dj--alex
Member
 Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
|
 |
September 26, 2017, 12:11:09 PM |
|
gpu chip + 80mhz, memory +800mhz,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zzz.to.the.moon
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 02:36:58 AM |
|
Hello @dstm I really like your miner, it's really stable compared with EBWF's, and when it does crash (my hardware issue), it does so softly, allowing me to do a restart of the system. With EBWF's I couldn't kill it not even with -9. I had to power cycle the hardware. However I do have the following issues: - When using more than 10 GPUs the CPU is overloaded. * if it helps I can live with a longer time between refreshes, say 15 - 30 seconds * when that happens most of the share get rejected as invalid, see pool screenshot * do you think you can improve the CPU load performance, if not do you have any suggestion on what upgrade I should focus on? Cores, speed? + by my calculations I would need to use an i5 or i7 to be able to scale to 19 GPUs - an API would be immensely appreciated * No more having to stay logged in to monitor when one GPU died (and I could track down which one is the culprit) * Get better statistics for optimization purposes. Hardware: - Asus B250 Mining Expert - 10 x GTX 1070 - Intel Celeron G3900 - 2 GB DDR4 2133 - nvdia-smi -pl 90 On the left 12 x GTX 1070 GPUs, on the right 10 x GTX 1070 GPUs. http://i67.tinypic.com/a5i7fl.jpghttp://i65.tinypic.com/28jdtf5.jpghttp://i64.tinypic.com/300zgvo.jpghttp://i65.tinypic.com/2cpxlhu.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 27, 2017, 11:02:35 AM
Last edit: September 27, 2017, 12:21:54 PM by dstm |
|
Hello @dstm I really like your miner, it's really stable compared with EBWF's, and when it does crash (my hardware issue), it does so softly, allowing me to do a restart of the system. With EBWF's I couldn't kill it not even with -9. I had to power cycle the hardware. However I do have the following issues: - When using more than 10 GPUs the CPU is overloaded. * if it helps I can live with a longer time between refreshes, say 15 - 30 seconds * when that happens most of the share get rejected as invalid, see pool screenshot * do you think you can improve the CPU load performance, if not do you have any suggestion on what upgrade I should focus on? Cores, speed? + by my calculations I would need to use an i5 or i7 to be able to scale to 19 GPUs - an API would be immensely appreciated * No more having to stay logged in to monitor when one GPU died (and I could track down which one is the culprit) * Get better statistics for optimization purposes. Hardware: - Asus B250 Mining Expert - 10 x GTX 1070 - Intel Celeron G3900 - 2 GB DDR4 2133 - nvdia-smi -pl 90 On the left 12 x GTX 1070 GPUs, on the right 10 x GTX 1070 GPUs.     Hi zzz.to.the.moon thx for reporting, this is really welcome since it speedups development. When using more than 10 GPUs the CPU is overloaded.
Judging from you htop output: the miner is using about 38% cpu on your system, most of your cpu load is on the kernel side, it's most likely caused by the drivers. If some of your GPUs are crashing you might get unpredictable behavior.
when that happens most of the share get rejected as invalid, see pool screenshot
This happens most likely because the shares arrive the pool too late because of the cpu load issues you're having.
do you think you can improve the CPU load performance, if not do you have any suggestion on what upgrade I should focus on? Cores, speed?
I'm constantly improving CPU and GPU side, however it's pretty well optimized now. A high single-core performance is not required, the miner is written such that it scales well with the amount of available cores. This is what I'm getting on a 10GPU system (6*1070 + 4*1080Ti) with an i3-7300T (a 35W CPU). 1 [|||||||||| 18.2%] Tasks: 112, 279 thr; 2 running
2 [|||||||||| 16.6%] Load average: 0.80 0.57 0.27
3 [|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 51.0%] Uptime: 00:53:42
4 [||||||||| 15.3%]
by my calculations I would need to use an i5 or i7 to be able to scale to 19 GPUs
It depends on the speed of your GPUs - the overall speed of all GPUs on your system determine the CPU load. Judging from the htop results I'm getting on an i3-7300T an i3 should be able to drive 19GPUs, however I'm not sure if there are differences in the number of PCIE-lanes between the CPUs.
an API would be immensely appreciated
Will be there  |
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 27, 2017, 06:25:58 PM |
|
I've implemented the set_extranonce rpc. Its tested and works properly. I'm planning do some more changes before uploading a new version. If somebody needs extranonce support now, I'll upload a separate version.
