[OS] nvOC easy-to-use Linux Nvidia Mining

[fk1]

Hi! I am currently using nvOC 1.3 and nicehash salfter script sich is great. I also use telegram and sometimes I see two telegram messages that utilizations i 0 and another one two mins later with utilization 100%. I guess the rig is restarting but i am not sure why. Is there any logfile you can suggest me to take a look at? tyvm

e: found 5_restartlog but its empty

[1714298926]

1714298926

[1714298926]

1714298926

[1714298926]

1714298926

[1714298926]

1714298926

[1714298926]

1714298926

[papampi]

Hi! I am currently using nvOC 1.3 and nicehash salfter script sich is great. I also use telegram and sometimes I see two telegram messages that utilizations i 0 and another one two mins later with utilization 100%. I guess the rig is restarting but i am not sure why. Is there any logfile you can suggest me to take a look at? tyvm

e: found 5_restartlog but its empty

check this in 1bash

Code:

CLEAR_LOGS_ON_BOOT="NO"        	# YES NO

[fk1]

tyvm!

[ComputerGenie]

...Been mining ETH and my hasharates have been 30-31 per 1070. I never thought you could have a PL "too low" if it's within the supported wattage of the card. Of course, some GPUs, like the MSI 1070 Gaming X requires minimum 115 watts but some other 1070s can go to as low as 90 so that's why I say average is roughly 100W per card. It's bee stable like this for nearly 2 weeks now so I don't see why it's a big issue if it's stable?

I'll get my "DOH!", for mining ETH with that many NVIDIA cards, out of the way right off the bat.

That being out of the way:

Granted, in the real world, the loss isn't 1:1; however, for ease of math, we'll pretend it is.
If you have a 150 TDP card and you down the output by 30%, then you have taken a 1500W set of cards and lowered them to 1000W. Now you have a 500W reduction in power that is the same as the total amount of power required to power 3.3333 cards at full power (for ease of math we will call this 3 cards). So, you have an effective rate of 7 cards and have 10 cards sitting on the rack. To what end?

Yes, it's at the lower end of stable, but what is the point?

Not counting the 1060s and your other rig(s) that make up your other 8 cards....
Even if my numbers are off by ¹/₂, and we pretend you paid wholesale ($375) prices for those cards, you have $624 worth of cards sitting idle the save $438 per year in consumption while giving up 49% of your potential earnings (by running cards at hashrates of as low as 30 when they can hit as high as 58).

It's something that makes less and less sense the more and more cards you run.

[fullzero]

Been busy lately; l will try to respond to the pm's I haven't gotten to and posts in the thread either tonight or tomorrow.

I will explain how the execution logic works in nvOC.

There are some problems with the newest Nvidia driver; so I will roll it back for the next update. 

[gs777]

I installed nvoc 19 1.4 it works fine except - auto temp control
I'm constantly getting this message -

sudo: unable to resolve host 19_1_4
Power limit for GPU 00000000:0E:00.0 was set to 150.00 W from 150.00 W.

Warning: persistence mode is disabled on this device. This settings will go back to default as soon as driver unloads (e.g. last application like nvidia-smi or cuda application terminates). Run with [--help | -h] switch to get more information on how to enable persistence mode.

All done.
GPU 12, Target temp: 70, Current: 58, Diff: 12, Fan: 30, Power: 50

I've setup PL to 150W but somehow it shows Power 50
Can you help me please?
 

[WaveFront]

Let's suppose that I have several rigs running nvOC behind a router with one public IP and a NAT server (the rigs have static private IPs).
I would like to SSH on the rigs individually from a remote location from a different IP address.

I was thinking about setting SSH on a different port on each rig, for example:
rig1 SSH on port 1024
rig2 SSH on port 1025
rig3 SSH on port 1026
And so on...

On the router I would setup virtual servers to redirect traffic on port 1024 to rig 1, 1025 to rig 2 and so on

Do you think it's a good idea or are there better ways to do this?

