|
someone703
|
 |
March 02, 2012, 11:47:56 PM |
|
So before I start going through every page of this 70 page thread...
Are there flags or a way to set core/mem clocks, voltage, and fan speeds with Diablominer?
Wanted to try it out with the -f flags to mine while gaming but didn't see any mention of these sorts of options so far in Diablominer the way CGMiner does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 03, 2012, 01:37:12 AM |
|
So before I start going through every page of this 70 page thread...
Are there flags or a way to set core/mem clocks, voltage, and fan speeds with Diablominer?
Wanted to try it out with the -f flags to mine while gaming but didn't see any mention of these sorts of options so far in Diablominer the way CGMiner does.
Nope, DM can't control those yet. |
|
|
|
|
someone703
|
|
March 03, 2012, 03:28:23 AM |
|
I see, thanks as always for the responses DiabloD3.
Do you know if there are plans to put those kinds of controls into DM at some point?
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 03, 2012, 11:57:44 AM |
|
I see, thanks as always for the responses DiabloD3.
Do you know if there are plans to put those kinds of controls into DM at some point?
Possibly. I'm considering the idea of rewriting the entire thing in C, which makes doing what cgminer does with ADL very easy. |
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 05, 2012, 09:47:49 PM |
|
Sorry to cross post this, but I just realized you guys may be able to help better with my problem. I'm trying to get my 7970 hashing in P2Pool, but I can't seem to get it configured correctly with diablominer. It works fine with cgminer, but I get better hashrates with diablo.  Anyone got this combo (diablominer+P2Pool) working? I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine. Is there a log file or something I can post that will help track down the issue? I followed the setup instructions in the first few posts of the P2Pool thread, but they don't seem to address diablo specifically, and I think I'm just missing some minor (but important) bit of string to get it hashing. Any help appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 06, 2012, 01:55:26 AM |
|
Sorry to cross post this, but I just realized you guys may be able to help better with my problem. I'm trying to get my 7970 hashing in P2Pool, but I can't seem to get it configured correctly with diablominer. It works fine with cgminer, but I get better hashrates with diablo. Anyone got this combo (diablominer+P2Pool) working? I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine. Is there a log file or something I can post that will help track down the issue? I followed the setup instructions in the first few posts of the P2Pool thread, but they don't seem to address diablo specifically, and I think I'm just missing some minor (but important) bit of string to get it hashing. Any help appreciated. I use P2Pool, but it works fine here. What arguments are you using? Because it should be -o localhost -r 9932, no -u or -p required |
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 06, 2012, 04:08:27 AM |
|
I use P2Pool, but it works fine here. What arguments are you using? Because it should be -o localhost -r 9932, no -u or -p required
Really? The guide I read said I had to put in a user and pwd, and tie it to the bitcoin.conf file. I'll try it without extra tags and see if that works better. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 06, 2012, 08:12:40 AM |
|
I use P2Pool, but it works fine here. What arguments are you using? Because it should be -o localhost -r 9932, no -u or -p required
Really? The guide I read said I had to put in a user and pwd, and tie it to the bitcoin.conf file. I'll try it without extra tags and see if that works better. Thanks! You only need a -u -p and edit bitcoin.conf if you intend to solo mine. |
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 06, 2012, 08:34:23 AM |
|
Dear OSX users:
Apparently OSX not only requires -w 64 to work, but it also requires -na to work as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 06, 2012, 02:40:47 PM |
|
You only need a -u -p and edit bitcoin.conf if you intend to solo mine.
Aha! I new it was something simple, just could put my finger on it. I used the flags you suggested, and it works great. FYI, the port is 9333, not 9933. I'm now hashing in P2Pool. So far, my payout seems really weak, but I know P2P works a little differently than most pools, with higher personal difficulty and such. I'll give it a couple days, then go back to Eclipse if it doesn't start paying similarly. I was getting about 0.3-0.4 BTC per 24 hr on Eclipse, so we'll see.... Thanks for your help and the awesome miner! |
|
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 06, 2012, 02:41:57 PM |
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
|
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 06, 2012, 06:41:43 PM |
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
It exists just because some really are faster. If its not for you, just choose the largest (which is 256 on any AMD hardware). |
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 06, 2012, 06:59:05 PM |
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
It exists just because some really are faster. If its not for you, just choose the largest (which is 256 on any AMD hardware). That's what I was wondering, is there any reason to use a larger or smaller work size, apart from any speed differences? For example, does a small work size reduce the risk of stales? Does a larger work size use less wattage? I don't think it has anything to do with either of those things, that was just an example of the type of difference it might make. Why do I feel like I'm not asking this right....? I guess I'm asking if, apart from hashing speed, work size has any effect on any other part of the total process? |
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 06, 2012, 07:58:50 PM |
|
On another note, is there any benefit to one work size over another, if the hashrate is the same?
I can run -w 256 or -w 128, and get ~705Mh/s either way. Is there any reason to keep experimenting?
It exists just because some really are faster. If its not for you, just choose the largest (which is 256 on any AMD hardware). That's what I was wondering, is there any reason to use a larger or smaller work size, apart from any speed differences? For example, does a small work size reduce the risk of stales? Does a larger work size use less wattage? I don't think it has anything to do with either of those things, that was just an example of the type of difference it might make. Why do I feel like I'm not asking this right....? I guess I'm asking if, apart from hashing speed, work size has any effect on any other part of the total process? It doesn't change anything outwards. The hardware itself has optimum ways of using work, and even though 4 wavefronts (64*4 = -w 256) is supposed to be always optimum if you have enough registers (at -v 2, we do, higher -vs, not so much although -v 2,1 fits on vliw5 hardware (but not vliw4)). Its just that for some reason some people are faster on -w 128, and they shouldn't be. They just are. Might as well abuse it while you can. |
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 06, 2012, 08:03:15 PM |
|
Great, thanks for the clarification!
I'll just leave it on 128 until I see a reason to change then.
|
|
|
|
|
singular
Member
Offline
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
|
March 07, 2012, 11:29:18 PM |
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
|
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 07, 2012, 11:34:55 PM |
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
Forgot to turn -na off? |
|
|
|
singular
Member
Offline
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
|
March 07, 2012, 11:36:44 PM |
|
nope.. :/
edit: now i also get same low mh/s on older diablominer which before gave me 1250..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elmojo
|
|
March 07, 2012, 11:58:44 PM |
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
I'd also be concerned about why you were only getting ~625 per card before. I was getting 675-ish, even before I installed my water block. Sounds like there may be other issues at work... |
|
|
|
|
DiabloD3 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
DiabloMiner author
|
|
March 08, 2012, 12:36:17 AM |
|
Installed catalyst 12.2 and new diablominer and now i get 840MH/s on 2x 7970 instead of 1250 MH/s.. wtf?
I'd also be concerned about why you were only getting ~625 per card before. I was getting 675-ish, even before I installed my water block. Sounds like there may be other issues at work... Well, from what I've heard, on 12.2, people get about 560 at stock clocks. Has this changed? |
|
|
|
|
