JLM
|
|
September 05, 2013, 04:43:45 PM |
|
Hi Luke!!!!
Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME? SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU. If possible? What should do?
Thanks!!!
|
1Hyawq17jkzfpunPC6tTikpgMGSsekd98z
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 05, 2013, 04:45:10 PM |
|
Hi Luke!!!!
Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME? SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU. If possible? What should do?
Thanks!!!
No. It doesn't even make sense - there are no blockchains with multiple POWs.
|
|
|
|
-Redacted-
|
|
September 05, 2013, 04:47:51 PM |
|
Hi Luke!!!!
Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME? SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU. If possible? What should do?
Thanks!!!
Run multiple instances....
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
September 05, 2013, 08:29:41 PM Last edit: September 05, 2013, 09:06:04 PM by PatMan |
|
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log: checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!! Not gonna happen Where am I going wrong here? .................. Anyone? ..................
|
|
|
|
Taugeran
|
|
September 05, 2013, 09:56:58 PM |
|
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log: checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!! Not gonna happen Where am I going wrong here? .................. Anyone? .................. im going to guess debian. the 1.9.7-1 uthash-dev package weighs in at ~400Kb so i think you may have either selected wrong package, have pending package installs, or misread apt-get output
|
Bitfury HW & Habañero : 1.625Th/s tips/Donations: 1NoS89H3Mr6U5CmP4VwWzU2318JEMxHL1 Come join Coinbase
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
September 05, 2013, 10:11:26 PM |
|
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log: checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!! Not gonna happen Where am I going wrong here? .................. Anyone? .................. im going to guess debian. the 1.9.7-1 uthash-dev package weighs in at ~400Kb so i think you may have either selected wrong package, have pending package installs, or misread apt-get output Close - Xubuntu 13.04 64bit - & the text was copy/pasted.....it's also listed in the dependency list on bfg git. Never used it before when compiling though......
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 05, 2013, 10:17:12 PM |
|
uthash isn't even 1 MB.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 12:11:47 PM |
|
After a few hours, those last 12 seconds becomes less and less relevant, and your average should begin to settle on 355 Mh/s. Is this error or is USB ASICminer really doing 355GH with your software? I thought 336 is theoretical max... It's really doing 335 Mh/s for me at least (5½ day average): BES 0: | 336.0/335.7/335.7Mh/s | A: 37464 R: 72+0(.19%) HW:202/.54% BES 1: | 336.0/335.7/336.5Mh/s | A: 37564 R: 66+0(.18%) HW:191/.51% BEE 0: | 327.5/335.8/333.1Mh/s | A: 37177 R: 60+0(.16%) HW:153/.41% BES 2: | 336.0/335.7/330.5Mh/s | A: 36887 R: 71+0(.19%) HW:202/.54% Any idea if/when you'll be adding the getwork server to the Windows binaries? The main problem here lies with libmicrohttpd Is this the same issue with the OpenWRT version? I just picked up a little TP-Link pocket router to run my Block Erupters, but it'd be nice if it'd run the Blades as well. No, OpenWrt has a native port of libmicrohttpd already, so it should be possible. The problem there is that it's all or nothing: if I build with libmicrohttpd support, it won't be usable without it, and may increase the flash requirements. I haven't taken the time to measure just how much yet... Maybe I can offer multiple alternative BFGMiner packages to get around this.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 12:14:25 PM |
|
Is this the same issue with the OpenWRT version? I just picked up a little TP-Link pocket router to run my Block Erupters, but it'd be nice if it'd run the Blades as well. No, OpenWrt has a native port of libmicrohttpd already, so it should be possible. The problem there is that it's all or nothing: if I build with libmicrohttpd support, it won't be usable without it, and may increase the flash requirements. I haven't taken the time to measure just how much yet... Maybe I can offer multiple alternative BFGMiner packages to get around this. I would be very keen to use this if you did. I'm planning on using the TL-WR703N, which I think has 4MB flash and 32MB RAM. 4 MB flash is too small for even the normal BFGMiner packages (or really any packages). The only way I expect you'll be able to make this work is to build a custom firmware with BFGMiner included in the main image. Whether libmicrohttpd could be squeezed into this or not, I'm not sure of.
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
September 06, 2013, 12:50:28 PM |
|
After a few hours, those last 12 seconds becomes less and less relevant, and your average should begin to settle on 355 Mh/s. Is this error or is USB ASICminer really doing 355GH with your software? I thought 336 is theoretical max... It's really doing 335 Mh/s for me at least (5½ day average): BES 0: | 336.0/335.7/335.7Mh/s | A: 37464 R: 72+0(.19%) HW:202/.54% BES 1: | 336.0/335.7/336.5Mh/s | A: 37564 R: 66+0(.18%) HW:191/.51% BEE 0: | 327.5/335.8/333.1Mh/s | A: 37177 R: 60+0(.16%) HW:153/.41% BES 2: | 336.0/335.7/330.5Mh/s | A: 36887 R: 71+0(.19%) HW:202/.54% OK I made a mistake with GH and you made a mistake with 3 55...
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 12:59:28 PM |
|
OK I made a mistake with GH and you made a mistake with 355... Right, sorry, missed that distinction somehow. Fixed my original post.
|
|
|
|
HellDiverUK
|
|
September 06, 2013, 01:03:37 PM |
|
I would be very keen to use this if you did. I'm planning on using the TL-WR703N, which I think has 4MB flash and 32MB RAM.