[Temporel]

Let's suppose that I have several rigs running nvOC behind a router with one public IP and a NAT server (the rigs have static private IPs).
I would like to SSH on the rigs individually from a remote location from a different IP address.

I was thinking about setting SSH on a different port on each rig, for example:
rig1 SSH on port 1024
rig2 SSH on port 1025
rig3 SSH on port 1026
And so on...

On the router I would setup virtual servers to redirect traffic on port 1024 to rig 1, 1025 to rig 2 and so on

Do you think it's a good idea or are there better ways to do this?

just redirect a different port for each rig so when you connect:

XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10001 for rig1 redirect to 192.168.1.11 port 22 for rig1
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10002 for rig2 redirect to 192.168.1.12 port 22 for rig2
etc...

If you are sing putty, just create a new shortcut with -P 1000x for each rig

[papampi]

I installed nvoc 19 1.4 it works fine except - auto temp control
I'm constantly getting this message -

sudo: unable to resolve host 19_1_4
Power limit for GPU 00000000:0E:00.0 was set to 150.00 W from 150.00 W.

Warning: persistence mode is disabled on this device. This settings will go back to default as soon as driver unloads (e.g. last application like nvidia-smi or cuda application terminates). Run with [--help | -h] switch to get more information on how to enable persistence mode.

All done.
GPU 12, Target temp: 70, Current: 58, Diff: 12, Fan: 30, Power: 50

I've setup PL to 150W but somehow it shows Power 50
Can you help me please?
 

Open Maxximus007_AUTO_TEMPERATURE_CONTROL

find this line :

Code:

POWERLIMIT=$(echo -n $PWRLIMIT | tail -c -5 | head -c -3 )

and change it with :

Code:

POWERLIMIT=$(echo -n $PWRLIMIT | tail -c -6 | head -c -3 )

You can also edit your host name with

Code:

sudo nano /etc/hosts
sudo nano /etc/hostname

[azertyuiopvnx]

Let's suppose that I have several rigs running nvOC behind a router with one public IP and a NAT server (the rigs have static private IPs).
I would like to SSH on the rigs individually from a remote location from a different IP address.

I was thinking about setting SSH on a different port on each rig, for example:
rig1 SSH on port 1024
rig2 SSH on port 1025
rig3 SSH on port 1026
And so on...

On the router I would setup virtual servers to redirect traffic on port 1024 to rig 1, 1025 to rig 2 and so on

Do you think it's a good idea or are there better ways to do this?

just redirect a different port for each rig so when you connect:

XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10001 for rig1 redirect to 192.168.1.11 port 22 for rig1
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10002 for rig2 redirect to 192.168.1.12 port 22 for rig2
etc...

If you are sing putty, just create a new shortcut with -P 1000x for each rig

I did the same and it works great

[Stubo]

I installed nvoc 19 1.4 it works fine except - auto temp control
I'm constantly getting this message -

sudo: unable to resolve host 19_1_4
Power limit for GPU 00000000:0E:00.0 was set to 150.00 W from 150.00 W.

Warning: persistence mode is disabled on this device. This settings will go back to default as soon as driver unloads (e.g. last application like nvidia-smi or cuda application terminates). Run with [--help | -h] switch to get more information on how to enable persistence mode.

All done.
GPU 12, Target temp: 70, Current: 58, Diff: 12, Fan: 30, Power: 50

I've setup PL to 150W but somehow it shows Power 50
Can you help me please?
 

I don't know if this will totally fix the issue but the sudo error re: host resolution can be corrected by fixing the hostname. In 19-1.4, there is an issue in that the hostname in /etc/hosts and /etc/hostname do not match. IIRC, /etc/hostname has 19_1_4 and /etc/hosts has m1-desktop. Edit one or the other or both and make them match. If you edit /etc/hostname, you will have to reboot.

