EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner

[baga105]

Does EWBF need a large virtual memory swap like Claymore does or can I reduce the Virtual Memory size to reclaim some badly needed disk space?

My understanding is that claymore's large virtual memory requirement is associated with DAG, so no,you don't need a large swap file for EWBF as there is no DAG. I might be wrong though.

For more then 3 GPU - large virtual memory is required - 16 000 MB minimum.

I hope you know what you are talking about. Care to explain why?

I read that somewhere - If you are using multiple GPUs, recomended settings for stability is 16 000 MB or more.

Also when I try to connect to my PC more then 3 GPUs, miner was unstable all the time (OS Windows aswell).

Yes, you have to use at least 16 000 000 MB. If windows goes unstable, you might have overclock your cards too much. And yes, go and disable the windows updates.. .This thing f*cked up all my rigs yesterday...

[crypper]

Does EWBF need a large virtual memory swap like Claymore does or can I reduce the Virtual Memory size to reclaim some badly needed disk space?

My understanding is that claymore's large virtual memory requirement is associated with DAG, so no,you don't need a large swap file for EWBF as there is no DAG. I might be wrong though.

For more then 3 GPU - large virtual memory is required - 16 000 MB minimum.

I hope you know what you are talking about. Care to explain why?

I read that somewhere - If you are using multiple GPUs, recomended settings for stability is 16 000 MB or more.

Also when I try to connect to my PC more then 3 GPUs, miner was unstable all the time (OS Windows aswell).

Yes, you have to use at least 16 000 000 MB. If windows goes unstable, you might have overclock your cards too much. And yes, go and disable the windows updates.. .This thing f*cked up all my rigs yesterday...

Just because you both repeat something you've heard or read somewhere without understanding of what that means - it doesn't make it true. Without referencing the source (so that we can evaluate the info ourselves) you are just spreading rumours.
I like this explanation https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMinerLegacy/issues/6, that suggests that swap file for Claymore is taken by mirroring DAG from GPU to virtual memory. There is no DAG on GPU for equihash, and therefore my understanding is that virtual memory is not needed for EWBF. I'm not a big expert and may be absolutely wrong. Happy to hear from a specialist; not that this issue bothers me much, but since the question was raised - let's find the answer.

[jazzygirl]

I would appreciate help with this issue.  Trying to set up EWBF miner but I am getting this error message when I try to open flypool to insert my script.
ERROR: Cannot initialize NVML. Temperature monitor will not work!
INFO: Target: 0004189374bc6a7e...

Thanks for any help you can offer.

[crypper]

I would appreciate help with this issue.  Trying to set up EWBF miner but I am getting this error message when I try to open flypool to insert my script.
ERROR: Cannot initialize NVML. Temperature monitor will not work!
INFO: Target: 0004189374bc6a7e...

Thanks for any help you can offer.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ERROR%3A+Cannot+initialize+NVML.+Temperature+monitor+will+not+work!

[pelo]

Does EWBF need a large virtual memory swap like Claymore does or can I reduce the Virtual Memory size to reclaim some badly needed disk space?

My understanding is that claymore's large virtual memory requirement is associated with DAG, so no,you don't need a large swap file for EWBF as there is no DAG. I might be wrong though.

For more then 3 GPU - large virtual memory is required - 16 000 MB minimum.

I hope you know what you are talking about. Care to explain why?

I read that somewhere - If you are using multiple GPUs, recomended settings for stability is 16 000 MB or more.

Also when I try to connect to my PC more then 3 GPUs, miner was unstable all the time (OS Windows aswell).

Yes, you have to use at least 16 000 000 MB. If windows goes unstable, you might have overclock your cards too much. And yes, go and disable the windows updates.. .This thing f*cked up all my rigs yesterday...

Just because you both repeat something you've heard or read somewhere without understanding of what that means - it doesn't make it true. Without referencing the source (so that we can evaluate the info ourselves) you are just spreading rumours.
I like this explanation https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMinerLegacy/issues/6, that suggests that swap file for Claymore is taken by mirroring DAG from GPU to virtual memory. There is no DAG on GPU for equihash, and therefore my understanding is that virtual memory is not needed for EWBF. I'm not a big expert and may be absolutely wrong. Happy to hear from a specialist; not that this issue bothers me much, but since the question was raised - let's find the answer.

Me and my friend (from same town) just had same experience. Unstable windows during mining Zcash with EWBF. After virtual memory was rise to 16 000 MB or more - no more problems with stability. End of story for me.

[crypper]

Does EWBF need a large virtual memory swap like Claymore does or can I reduce the Virtual Memory size to reclaim some badly needed disk space?

My understanding is that claymore's large virtual memory requirement is associated with DAG, so no,you don't need a large swap file for EWBF as there is no DAG. I might be wrong though.

For more then 3 GPU - large virtual memory is required - 16 000 MB minimum.

