bigdaddymccarron
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 20
|
|
November 29, 2017, 12:29:47 AM |
|
When I try to mine ZClassic I get the following error:
Waiting for 0 seconds, press a key to continue ... # zm 0.5.6 # GPU0 + GeForce GTX 1070 MB: 8192 PCI: 0:6
# GPU0 connected to: ny1.minez.zone:3054 # GPU0 server set difficulty to: 0000ccccccccccccd0000000... protocol version 01000020 not supported
|
|
|
|
matovicv
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 12:30:05 AM |
|
The new version is working great after reworking my overclock. The oc I had been using with previous versions was causing the miner to crash. Reducing the oc managed to keep about the same rate while slightly increasing efficiency from about 3.3 Sol/W to about 3.5. ID DEVICE NAME °C ∅ Sol/s ∅ Sol/W ∅ Watt 0 GeForce GTX 1070 55 498.70 3.53 141.56 Keep up the good work. What settings are you using and what card is it? MSI Gaming X +150 clock +610 mem 60% power Efficiency is a little better at 60%, rate is closer to 510 Sol/s at 70% power. What drivers are you using. My card is Gigabyte G1 and with this settings i get 470 sols max. Drivers 388.13. Tnx
|
|
|
|
mountaintoy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 12:51:03 AM |
|
I'm having issues with memory errors after 6 hours, is there a restart script i can use in my .bat ?
Look at previous pages, there is alot of scripts examples. The new version is working great after reworking my overclock. The oc I had been using with previous versions was causing the miner to crash. Reducing the oc managed to keep about the same rate while slightly increasing efficiency from about 3.3 Sol/W to about 3.5. ID DEVICE NAME °C ∅ Sol/s ∅ Sol/W ∅ Watt 0 GeForce GTX 1070 55 498.70 3.53 141.56 Keep up the good work. What settings are you using and what card is it? MSI Gaming X +150 clock +610 mem 60% power Efficiency is a little better at 60%, rate is closer to 510 Sol/s at 70% power. 3.53sols/w is pretty low tbh, except if you have great electricity price, my rigs have between 4.2 and 4.3s/w efficiency. You're right, it's not the most efficient. You've definitely been working on efficiency more than I have. I can get to 3.9 s/w by dropping the clock speed and lowering the power a bit more, but electricity is pretty cheap here and I've been using it to heat the room it's in. I turn the power up when it gets cool and turn it down when it's warm unless I'm testing. I'm only running a single card for now. When I pick up a few more cards heat and power consumption will be a bigger issue.
|
|
|
|
mountaintoy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 01:00:54 AM |
|
The new version is working great after reworking my overclock. The oc I had been using with previous versions was causing the miner to crash. Reducing the oc managed to keep about the same rate while slightly increasing efficiency from about 3.3 Sol/W to about 3.5. ID DEVICE NAME °C ∅ Sol/s ∅ Sol/W ∅ Watt 0 GeForce GTX 1070 55 498.70 3.53 141.56 Keep up the good work. What settings are you using and what card is it? MSI Gaming X +150 clock +610 mem 60% power Efficiency is a little better at 60%, rate is closer to 510 Sol/s at 70% power. What drivers are you using. My card is Gigabyte G1 and with this settings i get 470 sols max. Drivers 388.13. Tnx I'm using the same drivers. 388.13 Is it possible your card has a lower base speed? Afterburner displays my memory as 4428MHz (+625) and GPU bounces around from 1848-1886MHz (+150) and voltage is around .889mV
|
|
|
|
pilalove
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 01:41:41 AM |
|
Dear envelopment team dstm ZM Could you help me fix error follow this picture, I cant mine ZM
............ Sever set difficulty to : .....
Any my PC lagging, need to be restart
Provide more information about your hardware and software Launch config? I take a pict faile when mining via ZM "I'm using Mikrotik router board". It is ok when i used another modem "not mikrotik" Can you help me fix this problem Thanks - Pila https://uphinhnhanh.com/images/2017/11/29/dstmfailse.png
|
|
|
|
philipma1957
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 8587
'The right to privacy matters'
|
|
November 29, 2017, 01:47:46 AM |
|
does this mining software work for smos?
on linux
|
|
|
|
Biodom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 4332
|
|
November 29, 2017, 02:43:15 AM |
|
does this mining software work for smos?
on linux
works on Ubuntu 16.04 and 14.04, which probably means that it would. 0.5.5 version crashed on my Nvidia rigs once in 2 days. 0.5.6 version did not crash yet (one day). maybe it's just my setup, but cards seems to take their time to take (maybe a min or two), producing initiation stop message in the interim. no biggie. seems slightly faster than EWBF, but EWBF was working without a glitch for a month (or more) at the time. I would give it a day or two and see.