|
|
|
|
|
cryptoDahu
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 10:21:26 PM |
|
before uploading a new version.
windows version is planned? thanks in advance |
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 27, 2017, 10:35:25 PM |
|
before uploading a new version.
windows version is planned? thanks in advance Yes, sry for the delay, but I have to schedule requests of users that are currently using zm first. |
|
|
|
|
|
vnvizow
|
|
September 28, 2017, 05:06:45 AM |
|
5x1070 OC GPU1 57°C Sol/s: 444.5 Sol/W: 4.05 Avg: 444.2 I/s: 238.3 Sh/s: 0.111
GPU3 58°C Sol/s: 444.1 Sol/W: 3.97 Avg: 435.2 I/s: 233.2 Sh/s: 0.110
GPU0 60°C Sol/s: 436.1 Sol/W: 3.97 Avg: 435.6 I/s: 233.7 Sh/s: 0.106
GPU2 59°C Sol/s: 435.3 Sol/W: 4.01 Avg: 439.6 I/s: 235.8 Sh/s: 0.106 +
GPU4 57°C Sol/s: 437.9 Sol/W: 4.01 Avg: 440.5 I/s: 236.2 Sh/s: 0.106 +
========== Sol/s: 2197.9 Sol/W: 4.00 Avg: 2195.0 I/s: 1177.2 Sh/s: 0.538
Flypool Statistics:  Local: ~2190 Sols/sec Flypool: ~2085 Sols/sec ~5% difference (2% should be fee) For next version i vote for API support ;-) Btw, nicehash doesnt work very well with your miner. (extranounce support is missing) Can you please post your OC and Power Limit settings? I'm also using 1070s and only get 3.82 Sol/W Thanks! Have you tried overclocking your 1070s higher? I also recommend the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. I was able to overclock dual 1080 ti's on my gaming rig and it mines pretty good. I also have it connected to a liquid cooling system so it stays cool. |
|
|
|
|
opposumi
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
|
|
September 28, 2017, 09:40:35 AM |
|
Hmm, is there some problem on 0.4.5 in reconnecting back to pool.
Dont know has internet gone down on that or was pool playing somthing. But it doesn't reconnect back until miner is closed and restarted. (internet was working when pressed ctrl+c to stop miner)
All of my nodes have been doing like this, just flooding terminal on that connection closed at wery fast pace:
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
^Cconnection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
SIGINT received - exiting
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
# GPU0 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU1 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU2 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU2 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU3 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
O.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2017, 09:57:15 AM |
|
Hmm, is there some problem on 0.4.5 in reconnecting back to pool.
Dont know has internet gone down on that or was pool playing somthing. But it doesn't reconnect back until miner is closed and restarted. (internet was working when pressed ctrl+c to stop miner)
All of my nodes have been doing like this, just flooding terminal on that connection closed at wery fast pace:
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
^Cconnection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
SIGINT received - exiting
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
# GPU0 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU1 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU2 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU2 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU3 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
O.
Flypool seems to have huge performance issues currently. The miner should reconnect as soon as flypools network is reachable again. I'll check if there is something that needs improvement in this situations. |
|
|
|
|
opposumi
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
|
|
September 28, 2017, 10:12:00 AM |
|
Ok, strange was on that it connected immediately to pool when i manually closed miner and started it, same on other nodes too.
O.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2017, 10:31:26 AM |
|
Ok, strange was on that it connected immediately to pool when i manually closed miner and started it, same on other nodes too.
O.
I'll check this part again. It seems to be unlikely that you've restarted all your nodes right after flypools network was up again. |
|
|
|
|
|
Temporel
|
|
September 28, 2017, 01:48:26 PM |
|
wait for windows version too.
I dont understand miners used windows for mining. Linux is better os for any good miner soft and it's stable os. Windows is for novices (windoze-only nicehash etc) such a clueless comment. Linux fanboy ? mmm, nope. I own both and I have less problems with Windows. You also have plenty of advantages like tons of utilities (eg:After Burner), more mining software and of course, a lot more support. It is also a lot faster and easier to diagnose problems IMO. I am not a Widows fanbiy , all my servers (non mining related) are on centOS. |
|
|
|
|
|
Temporel
|
|
September 28, 2017, 01:49:51 PM |
|
Hmm, is there some problem on 0.4.5 in reconnecting back to pool.