4 MB flash is too small for even the normal BFGMiner packages (or really any packages). The only way I expect you'll be able to make this work is to build a custom firmware with BFGMiner included in the main image. Whether libmicrohttpd could be squeezed into this or not, I'm not sure of. Yeah, I think running the system off a 4GB USB stick is probably a better idea. Assuming there's no limitation in storage space, is there any other issues you can foresee? I'm guessing most people running OpenWRT will be running it on bigger routers that have more flash.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 01:07:12 PM |
|
Yeah, I think running the system off a 4GB USB stick is probably a better idea. Assuming there's no limitation in storage space, is there any other issues you can foresee? OpenWrt doesn't seem to handle external storage for applications too well
|
|
|
|
JLM
|
|
September 06, 2013, 03:20:18 PM |
|
Hi Luke!!!!
Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME? SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU. If possible? What should do?
Thanks!!!
Run multiple instances.... I had that idea, but i don´t know how. Could you give a hand? ?
|
1Hyawq17jkzfpunPC6tTikpgMGSsekd98z
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 04:09:08 PM |
|
I was wondering how stratum pool distributes work to miners. Does it split extranonce1,2 ranges among miners? On the miner side, if you have 10 devices attached to one PC, is bfgminer splitting work and distributes ranges to individual devices. And finally do devices split work to individual chips and engines? Extranonce1 is assigned by the pool, unique to each connection. Extranonce2 is what the miner is free to do whatever they want with. BFGMiner currently just increments extranonce2 to create unique block headers for the drivers. Someday ASICs might get fast enough that they need to do the their own header production, in which case drivers will be able to get a stratum-like job for them. Some devices are already in development to work this way, but it's a risky thing to do because it can negatively impact Bitcoin scalability if they have unreasonable limits on how quickly they can produce headers internally. Is it better to have many miners or few more powerful miners. Say in case of mini rig, would it be better to run 24 miners each 60GH/s or one 1440 GH/s miner? A single 1.4 Th/s miner (eg, 3 minirigs) would make more sense.
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
September 06, 2013, 07:56:19 PM |
|
I did read ASIC readme but I can't figure out from it. If I install Linux and put BFGMiner on. Can I change pools for a blade as simple as for other devices? And if a pool has a different username is not a problem since it is not the blade username and password but BFGMiner right?
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 08:01:57 PM |
|
I did read ASIC readme but I can't figure out from it. If I install Linux and put BFGMiner on. Can I change pools for a blade as simple as for other devices? And if a pool has a different username is not a problem since it is not the blade username and password but BFGMiner right?
When blades are configured to use BFGMiner, they work pretty much like any other device. So yes, you can change pools, etc just fine.
|
|
|
|
noncecents
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
September 06, 2013, 08:07:03 PM |
|
On Windows it seems bfgminer doesn't know the difference between a problem with user access privileges and a device not responding/device sending back bad data due to a low power condition.
The error doesn't make sense on Windows since there's no user privileges restriction on non-storage USB devices.
I tested this by using a USB2.0 powered hub that doesn't provide enough power to operate Block Erupters and a USB3.0 hub that provides adequate power.
With the USB2.0 hub that did not provide enough power, when more than 2 block erupters were plugged in an error was reported by bfgminer on startup:
"Do not have user privileges required to open \\.\COMxx"
...where "xx" is a port number.
When I plugged the devices into a USB3.0 hub that provided adequate power for all the devices the error went away.
I was able to replicate this consistently by switching between the powered hubs.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2013, 08:35:06 PM |
|
On Windows it seems bfgminer doesn't know the difference between a problem with user access privileges and a device not responding/device sending back bad data due to a low power condition.
The error doesn't make sense on Windows since there's no user privileges restriction on non-storage USB devices.
I tested this by using a USB2.0 powered hub that doesn't provide enough power to operate Block Erupters and a USB3.0 hub that provides adequate power.
With the USB2.0 hub that did not provide enough power, when more than 2 block erupters were plugged in an error was reported by bfgminer on startup:
"Do not have user privileges required to open \\.\COMxx"
...where "xx" is a port number.
When I plugged the devices into a USB3.0 hub that provided adequate power for all the devices the error went away.
I was able to replicate this consistently by switching between the powered hubs.
This is an OS/driver issue. The message about user privs is shown when Windows reports ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED.
|
|
|
|
af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
|
|
September 06, 2013, 08:55:43 PM |
|
I was wondering how stratum pool distributes work to miners. Does it split extranonce1,2 ranges among miners? On the miner side, if you have 10 devices attached to one PC, is bfgminer splitting work and distributes ranges to individual devices. And finally do devices split work to individual chips and engines? Extranonce1 is assigned by the pool, unique to each connection. Extranonce2 is what the miner is free to do whatever they want with. BFGMiner currently just increments extranonce2 to create unique block headers for the drivers. Someday ASICs might get fast enough that they need to do the their own header production, in which case drivers will be able to get a stratum-like job for them. Some devices are already in development to work this way, but it's a risky thing to do because it can negatively impact Bitcoin scalability if they have unreasonable limits on how quickly they can produce headers internally. Is it better to have many miners or few more powerful miners. Say in case of mini rig, would it be better to run 24 miners each 60GH/s or one 1440 GH/s miner? A single 1.4 Th/s miner (eg, 3 minirigs) would make more sense. Hmm. If Extranonce1 is assigned by the pool, having more miners would distribute the work better as each miner would get its own version of Extranonce1, no? So miner can create new merkleroots/work jobs as it iterates through Extranonce2. Each new/generated work would need 1 sec@4GH/s to do a full nonce scan? 16TH to do a full Extranonce2 scan? And 256 PH to have any block solved in 1 second, by hashing all Extranonce1,2 and nonce all at once (assuming the miner can iterate through Extranonce1)? Is that how it works?
|
|
|
|
|