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
November 29, 2017, 09:59:53 AM |
|
Hi. Thx for the miner.
Small suggestion about API: can you please add GPU model to JSON-RPC responce? Thx!
This was requested already. It seems like this information isn't available on linux. It's on my notes, I'll take a closer look at it later.
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
November 29, 2017, 10:02:38 AM |
|
I was observing that thread since 0.3x version and your miner looks interesting. Today finally I tested it. Unfortunately I noticed that I've a bit lower hashrate than on EWBF. ~520-525 vs 530-550 Sol/s. I've GTX 1080. Temperatures and power use is similar (68C and 165-170W). 85% TDP. Memory +200mhz. I set vcore to +80mhz. On EWBF maximum was +60mhz (it crashed even on 65mhz after 24h). I'm not testing your miner long time but looks more stable. On EWBF +80mhz gets me fast crash. I hope that you will be able to increase performance for GTX 1080 too because as opposed to gtx 1060 and 1080ti, currently EWBF looks more efficient for me. Also to my mind you could use some colors to make it more transparent to read and ability to run on background (--quiet/--background?). Thanks for your job PS. Sol/W is great option. I'll be able to better OC my card with it. ---------- edit: crash after 3-4 hours. I'll try with +75mhz.. --------- GPU0 67C Sol/s: 518.7 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 525.1 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 7.76 1.00 47 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 516.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.6 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 7.46 1.00 47 ++ # GPU0 server set difficulty to: 000a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a... > GPU0 67C Sol/s: 503.6 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 520.7 I/s: 269.7 Sh: 7.67 1.00 46 +++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.4 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 521.3 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 6.71 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 531.0 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.4 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.97 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 526.5 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.8 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 6.57 1.00 39 ++++ GPU0 67C Sol/s: 523.7 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.9 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 6.24 1.00 63 + GPU0 67C Sol/s: 524.0 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 523.0 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.72 1.00 63 > GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.5 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 523.0 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.74 1.00 70 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 524.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.1 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.76 1.00 46 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.2 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.3 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.77 1.00 47 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.3 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.41 1.00 47 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 524.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.44 1.00 55 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 529.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.64 1.00 57 +++ > GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.6 Sh: 5.34 1.00 57 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 521.7 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.6 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.23 1.00 47 + GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.1 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.26 1.00 46 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 519.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.5 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.02 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 521.1 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 4.93 1.00 63 + GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.9 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 282.1 Sh: 5.23 1.00 47 ++++ Thx for the report. Are you thinking about a unix daemon? This isn't available on windows, I don't want to diverge the versions without a good reason, I'll do ofc if there is one. If you're mainly interested in disabling the output you can redirect it to /dev/null or/and start it in your init system (e.g. using systemd). What colors and where would improve readability?
|
|
|
|
|
dstm (OP)
|
|
November 29, 2017, 10:10:38 AM |
|
Dear envelopment team dstm ZM Could you help me fix error follow this picture, I cant mine ZM
............ Sever set difficulty to : .....
Any my PC lagging, need to be restart
Provide more information about your hardware and software Launch config? I take a pict faile when mining via ZM "I'm using Mikrotik router board". It is ok when i used another modem "not mikrotik" Can you help me fix this problem Thanks - Pila https://uphinhnhanh.com/images/2017/11/29/dstmfailse.pngThere something wrong with the router, it sometimes even fails to resolve the dns name, sry can't help - you have to check what's going wrong on the router side.
|
|
|
|
akuci
|
|
November 29, 2017, 10:29:32 AM |
|
You need to add some space betwen 2 groups of readings, like 2 line space in between after the total hash, and the first gpu stats in the next readout. I really have trouble to read the information from the miner quickly. Also some colors will be nice. Temps green, yellow and red like in EWBF.
Some things to add also: fan precentage readout, power readout in W (in miner window, not in telemetry).
|
|
|
|
k3rt
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 04:12:32 PM |
|
I am currently reading through all 73 pages of this thread. Does ZM have some tools for overclocking or do you all use some other tools (xorg.conf)?
|
|
|
|
shibob
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 672
Merit: 154
Blockchain Evangelist.
|
|
November 29, 2017, 04:20:00 PM |
|
I am currently reading through all 73 pages of this thread. Does ZM have some tools for overclocking or do you all use some other tools (xorg.conf)?
