[ANN] dstm's ZCash / Equihash Nvidia Miner v0.6.2 (Linux / Windows)

[blackjec]

claymore / ethdcrminer64  sorted by physically bus-ID.  nvidia-settings  sorted by physically bus-ID

It's right way, but is exception, not rule =)

P.S. if I remember correctly - nvidia-settings under Windows (nvcplui.exe) sorted by name.
Under linux - as defined in sections "Device" in /etc/X11/xorg.conf, but I not sure. I check it later.

[1714661973]

1714661973

[1714661973]

1714661973

[1714661973]

1714661973

[hogwash.89m]

After adding 1080ti this miner is constantly crashing after some short time (10-30 minutes).
Tried without OC, stock settings even lower power limit with no OC, it's allwats crashed.

Other miners works perfectly, even Bminer works 24/7 without single problem (with average OC).

Previously when I had just 5x 1080 it works OK, but after swapping one with 1080ti I can't use this miner.
Power supply is rock solid and have enough room left (loaded on 60% capacity), mining rig sistem is stable 100%

OS: Windows Server 2016 Standard (v 1607)
Driver Version: 397.64

Here are the clocks:
1080ti
https://i.imgur.com/e0zKzYe.png
1080
https://i.imgur.com/ZitgUgV.png

Event Viewer:

Code:

Event 1000, Application Error
Faulting application name: zm.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x00000000
Faulting module name: zm.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x00000000
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x000000000008fe12
Faulting process id: 0x77c
Faulting application start time: 0x01d3f47d2c462088
Faulting application path: C:\!Miners\zm_0.6.1_win\zm.exe
Faulting module path: C:\!Miners\zm_0.6.1_win\zm.exe
Report Id: f962065c-be3a-4153-aa85-df417e9e33bd
Faulting package full name: 
Faulting package-relative application ID: 

Code:

Event 1001, Windows Error Reporting

Fault bucket 1718476532690713038, type 4
Event Name: APPCRASH
Response: Not available
Cab Id: 0

Problem signature:
P1: zm.exe
P2: 0.0.0.0
P3: 00000000
P4: zm.exe
P5: 0.0.0.0
P6: 00000000
P7: c0000005
P8: 000000000008fe12
P9: 
P10: 

Attached files:
\\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER20CD.tmp.WERInternalMetadata.xml

These files may be available here:
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive\AppCrash_zm.exe_4c86bba33fda172b979fde4c3dad8d2c2d2ff5_237d25c2_061f1a69

Analysis symbol: 
Rechecking for solution: 0
Report Id: f962065c-be3a-4153-aa85-df417e9e33bd
Report Status: 0
Hashed bucket: 11d893f0476cc87e17d9414d35dff9ce

Also error report crash file (hope it can help).
https://mega.nz/#!y9VUwDrI!rleo2LMXiWaawMXqfE9thAIi7b9iHrbqYsltKoi9S4A

[shibob]

Finally we have the power consumption report in new update ver.6.1. I still keep some of my rigs moving on mining ZEc, and let see what happen in the end of June as asics miners Z9 release out. By the way, ver.6.1 constantly crashes on my 1070 rigs even I set them at stock setting, low power limit, but it works fine for 1060 and P106 rigs.

[markgeg]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220 

[blackjec]

claymore / ethdcrminer64  sorted by physically bus-ID.    sorted by physically bus-ID

It's right way, but is exception, not rule =)

P.S. if I remember correctly - nvidia-settings under Windows (nvcplui.exe) sorted by name.
Under linux - as defined in sections "Device" in /etc/X11/xorg.conf, but I not sure. I check it later.

I have checked and confirmed - nvidia-settings show GPU as defined by Identifier "DeviceN" (where N in 0,1,2 and so on) in section "Device".

For example:

Code:

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device0"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 750"
    BusID          "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device1"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 950"
    BusID          "PCI:4:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device2"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 1050Ti"
    BusID          "PCI:5:0:0"
EndSection

show GPU order 750 - 950 - 1050

Code:

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device0"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 750"
    BusID          "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device2"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 950"
    BusID          "PCI:4:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device1"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "GeForce GTX 1050Ti"
    BusID          "PCI:5:0:0"
EndSection

show GPU order 750 - 1050 - 950

[extra_sauce]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

Yeah, I noticed that as well.  I mine at flypool and the shares there track with what I've been used to, but the output shows only single '+' very sporadically.  Not too worried since the shares seem to track on flypool.

