Bitcoin Forum
October 01, 2016, 10:22:26 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DiabloMiner GPU Miner  (Read 792971 times)
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2012, 03:46:56 PM
 #1181

Release it and I will start using -b... (just some motivation for you :p)

I think I'm actually going to take -b out. -b points at eligius, and eligius has been doing the up/down dance for awhile. I was going to switch it to ozcoin, and then then got their wallet stolen. I'm personally doing p2pool now, but that doesn't seem like a solution for -b.

1475317346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475317346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475317346
Reply with quote  #2

1475317346
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 03:56:09 PM
 #1182

Then I'm going to send you 1 BTC each two months Wink

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 489



View Profile
February 14, 2012, 12:42:00 PM
 #1183

I like the fact that 2.6 is Diablo's bitch!  Grin Once I get to the computer with my wallet I am gonna throw you some BTC also. Least I can do. Also back when you were having exchanges with the GPUmax guy you said you found a bug in DM but I never saw an update?? Just wondering. Thanks for all you hard work.

Like what I said : 1JosHWaA2GywdZo9pmGLNJ5XSt8j7nzNiF
Don't like what I said : 1FuckU1u89U9nBKQu4rCHz16uF4RhpSTV
Don't Like BFL's Project Management : 1FuckbFLZpmWLuyHyFJw1RGkWm3yRM1L5D
Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 489



View Profile
February 14, 2012, 02:24:59 PM
 #1184

Sent to 1DbeWKCxnVCt3sRaSAmZLoboqr8pVyFzP1

Like what I said : 1JosHWaA2GywdZo9pmGLNJ5XSt8j7nzNiF
Don't like what I said : 1FuckU1u89U9nBKQu4rCHz16uF4RhpSTV
Don't Like BFL's Project Management : 1FuckbFLZpmWLuyHyFJw1RGkWm3yRM1L5D
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 14, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
 #1185

I like the fact that 2.6 is Diablo's bitch!  Grin Once I get to the computer with my wallet I am gonna throw you some BTC also. Least I can do. Also back when you were having exchanges with the GPUmax guy you said you found a bug in DM but I never saw an update?? Just wondering. Thanks for all you hard work.

The bug only effects multipool users. If you're only connected to one, it doesn't effect you, and its largely cosmetic anyhow. The entire write up is in the single open ticket at github. I'll fix the bug after I finally commit this new work.

Sent to 1DbeWKCxnVCt3sRaSAmZLoboqr8pVyFzP1

Thx

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 04:53:03 AM
 #1186

Update: Committed the new kernel.

-v 1: 803/2.1 and 883/2.6 -> 738/2.6
-v 2: 1362/2.1 and 1503/2.6 -> 1380/2.6

398 peak hashrate on my 5850 drops to only 394, or 1%. I think I've won. BTW, 2.1 performance is now dead. Everyone, you can now upgrade to 2.6.

simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 08:11:53 AM
 #1187

Edit: Nvm.... Java is angry.

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 08:19:04 AM
 #1188

It seems the drivers currently have a nice wonderful bug. GCN results in about 30 mhash.

Thanks AMD.

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 12:30:58 PM
 #1189

Update: Committed the new kernel.

-v 1: 803/2.1 and 883/2.6 -> 738/2.6
-v 2: 1362/2.1 and 1503/2.6 -> 1380/2.6

398 peak hashrate on my 5850 drops to only 394, or 1%. I think I've won. BTW, 2.1 performance is now dead. Everyone, you can now upgrade to 2.6.

Using -v1,2 I get a 16% boost compared to -v2. -v3 and -v4 are even slower than -v2. (Driver 12.1, 5850/5870.)
Is this expected behaviour? In the first post you recommend -v4 and say "Layered vectors, probably not faster"... but my findings are just the opposite.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
 #1190

Update: Committed the new kernel.

-v 1: 803/2.1 and 883/2.6 -> 738/2.6
-v 2: 1362/2.1 and 1503/2.6 -> 1380/2.6

398 peak hashrate on my 5850 drops to only 394, or 1%. I think I've won. BTW, 2.1 performance is now dead. Everyone, you can now upgrade to 2.6.