I hope you know what you are talking about. Care to explain why?

I read that somewhere - If you are using multiple GPUs, recomended settings for stability is 16 000 MB or more.

Also when I try to connect to my PC more then 3 GPUs, miner was unstable all the time (OS Windows aswell).

Yes, you have to use at least 16 000 000 MB. If windows goes unstable, you might have overclock your cards too much. And yes, go and disable the windows updates.. .This thing f*cked up all my rigs yesterday...

Just because you both repeat something you've heard or read somewhere without understanding of what that means - it doesn't make it true. Without referencing the source (so that we can evaluate the info ourselves) you are just spreading rumours.
I like this explanation https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMinerLegacy/issues/6, that suggests that swap file for Claymore is taken by mirroring DAG from GPU to virtual memory. There is no DAG on GPU for equihash, and therefore my understanding is that virtual memory is not needed for EWBF. I'm not a big expert and may be absolutely wrong. Happy to hear from a specialist; not that this issue bothers me much, but since the question was raised - let's find the answer.

Me and my friend (from same town) just had same experience. Unstable windows during mining Zcash with EWBF. After virtual memory was rise to 16 000 MB or more - no more problems with stability. End of story for me.

We already got your point: you've heard something, read something, your friend told you something...
We are no longer interested in you participating in this discussion unless you come up with some solid arguments.
Let's hear an expert now.
Thanks

[Nvid]

Hello All,

I would like to stress out the attention here!!!

To all ADMINS, developers and project leaders behind EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner:

Could you please inform all miners that EWBF's miner is still developed and supported.
We have really appreciated the project and would like to now its future development/visions?

Thank you!

Best Regards,
Hristo Panicharov

[Bimmber]

Do you honestly think its still being developed if creator posted changes last time on December 2016? Its dead project.

[Nvid]

Do you honestly think its still being developed if creator posted changes last time on December 2016? Its dead project.

Hi and thanks. What miner to consider than?

Regards,
Hristo

[Bimmber]

I use bminer. It handles higher OC than other equihash miners +gives more sol`s. Not sure if it translates into real shares on pool. But at least its stable.

[glasswool]

Hi my EWBF miner starts two threads on the same PID like this:
tcp        0      0 192.168.13.124:49944    c7.1d.7a9f.ip4.sta:3357 ESTABLISHED 3576/miner     
tcp        0      0 192.168.13.124:57836    ns537128.ip-139-99:8008 ESTABLISHED 3576/miner

Port 3357 is the correct one in the config the second one keeps changing any idea how to stop this?

[91to]

Hello everyone! it's probably too late, but I still decided to ask this question about my problem: my video card 1070 gave 0.2 zek per month, but since February it has become 0.15 zek. The schedule on the nanopool has not changed, the sol in the EWBF Miner window has not changed, the settings have not changed, but for some reason the balance began to be earned slowly than before. Im sorry if this problem has long been passed by someone, maybe I just dont know something and the problem is not mine, but the problem on the server. Explain please what is this? (sorry for my bad english)

[leonix007]

Hello everyone! it's probably too late, but I still decided to ask this question about my problem: my video card 1070 gave 0.2 zek per month, but since February it has become 0.15 zek. The schedule on the nanopool has not changed, the sol in the EWBF Miner window has not changed, the settings have not changed, but for some reason the balance began to be earned slowly than before. Im sorry if this problem has long been passed by someone, maybe I just dont know something and the problem is not mine, but the problem on the server. Explain please what is this? (sorry for my bad english)

Heard of Mr. difficulty? you should look for him, he is the primary culprit on the miners profit dipping   its not the servers problem

https://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/zcash-difficulty-chart

[91to]

Hello everyone! it's probably too late, but I still decided to ask this question about my problem: my video card 1070 gave 0.2 zek per month, but since February it has become 0.15 zek. The schedule on the nanopool has not changed, the sol in the EWBF Miner window has not changed, the settings have not changed, but for some reason the balance began to be earned slowly than before. Im sorry if this problem has long been passed by someone, maybe I just dont know something and the problem is not mine, but the problem on the server. Explain please what is this? (sorry for my bad english)

Heard of Mr. difficulty? you should look for him, he is the primary culprit on the miners profit dipping   its not the servers problem

https://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/zcash-difficulty-chart

Thank you very much!

[ComputerGenie]

Yes, you have to use at least 16 000 000 MB. If windows goes unstable, you might have overclock your cards too much. And yes, go and disable the windows updates.. .This thing f*cked up all my rigs yesterday...

Where does one find this supercomputer motherboard that holds in excess of 16TB of RAMM?

Code:

1 Terabyte is equal to 1000000 megabytes (decimal).
1 TB = 106 MB in base 10 (SI).
1 Terabyte is equal to 1048576 megabytes (binary).

1048576 MB < "at least 16 000 000 MB"
Because, math!

[min3333r]

Need some advice guys.