[Keko Fdez]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

[jpl]

Was thinking the same here... Yeah, it looks like I'm getting same balance daily.
..
I think this is the site?
https://zcashnetwork.info/blocks

[markgeg]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

[Keko Fdez]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 163 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

[markgeg]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!

[chaostic]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!

The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.

[Keko Fdez]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!

The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.

So for your 14 post I nearly forget you were the real expert in this subject... my payout is exactly the same it hasn’t gone down and I have no need to lie about it. No need to be harsh though calling people noobs or fools when you are no better than anyone here or elsewhere.

So go an learn some manners then come back and try to post something helpful.

[matt16289]

Hi there.
I used version 0.6 for weeks and never had any problems. Today I updated to 0.6.1 and while the performance seems ok (at least at pool side) I have a strange phenomenon:
The miner output only occurs ONCE and then never again (tested on different pools, coins etc.), so my whole output looks like this:

Code:

2018-05-25 12:34:36|#  server set difficulty to: 0.13281225 [003c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3...]
2018-05-25 12:34:56|>  GPU1  74C  53% |  299.7 Sol/s   299.7 Avg   156.5 I/s | 3.37 S/W   93 W | 11.98  100  36 ++++
2018-05-25 12:35:46|#  server set difficulty to: 0.39843674 [0014141414141414141414141414141...]
2018-05-25 12:36:52|#  server set difficulty to: 1.06249797 [0007878787878787878787878787878...]
2018-05-25 12:37:56|#  server set difficulty to: 0.45021101 [0011c4f82b5f6776758143822497ee8...]
2018-05-25 12:39:02|#  server set difficulty to: 0.22510550 [002389f056beceeceb028704492fdd0...]
2018-05-25 12:41:11|#  server set difficulty to: 0.33348963 [0017fd1bd424589e05fd9e5c044476a...]
2018-05-25 12:42:16|#  server set difficulty to: 0.10105746 [004f29a8a25c70263eeeb5f1a022254...]
2018-05-25 12:43:22|#  server set difficulty to: 0.35370113 [00169e302e666749ef9b1d69bf9aac3...]
2018-05-25 12:44:26|#  server set difficulty to: 0.88425282 [00090c1345c30470cc72110a5a62059...]

I'm currently mining with a single 1060 (3GB) under Windows 10. Is there any way to force the miner to output the status line (or manually do so like e.g. pressing "h" in xmrig)? Thanks for your help!



just for comparison: version 0.6 looks like this:

Code:

2018-05-25 13:05:04|#  server set difficulty to: 003c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c...
2018-05-25 13:05:24|>  GPU1  72C  Sol/s: 295.1  Sol/W: 3.29  Avg: 295.1  I/s: 158.7  Sh: 14.88  1.00 53  +++++
2018-05-25 13:05:44|   GPU1  73C  Sol/s: 298.3  Sol/W: 3.29  Avg: 296.7  I/s: 156.8  Sh: 17.94  1.00 39  +++++++
2018-05-25 13:05:57|#  server set difficulty to: 0012ee5c12ece860d8678811...
2018-05-25 13:06:04|>  GPU1  74C  Sol/s: 297.4  Sol/W: 3.28  Avg: 296.9  I/s: 156.8  Sh: 14.93  1.00 48  +++
2018-05-25 13:06:25|   GPU1  75C  Sol/s: 296.5  Sol/W: 3.27  Avg: 296.8  I/s: 156.9  Sh: 14.91  1.00 37  +++++
2018-05-25 13:06:45|   GPU1  76C  Sol/s: 290.6  Sol/W: 3.25  Avg: 295.6  I/s: 156.8  Sh: 12.52  1.00 38  +
2018-05-25 13:07:05|   GPU1  76C  Sol/s: 292.5  Sol/W: 3.25  Avg: 295.1  I/s: 156.9  Sh: 11.43  1.00 48  ++

I have the exact same issue going on. just updated Awesome Miner. Looks like part of that update was to update to the new DSTM 0.6.1 Now the only thing updating in my miner is the server difficulty changes. Only running 3 1050TI's on it at the moment.