Using -v1,2 I get a 16% boost compared to -v2. -v3 and -v4 are even slower than -v2. (Driver 12.1, 5850/5870.)
Is this expected behaviour? In the first post you recommend -v4 and say "Layered vectors, probably not faster"... but my findings are just the opposite.

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding: I haven't updated the op for the new kernel. Also, no where in op do I recommend -v 4, I say "try the above and then try -v 4 -w 64", where the implication the above (-v 2 and -w 128 or 256) is still going to win.

-v 2,1 isn't unexpected. While developing the new kernel -v 2,1 was actually winning for awhile, and now its not for me. The interesting thing is -v 2,1 actually fits in all the registers now, something that has never been done before. So, on your cards, what clock rate are they at now and what mhash are you getting?

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
 #1191

So the linked zip-package is still the same? I thought it was updated because you said "you can now upgrade to 2.6"... and that's what I did Wink

But maybe there is no 16% increase at all - are you sure the MH/s display in your miner is always correct? Taking the numbers from the console I should be around 2,6 GH/s - but BTC Guild  says I just have about 2 GH/s.

In one PC I now have 2x5850 (@850/1000) and 1x5870 (@950/1200). The console says 1260 MH/s, BTC Guild says 920 MH/s... I have to say that 1260 GH/s is also somewhat unrealistic because that would be 420 MH/s per card... which looks ok for the 5870 but is too much for the 5850, isn't it?!

My commandline:
start "DiabloMiner" DiabloMiner-Windows.exe -u xxx -p bitcoin -o btcguild.com -r 8332 -f 2 -v 2,1 -w 128

Windows 7 32-bit, AMD driver 12.1

(when using -v2 the console says ~1000 MH/s and BTC Guild says ~950-1000 MH/s... so both numbers are almost matching)

Oh, and the SDK version is not displayed when starting your miner. Is this normal when 2.6 is installed? Before it showed "...using SDK 2.5", when 11.8 was installed.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 03:35:40 PM
 #1192

So the linked zip-package is still the same? I thought it was updated because you said "you can now upgrade to 2.6"... and that's what I did Wink

But maybe there is no 16% increase at all - are you sure the MH/s display in your miner is always correct? Taking the numbers from the console I should be around 2,6 GH/s - but BTC Guild  says I just have about 2 GH/s.

In one PC I now have 2x5850 (@850/1000) and 1x5870 (@950/1200). The console says 1260 MH/s, BTC Guild says 920 MH/s... I have to say that 1260 GH/s is also somewhat unrealistic because that would be 420 MH/s per card... which looks ok for the 5870 but is too much for the 5850, isn't it?!

My commandline:
start "DiabloMiner" DiabloMiner-Windows.exe -u xxx -p bitcoin -o btcguild.com -r 8332 -f 2 -v 2,1 -w 128

Windows 7 32-bit, AMD driver 12.1

(when using -v2 the console says ~1000 MH/s and BTC Guild says ~950-1000 MH/s... so both numbers are almost matching)

Oh, and the SDK version is not displayed when starting your miner. Is this normal when 2.6 is installed? Before it showed "...using SDK 2.5", when 11.8 was installed.

Don't use pool hash meters, they're useless. They try to guess your hashrate by counting the number of shares you submit (which is a 100% random process) and multiplying by the average hashes it takes to make a share (2^32, or over 4 billion). I've had pools read as low as 200 some and as high as over 500, and I mine at what is now 393 mhash on my 5850.

It does still display SDK version, but 2.6 has a different version than the rest, it says 851.4 instead.

Also, try -w 256 instead. Its probably faster.

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
 #1193

Yes, I know the pool only "guesses" the hashrate, but btc guild is averaging over some time period (something like 10 minutes) and in the past miner mh/s and pool mh/s did not differ by more than 5%. While I was using -v2 the numbers where very close to each other, and now that I'm using -v2,1 (or -v1,2) the numbers differ by a large amount (1260 vs. 920 MH/s). I never saw such a big difference before... that's why I'm asking if you can say for sure (!) that the numbers displayed by your miner are 100% accurate.