Dont know has internet gone down on that or was pool playing somthing. But it doesn't reconnect back until miner is closed and restarted. (internet was working when pressed ctrl+c to stop miner)
All of my nodes have been doing like this, just flooding terminal on that connection closed at wery fast pace:
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
^Cconnection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
SIGINT received - exiting
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
connection closed by server - reconnecting...
# GPU0 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU1 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU2 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
# GPU2 server set difficulty to: 0004189374bc6a7ef9db22d0...
# GPU3 connected to: eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
O.
Flypool seems to have huge performance issues currently. The miner should reconnect as soon as flypools network is reachable again. I'll check if there is something that needs improvement in this situations. difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 |
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2017, 02:12:50 PM |
|
difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 Well that's one way to describe that your servers couldn't handle the amount of incoming shares and that you had to raise the difficulty to reduce them. However this is a good opportunity to test/improve zm's networking. |
|
|
|
|
|
Temporel
|
|
September 28, 2017, 02:15:40 PM |
|
difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 Well that's one way to describe that your servers couldn't handle the amount of incoming shares and that you had to raise the difficulty to reduce them. However this is a good opportunity to test/improve zm's networking. Im certainly not going back to nanopool... Can you suggest another pool ? TYIA |
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2017, 02:32:28 PM |
|
difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 Well that's one way to describe that your servers couldn't handle the amount of incoming shares and that you had to raise the difficulty to reduce them. However this is a good opportunity to test/improve zm's networking. Im certainly not going back to nanopool... Can you suggest another pool ? TYIA Sry, not really, flypool seems to be pretty stable usually, despite the fact that they are responsible for about 50% of the whole network solution rate. Btw. I have a working version that has JSON-RPC support and a small stats page. If it passes test I'll upload it today/tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Temporel
|
|
September 28, 2017, 03:33:59 PM |
|
difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 Well that's one way to describe that your servers couldn't handle the amount of incoming shares and that you had to raise the difficulty to reduce them. However this is a good opportunity to test/improve zm's networking. Im certainly not going back to nanopool... Can you suggest another pool ? TYIA Sry, not really, flypool seems to be pretty stable usually, despite the fact that they are responsible for about 50% of the whole network solution rate. Btw. I have a working version that has JSON-RPC support and a small stats page. If it passes test I'll upload it today/tomorrow. great news, will probably test it on nvOC next week then ! |
|
|
|
|
jmayniac
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 0
|
|
September 28, 2017, 09:10:33 PM |
|
ZM is reporting 2.6K Sol/s, but Flypool is only showing 2.4K Sol/s. EWBF reports 2.5K Sol/s and Flypool shows 2.5K Sol/s. ZM seems to be a little over on it's reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
September 28, 2017, 09:35:28 PM |
|
ZM is reporting 2.6K Sol/s, but Flypool is only showing 2.4K Sol/s. EWBF reports 2.5K Sol/s and Flypool shows 2.5K Sol/s. ZM seems to be a little over on it's reporting.
How long did you run the test? 2.6 local vs. 2.4 pool , that's a difference of 8.3%, this is huge. There must be something wrong. Flypool had performance issues today. My reported values are exact. I'm even rounding them down. People reported me exactly the opposite, after they have done the comparison. Did some one else made this kind of measurements? Any comments? |
|
|
|
|
ShowMeCoins
Member
Offline
Activity: 129
Merit: 11
|
|
September 28, 2017, 09:55:46 PM |
|
difficulty was raised this morning btw. from the flypool website: In order to provide a more efficient mining experience we have increased the default share difficult on the #Zcash pool to 16000 Well that's one way to describe that your servers couldn't handle the amount of incoming shares and that you had to raise the difficulty to reduce them. However this is a good opportunity to test/improve zm's networking. @ dtsmdstm: Found out that using a diff of 8000 with zm has a different effect than using it on (the) other miner(s). Currently mining Bitcoinz (BTCz) on suprnova and @ diff=8000 almost no shares are sent. Can you confirm that using your miner i.c.w. a multi GPU RIG has an effect on Diff. It looks like you need set/select a suitable Diff per GPU and not for the size of the total RIG. |
|
|
|
|
|
