skill and scope right now.

Hopefully in the future, you'll try us again. If it doesn't work for you, economically you shouldn't use it. I totally agree. We'll keep working on it! Promise.

No worries, I was hoping I could use it for the farm but look forward to your future releases.

Bitcoin Will Only Succeed If The Community That Supports It Gets Support - Support Home Miners & Mining
sanas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 553



View Profile
September 26, 2016, 08:11:49 AM
 #110

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

After one hour hashing,I have 50 hardware errors in one card. If I increase the xintensity from 256 to 1024, there will be hundreds in one hour.

.cashaa....█████
█╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

█╬██

█████
██████
██╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬██

██████
█████
██╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬█

█████
Eliovp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961

Huh?


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 08:49:17 AM
 #111

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

After one hour hashing,I have 50 hardware errors in one card. If I increase the xintensity from 256 to 1024, there will be hundreds in one hour.

Maybe stop using xintensity.. :p

sanas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 553



View Profile
September 26, 2016, 09:04:04 AM
 #112

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

After one hour hashing,I have 50 hardware errors in one card. If I increase the xintensity from 256 to 1024, there will be hundreds in one hour.

Maybe stop using xintensity.. :p

I tried your rawintensity value, similar results. Your raw intensity is similar to xI = 2048.

How many HW do you get in one hour mining for your R9 390?

.cashaa....█████
█╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

█╬██

█████
██████
██╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬██

██████
█████
██╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬█

█████
Eliovp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961

Huh?


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 09:13:21 AM
 #113

ohGodAGirl- I did not mean to offend you.

Here are some settings that have been useful for me on 390/290's
Worksize- 256 runs well at xI of 190
Worksize of 192 works well at xI of 167-170

Those are on 1100/1250 clocks


You didn't mate! Don't stress.

Just want to make sure folks understand that one or two HWs are normal and to be expected.

Thank you for sharing the settings!

After one hour hashing,I have 50 hardware errors in one card. If I increase the xintensity from 256 to 1024, there will be hundreds in one hour.

Maybe stop using xintensity.. :p

I tried your rawintensity value, similar results. Your raw intensity is similar to xI = 2048.

How many HW do you get in one hour mining for your R9 390?

After 8 days, non stop, 11620 hw errors :p (but still running smooth) Wink

rednoW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 10:26:33 AM
 #114

After 8 days, non stop, 11620 hw errors :p (but still running smooth) Wink

This miner runs ok with hawaii and tahiti but I cannot find good params for new rx480 and rx470 ((

Kevinatin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244



View Profile
September 26, 2016, 01:33:13 PM
 #115

After 8 days, non stop, 11620 hw errors :p (but still running smooth) Wink

This miner runs ok with hawaii and tahiti but I cannot find good params for new rx480 and rx470 ((

Do you get better share rate which are accepted by pools? Is that better than the Claymore or ethminer?

nerdralph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 04:49:35 PM
 #116

I've done some more testing, trying different xI and rI values, and can say the following:
1) Hawaii performance is great; as good or better than Claymore & Genoil.
2) Tonga performance is about the same as Claymore & Genoil.
3) Pitcairn performance sucks; ~10% slower than Claymore & Genoil.

@Wolf0, any plans to tune this up for Pitcairn?

edit: I just figured out the miner is controlling the GPU clock rates, and dropping the core on the R7 370 to 1020 from the 1125 I had set.  I think it is the "auto-gpu" setting... will see how things work with the right clock speeds.

edit2: So Pitcairn performance doesn't suck, it's just sub-par.  At 1125/1500 I get 13.8, vs 14.4 with Claymore and 14.3 with Genoil's.
Qastessa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 135



View Profile
September 26, 2016, 05:37:30 PM
 #117

I've done some more testing, trying different xI and rI values, and can say the following:
1) Hawaii performance is great; as good or better than Claymore & Genoil.
2) Tonga performance is about the same as Claymore & Genoil.
3) Pitcairn performance sucks; ~10% slower than Claymore & Genoil.

@Wolf0, any plans to tune this up for Pitcairn?


What are your work size, thread concurrency, intensity values for the R9390? What is your 390 setting?

nerdralph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 05:54:15 PM
 #118

I've done some more testing, trying different xI and rI values, and can say the following:
1) Hawaii performance is great; as good or better than Claymore & Genoil.
2) Tonga performance is about the same as Claymore & Genoil.
3) Pitcairn performance sucks; ~10% slower than Claymore & Genoil.

@Wolf0, any plans to tune this up for Pitcairn?


What are your work size, thread concurrency, intensity values for the R9390? What is your 390 setting?

Where did I say I have an R9 390?
rednoW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
September 26, 2016, 06:12:43 PM
 #119

After 8 days, non stop, 11620 hw errors :p (but still running smooth) Wink

This miner runs ok with hawaii and tahiti but I cannot find good params for new rx480 and rx470 ((

Do you get better share rate which are accepted by pools? Is that better than the Claymore or ethminer?
I didn't make thorough tests. It was rather quick and them I returned to Claymore's cause I have some Polaris cards in the rigs.

sanas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 553



View Profile
September 26, 2016, 07:47:43 PM
 #120

I've done some more testing, trying different xI and rI values, and can say the following:
1) Hawaii performance is great; as good or better than Claymore & Genoil.
2) Tonga performance is about the same as Claymore & Genoil.
3) Pitcairn performance sucks; ~10% slower than Claymore & Genoil.

@Wolf0, any plans to tune this up for Pitcairn?


What are your work size, thread concurrency, intensity values for the R9390? What is your 390 setting?

Where did I say I have an R9 390?


You mentioned Hawaii cards.

There are only two Hawaii cards, the R9 390 or the 390X graphics cards.

.cashaa....█████
█╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

█╬██

█████
██████
██╬██
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬██

██████
█████
██╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█
█╬█

█╬█

██╬█

█████
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 »
  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!