Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2016, 08:53:08 PM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   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 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 ... 89 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DiabloMiner GPU Miner  (Read 792066 times)
Druas
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
 #721

Another suggestion is to put the -f settings (with a short explanation) under the optimal configuration section of your post on the first page. I think a lot of people are doing tests without it leading them to think that your miner is slower. On my crappy 6750M without -f1 I get about 72-73Mhash, with -f1 I get about 77-78Mhash. My desktop interactivity is fine because of the ability of my onboard graphics I think. However, people with dedicated mining rigs probably wouldn't care about desktop interactivity anyway. Thanks for all your hard work!

I only recommend -f 1 for dedicated miners. For desktop users, -f 1 usually causes excessive lag.
Yeah I would probably agree, it is just the only mention of -f in the first post is to decrease performance. I didn't even know there was a -f command that could increase performance until a while after I started mining. Without -f, I probably would have went with phoenix miner because it displayed a higher hash rate.
1474750388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474750388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474750388
Reply with quote  #2

1474750388
Report to moderator
1474750388
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474750388

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474750388
Reply with quote  #2

1474750388
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2011, 06:09:34 PM
 #722

Another suggestion is to put the -f settings (with a short explanation) under the optimal configuration section of your post on the first page. I think a lot of people are doing tests without it leading them to think that your miner is slower. On my crappy 6750M without -f1 I get about 72-73Mhash, with -f1 I get about 77-78Mhash. My desktop interactivity is fine because of the ability of my onboard graphics I think. However, people with dedicated mining rigs probably wouldn't care about desktop interactivity anyway. Thanks for all your hard work!

I only recommend -f 1 for dedicated miners. For desktop users, -f 1 usually causes excessive lag.
Yeah I would probably agree, it is just the only mention of -f in the first post is to decrease performance. I didn't even know there was a -f command that could increase performance until a while after I started mining. Without -f, I probably would have went with phoenix miner because it displayed a higher hash rate.

Theres actually a lengthy argument about that. There is a large group of people, me included, that believe Phoenix displays hash rates about 5% too high. So, ymmv.

freeman725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 03:03:37 PM
 #723

I'm pushing ~450mh/s on 2 6850's oc'd to 875 on the cores. Does that sound right? Based on what I've read on this forum, people with single 5870's push the same thing. So, in theory, I should be pushing at least 650 and at most 800. I'm running one of your recommended settings -v 19 -w 192 after hours of fishing for the sweet spot. I made a post in the newbie section, http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18632.0, because I was unable to post here. There's more info on the way I have things set up, in that thread. Another question I have is, is it safe to assume that your program reporting accept: 0 reject: 0 hw error: 0 is normal on solo mining? I'm guessing that it wont start processing a block until it finds one, so those numbers will remain at zero, right? I know, I'm a nub, but, you gotta crawl before you walk, lol.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 03:20:57 PM
 #724

I'm pushing ~450mh/s on 2 6850's oc'd to 875 on the cores. Does that sound right? Based on what I've read on this forum, people with single 5870's push the same thing. So, in theory, I should be pushing at least 650 and at most 800. I'm running one of your recommended settings -v 19 -w 192 after hours of fishing for the sweet spot. I made a post in the newbie section, http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18632.0, because I was unable to post here. There's more info on the way I have things set up, in that thread. Another question I have is, is it safe to assume that your program reporting accept: 0 reject: 0 hw error: 0 is normal on solo mining? I'm guessing that it wont start processing a block until it finds one, so those numbers will remain at zero, right? I know, I'm a nub, but, you gotta crawl before you walk, lol.

My math gives about 469 combined for two 6850s if you can find the right settings, but its more likely to be in the 450s because you're on SDK 2.4. A 6870 is about as fast as a 5850 at their respective stock clocks, a 6850 is about 1/3rd slower than a 6870 at their respective stock clocks, and a 5850 is about 1/4th slower than a 5870.

So 450s for two overclocked 6850s is in the right ballpark if a overclocked 5870 is doing 450.

freeman725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 03:48:32 PM
 #725

My math gives about 469 combined for two 6850s if you can find the right settings, but its more likely to be in the 450s because you're on SDK 2.4. A 6870 is about as fast as a 5850 at their respective stock clocks, a 6850 is about 1/3rd slower than a 6870 at their respective stock clocks, and a 5850 is about 1/4th slower than a 5870.

So 450s for two overclocked 6850s is in the right ballpark if a overclocked 5870 is doing 450.

Thanks for the info man. I needed some closure lol. I think my main problem is the power supply in my computer under volting causing fluctuation performance (600w coolermaster). I'm going to try unplugging my 2 dvd burners and my second hdd to see what happens. So do you recommend reverting to an earlier revision of sdk?
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 05:07:19 PM
 #726

My math gives about 469 combined for two 6850s if you can find the right settings, but its more likely to be in the 450s because you're on SDK 2.4. A 6870 is about as fast as a 5850 at their respective stock clocks, a 6850 is about 1/3rd slower than a 6870 at their respective stock clocks, and a 5850 is about 1/4th slower than a 5870.