Wow, you are so eager for learning. I dont think ZM integrates any overclocking function or tool. So I think for most of us, we use MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision XOC.
|
|
|
|
k3rt
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 04:26:03 PM |
|
So I think for most of us, we use MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision XOC.
What if I have a plain Ubuntu without the GUI? Just a terminal Since I want to control everything via SSH, without any GUI.
|
|
|
|
crazydane
|
|
November 29, 2017, 04:46:27 PM |
|
Hi. Thx for the miner.
Small suggestion about API: can you please add GPU model to JSON-RPC responce? Thx!
This was requested already. It seems like this information isn't available on linux. It's on my notes, I'll take a closer look at it later. You should be able to do something like this to at least get the vendor added: #!/bin/bash
DEVICE_IDS=$(nvidia-smi --query-gpu=pci.sub_device_id --format=csv,noheader,nounits) i=0
for ID in $DEVICE_IDS do VENDOR_ID=${ID:6:5} # GPU Query, 3842=EVGA, 1462=MSI, 10DE=Nvidia, 19DA=Zotac, 807D=Asus, 1458=Gigabyte case $VENDOR_ID in 3842) VENDOR_ID="EVGA";; 1462) VENDOR_ID="MSI";; 10DE) VENDOR_ID="NVIDIA";; 19DA) VENDOR_ID="ZOTAC";; 807D) VENDOR_ID="ASUS";; 1458) VENDOR_ID="GIGABYTE";; esac MODEL=$(nvidia-smi -i $i --query-gpu=name --format=csv,noheader,nounits | tail -1) echo "$i,$VENDOR_ID,$MODEL" i=$(($i + 1)) done
|
|
|
|
abudfv2008
|
|
November 29, 2017, 05:12:18 PM Last edit: November 29, 2017, 05:29:15 PM by abudfv2008 |
|
I was observing that thread since 0.3x version and your miner looks interesting. Today finally I tested it. Unfortunately I noticed that I've a bit lower hashrate than on EWBF. ~520-525 vs 530-550 Sol/s. I've GTX 1080. Temperatures and power use is similar (68C and 165-170W). 85% TDP. Memory +200mhz. I set vcore to +80mhz. On EWBF maximum was +60mhz (it crashed even on 65mhz after 24h). I'm not testing your miner long time but looks more stable. On EWBF +80mhz gets me fast crash. I hope that you will be able to increase performance for GTX 1080 too because as opposed to gtx 1060 and 1080ti, currently EWBF looks more efficient for me. Also to my mind you could use some colors to make it more transparent to read and ability to run on background (--quiet/--background?). Thanks for your job PS. Sol/W is great option. I'll be able to better OC my card with it. ---------- edit: crash after 3-4 hours. I'll try with +75mhz.. --------- GPU0 67C Sol/s: 518.7 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 525.1 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 7.76 1.00 47 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 516.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.6 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 7.46 1.00 47 ++ # GPU0 server set difficulty to: 000a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a... > GPU0 67C Sol/s: 503.6 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 520.7 I/s: 269.7 Sh: 7.67 1.00 46 +++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.4 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 521.3 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 6.71 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 531.0 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.4 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.97 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 526.5 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.8 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 6.57 1.00 39 ++++ GPU0 67C Sol/s: 523.7 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 522.9 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 6.24 1.00 63 + GPU0 67C Sol/s: 524.0 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 523.0 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.72 1.00 63 > GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.5 Sol/W: 3.14 Avg: 523.0 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.74 1.00 70 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 524.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.1 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.76 1.00 46 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.2 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.3 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.77 1.00 47 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.3 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.41 1.00 47 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 524.