And when I count all of my shares which I can see at monitor, 26% goes to to Devfee.

For example 4197 (of my shares) vs 1114 (Devfee) or 3181 (of my shares) vs 839 (Devfee) and so on.

Shares are not equal. Would You accept to give me 1000 banknotes of 100$ and get in return 1000 banknotes of 1$?

Can you explain me this?

33 GPU giving 8900-9200 SOL/s with EWBF running for 3 months
33 GPU giving 9900-10000 SOL/s with DSTM running for 2 weeks

That's 9-10% difference in hashrate that's reported on nanopool.

[Mastker]

Need some advice guys.

And when I count all of my shares which I can see at monitor, 26% goes to to Devfee.

For example 4197 (of my shares) vs 1114 (Devfee) or 3181 (of my shares) vs 839 (Devfee) and so on.

Shares are not equal. Would You accept to give me 1000 banknotes of 100$ and get in return 1000 banknotes of 1$?

Can you explain me this?

33 GPU giving 8900-9200 SOL/s with EWBF running for 3 months
33 GPU giving 9900-10000 SOL/s with DSTM running for 2 weeks

That's 9-10% difference in hashrate that's reported on nanopool.

I notice for weaker nVidia cards, the DSTM is better.

[leonix007]

Need some advice guys.

And when I count all of my shares which I can see at monitor, 26% goes to to Devfee.

For example 4197 (of my shares) vs 1114 (Devfee) or 3181 (of my shares) vs 839 (Devfee) and so on.

Shares are not equal. Would You accept to give me 1000 banknotes of 100$ and get in return 1000 banknotes of 1$?

Can you explain me this?

33 GPU giving 8900-9200 SOL/s with EWBF running for 3 months
33 GPU giving 9900-10000 SOL/s with DSTM running for 2 weeks

That's 9-10% difference in hashrate that's reported on nanopool.

I notice for weaker nVidia cards, the DSTM is better.

I concur.  I only have 1080Tis and I tried 24 hours with both and I saw no difference and when I included the 2% devfee from DSTM, the end result for me was that EWBF gave me more Sol/s and with the added function of emailing me when my rig went down was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I couldn't figure out how to get DSTM to send me an email on nanopool if something happened to my rig.

Instead of EWBF sending, How About, Sending you an email from nanopool when your rigs went offline?

try this in .bat file

miner --server zec-eu1.nanopool.org --user YOUR_ZEC_ADDRESS.YOUR_WORKER/YOUR_EMAIL --pass x --port 6666

[min3333r]

Need some advice guys.

And when I count all of my shares which I can see at monitor, 26% goes to to Devfee.

For example 4197 (of my shares) vs 1114 (Devfee) or 3181 (of my shares) vs 839 (Devfee) and so on.

Shares are not equal. Would You accept to give me 1000 banknotes of 100$ and get in return 1000 banknotes of 1$?

Can you explain me this?

33 GPU giving 8900-9200 SOL/s with EWBF running for 3 months
33 GPU giving 9900-10000 SOL/s with DSTM running for 2 weeks

That's 9-10% difference in hashrate that's reported on nanopool.

I notice for weaker nVidia cards, the DSTM is better.

I concur.  I only have 1080Tis and I tried 24 hours with both and I saw no difference and when I included the 2% devfee from DSTM, the end result for me was that EWBF gave me more Sol/s and with the added function of emailing me when my rig went down was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I couldn't figure out how to get DSTM to send me an email on nanopool if something happened to my rig.

You tried them for 24 hours, I tried EWBF for 3 months if not more.

The image talks for itself.

https://i.imgur.com/1GMTkeV.png

Nanopool has that option to e-mail when your rigs are down. And if EWBF goes down, and your internet goes down also - how do you think EWBF will send you an e-mail? That's pools job to do, not miners.

At the moment 2 hour SMA = 9889,64 while EWBF never went above 9150 in best cases.

What do you say about this?
https://forum.z.cash/t/ewbf-dev-fee-almost-doubled-1-9-to-3-6-average/22460

[crypper]

The image talks for itself.

Nanopool has that option to e-mail when your rigs are down. And if EWBF goes down, and your internet goes down also - how do you think EWBF will send you an e-mail? That's pools job to do, not miners.

At the moment 2 hour SMA = 9889,64 while EWBF never went above 9150 in best cases.

What do you say about this?
https://forum.z.cash/t/ewbf-dev-fee-almost-doubled-1-9-to-3-6-average/22460

Considering that you get ~9500 H/s with 33 cards, they are probably 1060 or below. And that's exactly what Mastker says: "I notice for weaker nVidia cards, the DSTM is better." There is not much difference for 1080TI from what I hear (don't own any of 1080TI personally).
And your link to a post about EWBF fees only says that neither the author of that post nor you understand the basics of mining.
Cheers