So 450s for two overclocked 6850s is in the right ballpark if a overclocked 5870 is doing 450.

Thanks for the info man. I needed some closure lol. I think my main problem is the power supply in my computer under volting causing fluctuation performance (600w coolermaster). I'm going to try unplugging my 2 dvd burners and my second hdd to see what happens. So do you recommend reverting to an earlier revision of sdk?

BTW, yes, 0 accepts and 0 rejects are valid for solo mining. At the current difficulty it will take you about 14 weeks on average to find a block, which then accepts will turn to 1.

Disconnect your crossfire cable if you have crossfire disabled. If you're solo mining, the only thing you need to give to DiabloMiner is -u and -p, -o and -r are already set correctly by default for local solo mining.

From your description in the other thread, it almost sounds like its failing to connect to Bitcoin (which eventually will timeout) during startup.

Also, are you using a dummy plug on your second GPU? With crossfire off, Windows turns cards off, even if they're in use, when there is no monitor plugged in.

freeman725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
 #727

BTW, yes, 0 accepts and 0 rejects are valid for solo mining. At the current difficulty it will take you about 14 weeks on average to find a block, which then accepts will turn to 1.

Disconnect your crossfire cable if you have crossfire disabled. If you're solo mining, the only thing you need to give to DiabloMiner is -u and -p, -o and -r are already set correctly by default for local solo mining.

From your description in the other thread, it almost sounds like its failing to connect to Bitcoin (which eventually will timeout) during startup.

Also, are you using a dummy plug on your second GPU? With crossfire off, Windows turns cards off, even if they're in use, when there is no monitor plugged in.

I got the bitcoin client working. It's at 48 connections and your miner is hashing. That's about all I know what to look for to be able to tell if it's working. The command I use to connect is diablominer-windows.exe -u XXXX -p XXXX -v 19 -w 192.

I have a monitor hooked up to the second card. As I said in the other thread, if I disconnect the crossfire cable I get bad core usage fluctuations according to msi afterburner. It's more stable with it connected. Crossfire is disabled in catalyst control center as well. All along I've had full load on both cards, other than fluctuations. Do I need a dummy plug? To my understanding a dummy plug is only used if you don't have a monitor hooked up. I can view the desktop on my 2nd monitor as well. Thanks again for all the help.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2011, 09:29:29 PM
 #728

BTW, yes, 0 accepts and 0 rejects are valid for solo mining. At the current difficulty it will take you about 14 weeks on average to find a block, which then accepts will turn to 1.

Disconnect your crossfire cable if you have crossfire disabled. If you're solo mining, the only thing you need to give to DiabloMiner is -u and -p, -o and -r are already set correctly by default for local solo mining.

From your description in the other thread, it almost sounds like its failing to connect to Bitcoin (which eventually will timeout) during startup.

Also, are you using a dummy plug on your second GPU? With crossfire off, Windows turns cards off, even if they're in use, when there is no monitor plugged in.

I got the bitcoin client working. It's at 48 connections and your miner is hashing. That's about all I know what to look for to be able to tell if it's working. The command I use to connect is diablominer-windows.exe -u XXXX -p XXXX -v 19 -w 192.

I have a monitor hooked up to the second card. As I said in the other thread, if I disconnect the crossfire cable I get bad core usage fluctuations according to msi afterburner. It's more stable with it connected. Crossfire is disabled in catalyst control center as well. All along I've had full load on both cards, other than fluctuations. Do I need a dummy plug? To my understanding a dummy plug is only used if you don't have a monitor hooked up. I can view the desktop on my 2nd monitor as well. Thanks again for all the help.

If you have a monitor always plugged into the second card as well, you don't need a dummy plug.

freeman725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 19, 2011, 02:29:12 AM
 #729

If you have a monitor always plugged into the second card as well, you don't need a dummy plug.

Updated to cat 11.6 and had to change some settings around. Seems that optimum now for my cards is -v 18 -w 128 and I'm still getting ~450Mh/s with both cores oc'd to 875MHz (stock 775), memory at 500MHz. Temps are at 60c on both cards with the side of the case off and a house fan blowing into the case. I had to move the bottom card down to the lower pci-e x8 slot (no performance loss) to achieve this. Top card was running at about 80c when they were close. I guess that's about all I'm going to get. I noticed no difference in performance with the crossfire cable off or on, but, it's off because that's what you recommend. Seems that my usage fluctuation problems have been taken care of after I unplugged all the unnecessary components (pc was originally designed for gaming). Both cards have been pegged at full load for over two hours now. So I think I'm ready to let her sit and look for a while. Again, thanks for the great miner and all the help, diabloD3.

dominatro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15


View Profile
June 19, 2011, 01:56:46 PM
 #730

Regardless of the pool I use, the rejects group together usually 2-20. Is there a reason for this and is it usual?