I just checked... a 5850 with 850/1000 clocks, SDK 2.6 and the version of your miner linked in op gives 390 MH/s. Is that realistic given the fact you did not update the package in op and as such I'm using a miner not optimizied for SDK 2.6?! Using poclbm and SDK 2.5 I got something around 340 MH/s...

Using -w 256 is a bit slower than -w 128 (1230 vs. 1260 MH/s).

Edit: One more sign that something is wrong with the mh/s display: Let's say I have a nominal rate of 1000 mh/s. The pool sometimes shows less, sometimes more... like 950 mh/s and then 1050 mh/s - I saw that before (the 5% I was talking about). But now, using -v2,1, I *only* see less, but *never* more... And it's not "a bit less" but the pool always shows at least 20% less than the miner.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
macrum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
February 15, 2012, 09:27:01 PM
 #1194

Hello Diablo/Forum!

I installed a new machine with CentOS 6.2 and installed the Stream SDK and so on, as I always do.
Now when i try to start the miner i get this error:

Code:
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
#  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007f5481ff84b6, pid=28094, tid=140000934340352
#
# JRE version: 6.0_22-b22
# Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (20.0-b11 mixed mode linux-amd64 compressed oops)
# Derivative: IcedTea6 1.10.6
# Distribution: CentOS release 6.2 (Final), package rhel-1.43.1.10.6.el6_2-x86_64
# Problematic frame:
# C  [libstdc++.so.6+0x9d4b6]  std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::~basic_string()+0x26

Any Ideas what the Problem could be? I am using the newest Binary of your miner.
I don't want to reinstall the machine....

A full copy of the log is available here: upload.robert-hager.at/uploads/temp/hs_err_pid28094.log (ignore the certifcate error)

Thanks in Advance Wink
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
 #1195

I'm now almost sure that the miner's mhash display is wrong when using -v1,2.

In 3 hours one rig created 2530 shares, which translates to 1006 MH/s. This is a statistical process, so we can assume an error of magnitude sqrt(2530) -> 50. So with very high propability, the hashrate is in a range of 986-1026 MH/s. The miner says 1370 MH/s which is nowhere near that value. 1000 MH/s is also much more realistic because I'm now using SDK 2.6 and a miner optimized for SDK 2.1...

As much as I would like to believe in those 1370 MH/s, no matter how I look at it, there is no support for this value.
I think you should really double-check the mhash display... If there is anything I can do, let me know.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 11:04:08 PM
 #1196

Yes, I know the pool only "guesses" the hashrate, but btc guild is averaging over some time period (something like 10 minutes) and in the past miner mh/s and pool mh/s did not differ by more than 5%. While I was using -v2 the numbers where very close to each other, and now that I'm using -v2,1 (or -v1,2) the numbers differ by a large amount (1260 vs. 920 MH/s). I never saw such a big difference before... that's why I'm asking if you can say for sure (!) that the numbers displayed by your miner are 100% accurate.

I just checked... a 5850 with 850/1000 clocks, SDK 2.6 and the version of your miner linked in op gives 390 MH/s. Is that realistic given the fact you did not update the package in op and as such I'm using a miner not optimizied for SDK 2.6?! Using poclbm and SDK 2.5 I got something around 340 MH/s...

Using -w 256 is a bit slower than -w 128 (1230 vs. 1260 MH/s).

Edit: One more sign that something is wrong with the mh/s display: Let's say I have a nominal rate of 1000 mh/s. The pool sometimes shows less, sometimes more... like 950 mh/s and then 1050 mh/s - I saw that before (the 5% I was talking about). But now, using -v2,1, I *only* see less, but *never* more... And it's not "a bit less" but the pool always shows at least 20% less than the miner.

10 minutes isn't nearly enough to average that out unless you're producing 1000 shares in 10 minutes on average.

-v 2,1 and 1,2 are identical, the miner sorts them for size first. The numbers displayed by my miner are accurate, I just find it strange you're getting more on -v 2,1 and I'm not. Maybe there is a bug, but I'm not triggering it here.