[chaostic]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!

The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.

So for your 14 post I nearly forget you were the real expert in this subject... my payout is exactly the same it hasn’t gone down and I have no need to lie about it. No need to be harsh though calling people noobs or fools when you are no better than anyone here or elsewhere.

So go an learn some manners then come back and try to post something helpful.

Learn something guy, I never said the payouts changed on Flypool, I did say however that it "will" take longer to get a payout, and that is a fact bud...It isnt my fault ya think ya know everything and were clueless on the biggest thing the zec name atm, the miner works great but on nix youll have lil issues due to things not being setup correctly (user error 90% of the time) If you cant be helpful then simply keep you're comments to yourself as every comment i've made was 100% factual and helpful.

[Keko Fdez]

Hi all,

Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?

> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.1 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.9 Sol/s   541.4 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.30  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  159 W |  0.27  100  132
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.9 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.50  100  124 +
   GPU0  63C  75% |  542.5 Sol/s   541.2 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W  163 W |  0.46  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  543.0 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  160 W |  0.43  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.9 Sol/s   541.3 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.40  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  538.4 Sol/s   541.1 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  162 W |  0.37  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  536.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W  158 W |  0.35  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  539.1 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.33  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  539.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.31  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  542.7 Sol/s   540.8 Avg   289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W  165 W |  0.30  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.9 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.28  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  550.8 Sol/s   541.0 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W  161 W |  0.27  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  533.7 Sol/s   540.7 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.26  100  124
> GPU0  63C  75% |  537.0 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.25  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  535.7 Sol/s   540.3 Avg   289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W  164 W |  0.24  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  544.8 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.23  100  124
   GPU0  63C  75% |  540.6 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W  161 W |  0.33  100  220 +
> GPU0  63C  75% |  541.1 Sol/s   540.5 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  162 W |  0.32  100  220
   GPU0  63C  75% |  541.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W  160 W |  0.31  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  540.1 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  163 W |  0.30  100  220
   GPU0  64C  75% |  542.6 Sol/s   540.6 Avg   289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W  154 W |  0.29  100  220  

It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.

You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained

My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed

Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!

The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.

So for your 14 post I nearly forget you were the real expert in this subject... my payout is exactly the same it hasn’t gone down and I have no need to lie about it. No need to be harsh though calling people noobs or fools when you are no better than anyone here or elsewhere.

So go an learn some manners then come back and try to post something helpful.

Learn something guy, I never said the payouts changed on Flypool, I did say however that it "will" take longer to get a payout, and that is a fact bud...It isnt my fault ya think ya know everything and were clueless on the biggest thing the zec name atm, the miner works great but on nix youll have lil issues due to things not being setup correctly (user error 90% of the time) If you cant be helpful then simply keep you're comments to yourself as every comment i've made was 100% factual and helpful.

Read carefully your first 6 words... the payout is NOT the same...so read what you post before you post it.

And if you read in mi post I said my payout time is the same. I copy paste it for you:

If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 163 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.

I don’t know everything that’s why I post and ask and I did on page 163, so do not come here to teach me lessons. Pay a bit more attention and read carefully.

[Biggen1]

I have posted this before but I'm having ZERO issues on Linux (Ubuntu Server) with 0.6.1 on a eight GTX1070TI rig.  I don't understand why others are having issues.  I'm seeing the slight speed increase dstm said we would and have never had one single crash since I started using his miner back in December.

So I don't know what is up with other problems reported.  I agree with chaostic in that most of the issues are user error and not setting up the Linux environment correctly.  I've been using Linux since 1997 so perhaps that is why I don't have issues.

[Keko Fdez]

I have posted this before but I'm having ZERO issues on Linux (Ubuntu Server) with 0.6.1 on a eight GTX1070TI rig.  I don't understand why others are having issues.  I'm seeing the slight speed increase dstm said we would and have never had one single crash since I started using his miner back in December.