On the new version of diablominer, speeds decrease with hardware errors and the pool reports those speeds. But on the old version it gave much higher speeds and the pool reported those higher speeds. I have tested this. How can this be fixed for the newer version?

(I know i asked this before, but i got no answer specific to grouped rejects and there is a 25%+ speed difference between versions that is not just on my end, I have experimented with -v and -w to no major difference in the long run)
freeman725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 19, 2011, 02:14:31 PM
 #731

You probably need to experiment with -v and -w commands to find out what works best with your setup.
dominatro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 08:46:05 AM
 #732

I just tried the newest build, and somehow the hardware errors are around 180 instead of 180000 and speeds are as good as the old version. Whatever you did worked, thanks.

I was using the -g option with various values but I find it increases rejects and for some reason -f1 decreases the speed even though its supposed to increase it for my system.

Are the grouped rejects related to a pool specific protocol like longpoll, is that what you meant?

I have more testing and pool hopping to do later, but for now I am happy with this miner again.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2011, 01:03:49 PM
 #733

I just tried the newest build, and somehow the hardware errors are around 180 instead of 180000 and speeds are as good as the old version. Whatever you did worked, thanks.

I was using the -g option with various values but I find it increases rejects and for some reason -f1 decreases the speed even though its supposed to increase it for my system.

Are the grouped rejects related to a pool specific protocol like longpoll, is that what you meant?

I have more testing and pool hopping to do later, but for now I am happy with this miner again.

I seem to have fixed the problems with nvidia hw errors, but not the extreme minority of AMD users that get it (which I still believe is a very obscure driver bug).

-g is ignored when using LP.

Grouped rejects happen on all pools no matter if they use LP or not because the client runs multiple getworks in parallel, if the pool hiccups it will hit all of them at once.

twmz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 737



View Profile
June 21, 2011, 11:20:14 AM
 #734

I had a problem overnight with DiabloMiner and I'm not sure if this is a known problem (couldn't find anything in a quick search).

I have two 5970s (four total GPU cores) and overnight, one of the cores went idle with DiabloMiner. I noticed long enough after it happened that any error messages were not in my scrollback buffer anymore, so I don't know what happened.

Is this a normal problem?  Restarting DiabloMiner fixed it, but I am worried that this wasn't a one time issue. 

I really hope to find a solution for this one because it is really slick to only have to run one instance of DiabloMiner vs multiple instances of phoenix/poclbm.

Was I helpful?  1TwmzX1wBxNF2qtAJRhdKmi2WyLZ5VHRs
WoT, GPG

Bitrated user: ewal.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2011, 12:49:44 PM
 #735

I had a problem overnight with DiabloMiner and I'm not sure if this is a known problem (couldn't find anything in a quick search).

I have two 5970s (four total GPU cores) and overnight, one of the cores went idle with DiabloMiner. I noticed long enough after it happened that any error messages were not in my scrollback buffer anymore, so I don't know what happened.

Is this a normal problem?  Restarting DiabloMiner fixed it, but I am worried that this wasn't a one time issue. 

I really hope to find a solution for this one because it is really slick to only have to run one instance of DiabloMiner vs multiple instances of phoenix/poclbm.

Assuming that your GPUs are not overheating (keep them 85c or below) and the VRMs are not overheating (which can happen with poor airflow, even at low GPU temps), then you're looking at a driver bug.

Sadly, the driver bug would even happen if you ran pheonix/poclbm. Some people work around it by running twice as many miners at once, because it doesn't freeze both of them. Its a bad hack, but it'll work until AMD fixes their shit.

twmz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 737



View Profile
June 21, 2011, 12:56:38 PM
 #736

I had a problem overnight with DiabloMiner and I'm not sure if this is a known problem (couldn't find anything in a quick search).

I have two 5970s (four total GPU cores) and overnight, one of the cores went idle with DiabloMiner. I noticed long enough after it happened that any error messages were not in my scrollback buffer anymore, so I don't know what happened.

Is this a normal problem?  Restarting DiabloMiner fixed it, but I am worried that this wasn't a one time issue. 

I really hope to find a solution for this one because it is really slick to only have to run one instance of DiabloMiner vs multiple instances of phoenix/poclbm.

Assuming that your GPUs are not overheating (keep them 85c or below) and the VRMs are not overheating (which can happen with poor airflow, even at low GPU temps), then you're looking at a driver bug.

Sadly, the driver bug would even happen if you ran pheonix/poclbm. Some people work around it by running twice as many miners at once, because it doesn't freeze both of them. Its a bad hack, but it'll work until AMD fixes their shit.