I'm not sure if you said, but are you on Linux? If you do, do export GPU_DUMP_DEVICE_KERNEL=3 and then pastebin the .isa file that gets produced for -v 2, and then do it again for -v 2,1 (it overwrites it, so make sure you run, pastebin, run, and then pastebin). I can tell for sure if the numbers are legitimate from those.

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 11:22:46 PM
 #1197

I'm on Windows 7 32-Bit... As you can read in post #1201 I also averaged over 3 hours (2500 shares) and I'm still getting the same results. And beside these "hard numbers"... don't you think it's very strange I can achieve 1370 MH/s with 2x5850@850/1000 + 1x5870@950/1200, SDK 2.6 and your old "SDK 2.1 miner"? It does not make any sense at all.

And again: If I'm not using layered vectors, miner mh/s and pool mh/s are matching very good. Also if I calculate the mh/s by hand using the submitted shares in a specific timeframe (like I did in post #1201), the numbers match. Only when using layered vectors the miner mh/s are WAY higher than everything else suggests (pool mh/s, hand-calculated mh/s, 24h earnings)

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 11:28:36 PM
 #1198

I'm on Windows 7 32-Bit... As you can read in post #1201 I also averaged over 3 hours (2500 shares) and I'm still getting the same results. And beside these "hard numbers"... don't you think it's very strange I can achieve 1370 MH/s with 2x5850@850/1000 + 1x5870@950/1200, SDK 2.6 and your old "SDK 2.1 miner"? It does not make any sense at all.

And again: If I'm not using layered vectors, miner mh/s and pool mh/s are matching very good. Also if I calculate the mh/s by hand using the submitted shares in a specific timeframe (like I did in post #1201), the numbers match. Only when using layered vectors the miner mh/s are WAY higher than everything else suggests (pool mh/s, hand-calculated mh/s, 24h earnings)

Lets say you're getting similar numbers to mine. I get 393 or so on my 5850 at 960/320, 393/960*850 is 348. You have two of those, so 696. Now, your 5870, would be 393/960*950/1440*1600 = 432. You should be getting around 1128.

So yeah, 1370 seems a smidgen high. But I don't believe its a fault of the meter, something else strange is going on.

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 11:49:44 PM
 #1199

Lets say you're getting similar numbers to mine. I get 393 or so on my 5850 at 960/320, 393/960*850 is 348. You have two of those, so 696. Now, your 5870, would be 393/960*950/1440*1600 = 432. You should be getting around 1128.
precisely... and that's about that what I got using SDK 2.5. Now with SDK 2.6 and using -v4 -w64 I get 1060 MH/s, which is a ~10% decrease as expected from the change SDK 2.5->2.6. Using layered vectors gives those ridiculous high number of 1370 MH/s, which just cannot be explained.

So if there is anything I can do/check, tell me... until then I can only ask you to double-check your meter code even if you are sure everything is correct - but something isn't  ;o

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 16, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
 #1200

Lets say you're getting similar numbers to mine. I get 393 or so on my 5850 at 960/320, 393/960*850 is 348. You have two of those, so 696. Now, your 5870, would be 393/960*950/1440*1600 = 432. You should be getting around 1128.
precisely... and that's about that what I got using SDK 2.5. Now with SDK 2.6 and using -v4 -w64 I get 1060 MH/s, which is a ~10% decrease as expected from the change SDK 2.5->2.6. Using layered vectors gives those ridiculous high number of 1370 MH/s, which just cannot be explained.

So if there is anything I can do/check, tell me... until then I can only ask you to double-check your meter code even if you are sure everything is correct - but something isn't  ;o

But you shouldn't be using -v 4 -w 64. That is not appropriate for the new kernel on vliw5. For me, -v 2 -w 256 is fastest, -v 2,1 -w 256 is slower, -v 2 -w 128 isn't faster (but -w is very sensitive to memory timings, so -w 128 being faster for others does not surprise me).

Pages: « 1 ... 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 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 »
  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!