So I don't know what is up with other problems reported.  I agree with chaostic in that most of the issues are user error and not setting up the Linux environment correctly.  I've been using Linux since 1997 so perhaps that is why I don't have issues.

I have no issues with it either running on windows 10. It has never crashed so I agree with you and chaostic on that bit.

I want to change to Linux as seems to be more stable and better performance from the miner. What hashrate do you get with your GTX 1070 Ti?

[dstm]

In Claymore miner for (AMD) you can set parameter (example: -tt 75").

The miner will then adjust the fan speed to try to hold the tempature stable.

This will save the fans alot, since they run as low as they need. Insted of setting a static fan speed.

You also have another parameter equal to dstm's temp-target.

Can you implement this feature/parameter for DSTM? (Refering to the -tt parameter)

--

My fans speed and the noice are much lower with this feature, and your fans will last longer.

Ragefarm has proposed something similar.
I don't like the idea of software controlled fans. If the software crashes in a state where it previously set the fan to a low speed your GPU could be damaged.
Setting your fan speed to a constant value seems to be a better solution for a 24/7 running system.

[dstm]

How do I get 0.6.1 to work with nicehash legacy miner 1.9.0.2? On windows 10


something changed from 0.5.8 to 0.6.1 as nhml does not want to benschmark. Betchmark fails



log from DSTM zm 0.6.1
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# zm 0.6.1
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# GPU0 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 2:0
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# GPU1 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 3:0
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# GPU2 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 6:0
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# GPU3 + GeForce GTX 1070 MB: 8192 PCI: 5:0
2018-05-26 03:48:53|
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# pool1 equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357
2018-05-26 03:48:53|
2018-05-26 03:48:53|# telemetry server listening on 127.0.0.1:4005
2018-05-26 03:48:54|# connected to: equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357 [1/1]
2018-05-26 03:48:56|# server supports extranonce
2018-05-26 03:49:02|# server set difficulty to: 4.24999189 [0001e1e1e1e00000000000000000000...]
2018-05-26 03:49:22|> GPU3 50C 49% | 481.6 Sol/s 481.6 Avg 256.5 I/s | 3.84 S/W 126 W | 0.00 . .

log form zm 0.5.8
2018-05-26 03:45:37|# zm 0.5.8
2018-05-26 03:45:37|# GPU0 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 2:0
2018-05-26 03:45:37|# GPU1 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 3:0
2018-05-26 03:45:38|# GPU2 - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti MB: 11264 PCI: 6:0
2018-05-26 03:45:38|# GPU3 + GeForce GTX 1070 MB: 8192 PCI: 5:0
2018-05-26 03:45:38|
2018-05-26 03:45:38|# telemetry server started
2018-05-26 03:45:38|# connected to: equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357
2018-05-26 03:45:40|# server supports extranonce
2018-05-26 03:45:46|# server set difficulty to: 0001e1e1e1e0000000000000...
2018-05-26 03:46:06|> GPU3 46C Sol/s: 472.5 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 472.5 I/s: 257.5 Sh: 0.00 . .
2018-05-26 03:46:27| GPU3 50C Sol/s: 469.2 Sol/W: 3.71 Avg: 470.9 I/s: 255.3 Sh: 0.00 . .

im sure I need to change something in MinerOptionPackage_dtsm.json but not what

{
"Name": "dtsm",
"Type": 19,
"GeneralOptions": [
{
"Type": "dtsm_time",
"ShortName": "--time",
"LongName": "--time",
"Default": null,
"FlagType": 0,
"Separator": ""
},
{
"Type": "dtsm_noreconnect",
"ShortName": "--noreconnect",
"LongName": "--noreconnect",
"Default": null,
"FlagType": 0,
"Separator": ""
},
{
"Type": "dtsm_temp-target",
"ShortName": "--temp-target",
"LongName": "--temp-target",
"Default": null,
"FlagType": 1,
"Separator": ""
}
],
"TemperatureOptions": []
}

The output format has changed in 0.6.1.
This might be the reason why it's not able to parse the reported solution rate.