Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:46:10 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 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 ... 89 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DiabloMiner GPU Miner  (Read 803990 times)
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100


View Profile
February 04, 2011, 06:49:45 AM
 #201

With '-f 1' after a few hours it's definitely settled in for a nice hash rate. It swings maybe +/- 5%. Quite acceptable.

Buy & Hold
1481319970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319970
Reply with quote  #2

1481319970
Report to moderator
1481319970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319970
Reply with quote  #2

1481319970
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481319970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319970
Reply with quote  #2

1481319970
Report to moderator
1481319970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319970
Reply with quote  #2

1481319970
Report to moderator
sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1418

http://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 08:36:07 AM
 #202

Art's miner is great, but not without disadvantages.  At -f 30 it is significantly slower than the original miner.  At -f 2 it is faster, but the desktop is useless for interactive work.  Could we have an option to use the old miner?  Perhaps even an option where DiabloMiner switches miner when it has to slow down due to desktop activity, and changes back to Art's miner with -f 1 when the screensaver is on?

Sjå http://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
I support the roadmap.  If a majority of miners ever try to forcefully take control of Bitcoin through a hard fork without 100% consensus, I will immediately split out and dump all my forkcoins, and buy more real Bitcoin.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 08:59:43 AM
 #203

Update: Changed to 15 sec avg/forever double meter, further decreased run size floor, allow very maximum nonce before saturation flush

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 09:05:21 AM
 #204

Art's miner is great, but not without disadvantages.  At -f 30 it is significantly slower than the original miner.  At -f 2 it is faster, but the desktop is useless for interactive work.  Could we have an option to use the old miner?  Perhaps even an option where DiabloMiner switches miner when it has to slow down due to desktop activity, and changes back to Art's miner with -f 1 when the screensaver is on?

Its just a kernel switch. The kernel does not have control over what you describe, so what you describe is impossible.... if Art's miner performs badly, it will perform badly no matter the -f setting. Art's kernel DOES drive the hardware (3%) harder, so it MAY require a larger -f number to keep the same desktop interactivity, but thats about it.

Also, if you are using 11.1, don't. Also, -f 30 sounds rather low for keeping your desktop interactive.

sturle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1418

http://bitmynt.no


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 09:44:26 AM
 #205

Art's miner is great, but not without disadvantages.  At -f 30 it is significantly slower than the original miner.  At -f 2 it is faster, but the desktop is useless for interactive work.  Could we have an option to use the old miner?  Perhaps even an option where DiabloMiner switches miner when it has to slow down due to desktop activity, and changes back to Art's miner with -f 1 when the screensaver is on?
Its just a kernel switch. The kernel does not have control over what you describe, so what you describe is impossible.... if Art's miner performs badly, it will perform badly no matter the -f setting.
Not according to Art (from IRC):
23:48 < ArtForz> my kernel usually likes -w 64 or 128 and really low -f
23:48 < ArtForz> I'm running the equivalent of -f 2 her

Quote
Also, if you are using 11.1, don't. Also, -f 30 sounds rather low for keeping your desktop interactive.
I use 10.12  It works for me.  And -f 30 was good enough for me with the previous kernel, and gave a decent hashrate while keeping interactivity.  Art's kernel is not good at this setting, according to ArtForz.

Sjå http://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner.  Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010.
I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell.  See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.pl
I support the roadmap.  If a majority of miners ever try to forcefully take control of Bitcoin through a hard fork without 100% consensus, I will immediately split out and dump all my forkcoins, and buy more real Bitcoin.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 10:01:51 AM
 #206

Except thats not what he said at all. m0's kernel ALSO runs best at -w 64 and low -f settings. -f controls kernel execution length; ANY kernel will run better with lower -f settings because there is far less time wasted on kernel setup overhead.

10.12 may or may not cause issues for some people. Downgrading to 10.11 should fix them for the few people that have them.

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2011, 09:29:03 PM
 #207

Update: Use multiple buckets on output to reduce lost pool shares

Roughly 3.5% of shares are lost (due to bucket cramming) on a 5870 on -f 1... its far less for slower cards or high -f values. It is now 256 times less. I can live with 0.02% lost.

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2011, 01:01:57 PM
 #208

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping

Cdecker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 487



View Profile WWW
February 05, 2011, 01:34:05 PM
 #209

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping
Does this justify a 3% performance increase? I'm not sure how precise the hash meter is.

Want to see what developers are chatting about? http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/
Bitcoin-OTC Rating
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2011, 01:45:20 PM
 #210

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping
Does this justify a 3% performance increase? I'm not sure how precise the hash meter is.

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.