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.44 1.00 55 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 529.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 5.64 1.00 57 +++ > GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.8 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.6 Sh: 5.34 1.00 57 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 521.7 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.6 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.23 1.00 47 + GPU0 68C Sol/s: 525.1 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.7 I/s: 280.3 Sh: 5.26 1.00 46 ++ GPU0 68C Sol/s: 519.0 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.5 I/s: 280.4 Sh: 5.02 1.00 46 GPU0 68C Sol/s: 521.1 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 280.5 Sh: 4.93 1.00 63 + GPU0 68C Sol/s: 523.9 Sol/W: 3.13 Avg: 523.4 I/s: 282.1 Sh: 5.23 1.00 47 ++++ Agree with some space for improvements with 1080. But for me dsmt is slighlty faster. (maybe because with the same settings GPU is running on higher frequency)
|
|
|
|
lolmining
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 07:09:41 PM |
|
Small, 2.6% improvement over EWBF. GPU0 58C Sol/s: 773.2 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 767.5 I/s: 411.1 Sh: 5.37 1.00 104 ++ GPU2 53C Sol/s: 761.2 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.4 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.34 1.00 105 + GPU1 54C Sol/s: 775.9 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.0 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 6.73 1.00 94 + > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 763.2 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 762.8 I/s: 408.9 Sh: 7.12 1.00 95 +++ > GPU4 58C Sol/s: 715.0 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 794.3 I/s: 384.9 Sh: 7.15 1.00 82 ========== Sol/s: 3788.6 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 3863.9 I/s: 2029.5 Sh: 31.72 1.00 96 > GPU0 58C Sol/s: 754.5 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 767.4 I/s: 410.2 Sh: 5.36 1.00 93 + > GPU2 53C Sol/s: 774.4 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.4 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 5.36 1.00 99 +++ > GPU1 54C Sol/s: 767.6 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.0 I/s: 410.8 Sh: 6.72 1.00 109 + GPU3 52C Sol/s: 759.5 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 762.8 I/s: 408.3 Sh: 7.13 1.00 103 +++ GPU4 59C Sol/s: 788.9 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 794.2 I/s: 424.2 Sh: 7.16 1.00 104 +++ ========== Sol/s: 3844.9 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 3863.8 I/s: 2065.7 Sh: 31.72 1.00 101 > GPU0 58C Sol/s: 769.4 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 767.4 I/s: 410.8 Sh: 5.33 1.00 93 > GPU2 53C Sol/s: 767.3 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.4 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.36 1.00 94 ++ > GPU1 54C Sol/s: 772.1 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.0 I/s: 411.5 Sh: 6.70 1.00 110 + > GPU3 52C Sol/s: 760.5 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 762.7 I/s: 408.9 Sh: 7.11 1.00 93 + > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 807.5 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 794.3 I/s: 425.6 Sh: 7.14 1.00 94 + ========== Sol/s: 3876.8 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 3863.9 I/s: 2069.6 Sh: 31.64 1.00 96 GPU0 58C Sol/s: 752.8 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 767.4 I/s: 411.2 Sh: 5.32 1.00 94 + GPU2 53C Sol/s: 770.6 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.4 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.39 1.00 101 ++++ GPU1 54C Sol/s: 767.0 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.0 I/s: 411.2 Sh: 6.69 1.00 102 ++ > GPU3 52C Sol/s: 755.2 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 762.7 I/s: 408.6 Sh: 7.12 1.00 96 +++ > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 796.0 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 794.3 I/s: 425.5 Sh: 7.19 1.00 90 ++++++ ========== Sol/s: 3841.6 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 3863.8 I/s: 2069.3 Sh: 31.72 1.00 96
|
|
|
|
cTnko
Member
Offline
Activity: 85
Merit: 10
|
|
November 29, 2017, 10:14:25 PM |
|
@dstm Is there any reason why the process wouldn't exit on its own under such condition?