Hope this helps.

[JayneL]

Been busy lately; l will try to respond to the pm's I haven't gotten to and posts in the thread either tonight or tomorrow.

I will explain how the execution logic works in nvOC.

There are some problems with the newest Nvidia driver; so I will roll it back for the next update. 

Hi my idol, if you have time can you help me how to add more algo on nicehash auto switch, i just want to add Cryptonight on it, but i encounter errors when i try to add it on the code on the 3main together with other algo. thanks more power

[codereddew12]

...Been mining ETH and my hasharates have been 30-31 per 1070. I never thought you could have a PL "too low" if it's within the supported wattage of the card. Of course, some GPUs, like the MSI 1070 Gaming X requires minimum 115 watts but some other 1070s can go to as low as 90 so that's why I say average is roughly 100W per card. It's bee stable like this for nearly 2 weeks now so I don't see why it's a big issue if it's stable?

I'll get my "DOH!", for mining ETH with that many NVIDIA cards, out of the way right off the bat.

That being out of the way:

Granted, in the real world, the loss isn't 1:1; however, for ease of math, we'll pretend it is.
If you have a 150 TDP card and you down the output by 30%, then you have taken a 1500W set of cards and lowered them to 1000W. Now you have a 500W reduction in power that is the same as the total amount of power required to power 3.3333 cards at full power (for ease of math we will call this 3 cards). So, you have an effective rate of 7 cards and have 10 cards sitting on the rack. To what end?

Yes, it's at the lower end of stable, but what is the point?

Not counting the 1060s and your other rig(s) that make up your other 8 cards....
Even if my numbers are off by ¹/₂, and we pretend you paid wholesale ($375) prices for those cards, you have $624 worth of cards sitting idle the save $438 per year in consumption while giving up 49% of your potential earnings (by running cards at hashrates of as low as 30 when they can hit as high as 58).

It's something that makes less and less sense the more and more cards you run.

Since when can a 1070 hit 58mh/s?

[ComputerGenie]

Since when can a 1070 hit 58mh/s?

I don't do ETH (nor do I understand doing it with NV cards), but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdeA7s9SmRY

[WaveFront]

Let's suppose that I have several rigs running nvOC behind a router with one public IP and a NAT server (the rigs have static private IPs).
I would like to SSH on the rigs individually from a remote location from a different IP address.

I was thinking about setting SSH on a different port on each rig, for example:
rig1 SSH on port 1024
rig2 SSH on port 1025
rig3 SSH on port 1026
And so on...

On the router I would setup virtual servers to redirect traffic on port 1024 to rig 1, 1025 to rig 2 and so on

Do you think it's a good idea or are there better ways to do this?

just redirect a different port for each rig so when you connect:

XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10001 for rig1 redirect to 192.168.1.11 port 22 for rig1
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 10002 for rig2 redirect to 192.168.1.12 port 22 for rig2
etc...

If you are sing putty, just create a new shortcut with -P 1000x for each rig

Yes of course :-), no need to put SSH on a different port.
Thanks Temporel

[codereddew12]

Since when can a 1070 hit 58mh/s?

I don't do ETH (nor do I understand doing it with NV cards), but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdeA7s9SmRY

That's not real. It's supposedly a mod use to modify the REPORTED hashrate to make it appear higher than what the EFFECTIVE actually is. The video you linked is all a scam for $400+

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2145776.0

So now, back to your question, why is it detrimental to mine at 30% less power when the effective hashrate is the same as it would be on 100% power? And I mine ETH on NV cards because 1) it's more efficient. You are getting 30Mh/s on 100-110W with NV vs. 29-31Mh/s whatever the wattage is for the rx 470/480/580s which I believe was around 130s-140s when I looked into it a while ago. On top of that, you don't have to go through all of the BIOS mods with NV as you would for the Rx cards and risk the chance of bricking.