Cdecker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 487



View Profile WWW
February 05, 2011, 02:13:35 PM
 #211

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.
My bad, the meter is fluctuating a bit more, I'll check if it stabilizes.

Want to see what developers are chatting about? http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/
Bitcoin-OTC Rating
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2011, 02:48:11 PM
 #212

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.
My bad, the meter is fluctuating a bit more, I'll check if it stabilizes.

The first meter measures whats going on now, the second meter measures the performance since the start of the miner. If you intend on benchmarking, do -f 1 and read the second meter after 15 minutes.

gusti
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1102


View Profile
February 06, 2011, 01:06:55 AM
 #213


Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/humble/warez/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference
   at java.lang.ClassLoader$NativeLibrary.load(Native Method)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary0(ClassLoader.java:1803)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary(ClassLoader.java:1728)
   at java.lang.Runtime.loadLibrary0(Runtime.java:823)
   at java.lang.System.loadLibrary(System.java:1028)



Anybody found an always effective workaround for this problem ?
I'm finding it hard to fix it, though only certain machines have the issue
Display already set to :0. Will using openjdk-6-jre-headless solve it ?
Using FC14 at this time, thinking on switching to Ubuntu, not sure if that will help.


 
 

If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2011, 09:53:13 AM
 #214


Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/humble/warez/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference
   at java.lang.ClassLoader$NativeLibrary.load(Native Method)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary0(ClassLoader.java:1803)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary(ClassLoader.java:1728)
   at java.lang.Runtime.loadLibrary0(Runtime.java:823)
   at java.lang.System.loadLibrary(System.java:1028)



Anybody found an always effective workaround for this problem ?
I'm finding it hard to fix it, though only certain machines have the issue
Display already set to :0. Will using openjdk-6-jre-headless solve it ?
Using FC14 at this time, thinking on switching to Ubuntu, not sure if that will help.

The only way to get that issue is if you don't have X running. Just setting DISPLAY isn't enough and using headless makes it worse. This is an unfortunate bug in Java triggered by how LWJGL works; it shouldn't happen.

On ATI you need X running anyhow, on Nvidia you can run a dummy X (such as xvfb).

djinfected
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
February 10, 2011, 03:54:39 PM
 #215

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 15000k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4000k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 10, 2011, 04:24:02 PM
 #216

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 150k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

Nvidia handles -w weird. Some cards have a minimum of 32, some have 64, and there is no way to query this and there doesn't seem to be a list out there. If -w 32 is extremely slow, don't use it.

And yes, -v has been removed. It doesn't increase speed on properly functioning OpenCL compilers.

djinfected
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
February 10, 2011, 04:41:50 PM
 #217

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 150k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

Nvidia handles -w weird. Some cards have a minimum of 32, some have 64, and there is no way to query this and there doesn't seem to be a list out there. If -w 32 is extremely slow, don't use it.

And yes, -v has been removed. It doesn't increase speed on properly functioning OpenCL compilers.

Ah, thanks for the protips. The difference between 32 and 64 is between 8600k and 13500k! (Compared to 15000k for 512, pardon the typo in my above post.)

Also, when I get messages like Block 1 found, Block 2 found, does that mean I generated a block...?

edit: it looks like this.
[2/10/11 11:52:36 AM] Block 1 found on GeForce 9600 GT (#1)
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2011, 04:43:34 AM
 #218

Also, when I get messages like Block 1 found, Block 2 found, does that mean I generated a block...?

edit: it looks like this.
[2/10/11 11:52:36 AM] Block 1 found on GeForce 9600 GT (#1)

Yup, unless you're on a pool, then thats a pool share.

pmw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5


View Profile
February 12, 2011, 07:43:52 AM
 #219

DiabloD3, thank you for the great miner. It works out of the box on my 64-bit Windows 7 machine with a Radeon HD 6800 card. I am getting about 13.5 mhash/s -- and I can continue to run four threads of CPU miner without any noticeable effect on the GPU miner. Life is great.

The only problem is -- the GPU miner crashes after a few minutes of running. Windows informs me that Java has crashed. I am running the 64-bit JRE 1.6.0.23. The choice of worksize seems to have no effect. So far your GPU miner hasn't been able to run more than about 10 minutes. Windows itself remains stable; I can simply restart the GPU miner.

I'd love to get you a stack trace or something, but I don't see how. Any thoughts on this?
tryptamine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24



View Profile
February 12, 2011, 09:23:56 AM
 #220

In the last version the meter shows this:

Code:
13924/13239 khash/sec

I usually got 110000-140000, is this normal?

Funds sent to this account will be spent in the assassination of Donald Rumsfeld: 1hNZkUurkAzg3BxtMYSVGEw4wfvwQnPzH
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 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 ... 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!