|
|
|
|
lolmining
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2017, 11:13:21 PM |
|
# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 000787878780000000000000... GPU0 58C Sol/s: 769.8 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.9 I/s: 412.4 Sh: 5.21 0.99 110 > GPU1 54C Sol/s: 772.0 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.5 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 4.91 1.00 94 > GPU2 54C Sol/s: 765.0 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 771.9 I/s: 412.7 Sh: 5.41 1.00 125 > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 761.7 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.0 I/s: 410.2 Sh: 5.65 1.00 109 # GPU0 server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000... > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 791.0 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 794.9 I/s: 425.8 Sh: 5.38 0.98 98 ========== Sol/s: 3859.5 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.1 I/s: 2073.2 Sh: 26.56 0.99 107 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] # GPU1 server set difficulty to: 000787878780000000000000... # GPU2 server set difficulty to: 000787878780000000000000... # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] > GPU0 58C Sol/s: 765.2 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.8 I/s: 412.4 Sh: 5.32 0.97 94 > GPU1 54C Sol/s: 772.7 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.5 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 4.89 1.00 94 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] > GPU2 54C Sol/s: 769.1 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 771.8 I/s: 413.1 Sh: 5.45 1.00 99 > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 774.0 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 410.2 Sh: 5.62 1.00 110 > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 805.8 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.0 I/s: 425.8 Sh: 5.39 0.98 101 ========== Sol/s: 3886.8 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.2 I/s: 2073.6 Sh: 26.67 0.99 99 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU0 58C Sol/s: 756.6 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.6 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 5.40 0.96 85 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 777.7 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.6 I/s: 411.5 Sh: 4.87 1.00 93 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 771.4 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 771.8 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 5.46 1.00 93 GPU3 51C Sol/s: 762.1 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 408.9 Sh: 5.62 1.00 101 GPU4 59C Sol/s: 802.3 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.1 I/s: 424.9 Sh: 5.36 0.98 109 ========== Sol/s: 3870.1 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.2 I/s: 2068.9 Sh: 26.70 0.99 96 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU0 58C Sol/s: 771.9 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 412.4 Sh: 5.40 0.96 94 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 771.7 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.7 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 4.84 1.00 109 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 776.8 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 771.9 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.47 1.00 109 > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 755.8 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.0 I/s: 410.2 Sh: 5.63 1.00 109 > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 797.6 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.1 I/s: 425.5 Sh: 5.33 0.98 93 ========== Sol/s: 3873.8 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.2 I/s: 2073.0 Sh: 26.67 0.99 102 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU0 58C Sol/s: 771.3 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 412.4 Sh: 5.44 0.95 109 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 773.0 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.7 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 4.82 1.00 109 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 783.0 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 772.0 I/s: 413.1 Sh: 5.57 1.00 88 > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 774.8 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 409.6 Sh: 5.60 1.00 78 > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 796.3 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.1 I/s: 426.2 Sh: 5.31 0.98 110 ========== Sol/s: 3898.4 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.5 I/s: 2073.0 Sh: 26.74 0.99 98 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU0 58C Sol/s: 768.4 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.6 I/s: 411.5 Sh: 5.48 0.94 86 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 769.5 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.7 I/s: 410.8 Sh: 4.81 1.00 94 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 771.3 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 772.0 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 5.60 1.00 89 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU3 51C Sol/s: 767.8 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 408.6 Sh: 5.60 1.00 110 GPU4 59C Sol/s: 789.2 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.0 I/s: 424.6 Sh: 5.25 0.98 110 ========== Sol/s: 3866.2 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.5 I/s: 2067.2 Sh: 26.74 0.98 97 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU0 58C Sol/s: 776.9 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.58 0.92 109 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 774.4 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.7 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 4.82 1.00 101 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 777.9 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 772.1 I/s: 412.8 Sh: 5.54 1.00 89 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 765.9 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 410.2 Sh: 5.57 1.00 94 > GPU4 60C Sol/s: 797.5 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.1 I/s: 426.2 Sh: 5.23 0.98 110 ========== Sol/s: 3892.5 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.7 I/s: 2074.0 Sh: 26.74 0.98 100 GPU0 58C Sol/s: 773.4 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 5.68 0.92 97 GPU1 54C Sol/s: 768.1 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.7 I/s: 411.8 Sh: 4.83 1.00 78 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 772.1 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 772.1 I/s: 413.0 Sh: 5.58 1.00 88 > GPU3 51C Sol/s: 765.2 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 409.9 Sh: 5.58 1.00 86 > GPU4 59C Sol/s: 790.9 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.0 I/s: 425.8 Sh: 5.20 0.98 78 ========== Sol/s: 3869.8 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.6 I/s: 2072.7 Sh: 26.87 0.98 85 GPU0 58C Sol/s: 769.1 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 412.4 Sh: 5.68 0.92 78 # GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] GPU1 54C Sol/s: 774.9 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 769.8 I/s: 412.1 Sh: 4.78 1.00 78 GPU2 54C Sol/s: 768.0 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 772.0 I/s: 412.7 Sh: 5.52 1.00 88 GPU3 50C Sol/s: 763.2 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 765.1 I/s: 409.9 Sh: 5.55 1.00 94 GPU4 59C Sol/s: 798.4 Sol/W: 3.01 Avg: 795.1 I/s: 424.6 Sh: 5.15 0.98 78 ========== Sol/s: 3873.7 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 3872.6 I/s: 2071.7 Sh: 26.68 0.98 83 GPU0 58C Sol/s: 764.8 Sol/W: 3.26 Avg: 770.7 I/s: 411.5 Sh: 5.65 0.91 94
# GPU0 rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null] whats that?
|
|
|
|
|