[leenoox]

...Been mining ETH and my hasharates have been 30-31 per 1070. I never thought you could have a PL "too low" if it's within the supported wattage of the card. Of course, some GPUs, like the MSI 1070 Gaming X requires minimum 115 watts but some other 1070s can go to as low as 90 so that's why I say average is roughly 100W per card. It's bee stable like this for nearly 2 weeks now so I don't see why it's a big issue if it's stable?

I'll get my "DOH!", for mining ETH with that many NVIDIA cards, out of the way right off the bat.

That being out of the way:

Granted, in the real world, the loss isn't 1:1; however, for ease of math, we'll pretend it is.
If you have a 150 TDP card and you down the output by 30%, then you have taken a 1500W set of cards and lowered them to 1000W. Now you have a 500W reduction in power that is the same as the total amount of power required to power 3.3333 cards at full power (for ease of math we will call this 3 cards). So, you have an effective rate of 7 cards and have 10 cards sitting on the rack. To what end?

Yes, it's at the lower end of stable, but what is the point?

Not counting the 1060s and your other rig(s) that make up your other 8 cards....
Even if my numbers are off by ¹/₂, and we pretend you paid wholesale ($375) prices for those cards, you have $624 worth of cards sitting idle the save $438 per year in consumption while giving up 49% of your potential earnings (by running cards at hashrates of as low as 30 when they can hit as high as 58).

It's something that makes less and less sense the more and more cards you run.

Your math doesn't make sence in real world. Either he run his 1070 at 100 or 150 wats PL, the hashrate for ETH will not increase, it will remain at 30-31 MH/s. So he is effectivly saving 50 watts per card while getting the same hashrate, what's wrong with that?

[ComputerGenie]

Your math doesn't make sence in real world. Either he run his 1070 at 100 or 150 wats PL, the hashrate for ETH will not increase, it will remain at 30-31 MH/s. So he is effectivly saving 50 watts per card while getting the same hashrate, what's wrong with that?

There is exactly 0 chance that you can cut the power consumption of any electronic component and receive the exact same output. If you could, Bitmain would already have an S11 on the shelves that uses 1 watt. If my math fails to make sense to you, it's likely because you don't even math, bro.

[leenoox]

Your math doesn't make sence in real world. Either he run his 1070 at 100 or 150 wats PL, the hashrate for ETH will not increase, it will remain at 30-31 MH/s. So he is effectivly saving 50 watts per card while getting the same hashrate, what's wrong with that?

There is exactly 0 chance that you can cut the power consumption of any electronic component and receive the exact same output. If you could, Bitmain would already have an S11 on the shelves that uses 1 watt. If my math fails to make sense to you, it's likely because you don't even math, bro.

Which part of my post you didn't understand? Which part of other people posts responding to you, you didn't understand?
Just because the card can run at 150 watts (that is when running 3d intensive calculations, eg. playing games) doesn't mean that ethash algo requires the card to run at full power to  achieve max hashrate. You better get your facts straight before resorting to insults!
Ethash doesn't require GPU core to run at max power, it is barely even using it... ethash is memory intensive algo and it is pushing mem to its limits but not the core, hence the low PL is possible without affecting the hashrate. Once again, why waste more power if there is no gain?

[kk003]

Your math doesn't make sence in real world. Either he run his 1070 at 100 or 150 wats PL, the hashrate for ETH will not increase, it will remain at 30-31 MH/s. So he is effectivly saving 50 watts per card while getting the same hashrate, what's wrong with that?

There is exactly 0 chance that you can cut the power consumption of any electronic component and receive the exact same output. If you could, Bitmain would already have an S11 on the shelves that uses 1 watt. If my math fails to make sense to you, it's likely because you don't even math, bro.

My 1060 gpus gives practically the same hash mining etc at 75 ~ 100+ (around 24Mh/s).
The only reason I have a 13 gpu 1060 rig with a PL of 95 is because reduces the cpu load average.