Temps on the cards are all around 70c.  Not sure how to check the VRMs, but the rig is a caseless rig with several large fans pointing at it.

I'll let it run for another day and see if it recurs.  Note, I switched to DiabloMiner yesterday because of the elegant simplicity of running a single miner that handled all the GPUs and because your miner handled network problems better.  That said, I had been running poclbm and phoenix for more than a month without any problems like this.  Hopefully it is rare.

To your last point, so it's reasonable to run two instances of DiabloMiner at the same time?  I am used to having to do that with phoenix and poclbm to work around their poor handling of network problems and slow-to-response getwork requests.  I suppose I could even setup some cron jobs to restart each instance periodically to make sure that if one of them gets in a bad state, it gets fixed hopefully before the second one gets in a bad state.

I suppose I could also try the newest AMD driver (I am still on 11.5).

Was I helpful?  1TwmzX1wBxNF2qtAJRhdKmi2WyLZ5VHRs
WoT, GPG

Bitrated user: ewal.
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
 #737

I had a problem overnight with DiabloMiner and I'm not sure if this is a known problem (couldn't find anything in a quick search).

I have two 5970s (four total GPU cores) and overnight, one of the cores went idle with DiabloMiner. I noticed long enough after it happened that any error messages were not in my scrollback buffer anymore, so I don't know what happened.

Is this a normal problem?  Restarting DiabloMiner fixed it, but I am worried that this wasn't a one time issue. 

I really hope to find a solution for this one because it is really slick to only have to run one instance of DiabloMiner vs multiple instances of phoenix/poclbm.

Assuming that your GPUs are not overheating (keep them 85c or below) and the VRMs are not overheating (which can happen with poor airflow, even at low GPU temps), then you're looking at a driver bug.

Sadly, the driver bug would even happen if you ran pheonix/poclbm. Some people work around it by running twice as many miners at once, because it doesn't freeze both of them. Its a bad hack, but it'll work until AMD fixes their shit.

Temps on the cards are all around 70c.  Not sure how to check the VRMs, but the rig is a caseless rig with several large fans pointing at it.

I'll let it run for another day and see if it recurs.  Note, I switched to DiabloMiner yesterday because of the elegant simplicity of running a single miner that handled all the GPUs and because your miner handled network problems better.  That said, I had been running poclbm and phoenix for more than a month without any problems like this.  Hopefully it is rare.

To your last point, so it's reasonable to run two instances of DiabloMiner at the same time?  I am used to having to do that with phoenix and poclbm to work around their poor handling of network problems and slow-to-response getwork requests.  I suppose I could even setup some cron jobs to restart each instance periodically to make sure that if one of them gets in a bad state, it gets fixed hopefully before the second one gets in a bad state.

I suppose I could also try the newest AMD driver (I am still on 11.5).

You can't check VRM temps on Linux, but if you're only at 70c, I doubt this is the problem.

I've seen phoenix and poclbm users report the infamous bug. I originally thought it was limited to just multi-GPU users, but single GPU users get it as well.

DiabloMiner's networking code never gives up. Which is great for Eligius users because the pool chokes frequently and shares fail to get delivered.

I'm not aware of 11.6 fixing this, but you can always try.

carlo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 11:34:33 PM
 #738

Hello,

first thanks for your great Miner and thanks to all who help with those projects.

There is a little problem, sometimes the miner runs in an endless loop:
Code:
ERROR: Cannot connect to Bitcoin: Bitcoin returned error message: <?xml version="1.0" encoding

There is no way that it stops.

If i stop the miner from requesting work, wait some second than restart it, everytihing is fine.
Maybe there is a parameter that i dont see to tell the miner just wait 10 seconds if this happens and than start asking for work again.

cheers
carlo
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2011, 11:48:21 PM
 #739

Hello,

first thanks for your great Miner and thanks to all who help with those projects.

There is a little problem, sometimes the miner runs in an endless loop:
Code:
ERROR: Cannot connect to Bitcoin: Bitcoin returned error message: <?xml version="1.0" encoding

There is no way that it stops.

If i stop the miner from requesting work, wait some second than restart it, everytihing is fine.
Maybe there is a parameter that i dont see to tell the miner just wait 10 seconds if this happens and than start asking for work again.

cheers
carlo

I wish I knew what the rest of that is. What are you connecting it to?

carlo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 11:56:22 PM
 #740

ups sorry, im sleepy Smiley

There is no rest ... thats all
I forgot to tell you that i connect to proxy ( http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5506 ) and than to slush, deepbit or btcguild.

Im just wondering that it runs about 30h-40h very smoth and than i have this endless loop ... stoping ... waiting 5 seconds .... restart and every thing is smoth for the next day Smiley

Thanks for your time and support.

cheers


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 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 ... 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!