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

[baga105]

So is this better than Ewbf for Zec mining?

[cTnko]

@dstm Is there any reason why the process wouldn't exit on its own under such condition?

Too much OC made your GPU hang, either reboot or reset drivers with nvidia inspector, it should unlock the GPU's and u'll be able to kill the ZM process. Dtsm work very differently of other Zcash miners, you need to take another approach of your PL/OC otherwise u'll never find your sweetspot or completly miss the mark.

Good luck.

Thank you, but i know pretty much all of that, i have been mining for quite some time now.
What i wanted to know was why the miner process didn't exit, pretty much all other miners i tried force closed them selves after a critical error like this one.
While i can write my self a script that can monitor the reported hashrate from json data and force close the process or reboot the machine when desired, if the miner could close it self like all the others it would make things much simpler for most miners out there, since most people use infinite while loop scripts that simply restarts the process after it exits.

[lolmining]

So is this better than Ewbf for Zec mining?

so far not quite. On 1080ti's I cant get better than 2.6%. power consumption is roughly the same. What bad is that miner is unstable and on nicehash pool creates a lot of rejected shares. I switched back to EWBF and 100% shares are good.

[Makak4R]

So is this better than Ewbf for Zec mining?

so far not quite. On 1080ti's I cant get better than 2.6%. power consumption is roughly the same. What bad is that miner is unstable and on nicehash pool creates a lot of rejected shares. I switched back to EWBF and 100% shares are good.

don't forget, that there is a dev fee integrated, while ewbf you can run without it
so that means - they are basically have same speed.
and if in your case nicehash have rejected some share from dstm - that's maybe some configuration errors?

[timbereagle]

DEV please reduce fee to maximum %1.

You are doing good job but %2 very high fee when your miner is only %2-3 faster then competitor.

 

[dstm]

@dstm Is there any reason why the process wouldn't exit on its own under such condition?

Thx for reporting. 0.5.6 has some changes how it handles GPU crashes - it contains some initial recover infrastructure. Previous versions exited immediately in this case - I'll look into it.

[dstm]

#  GPU0  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]

whats that?

On what pool does this happen?

[vld75]

I had some problem with "Share above target " - Nicehash pool.

I have problem with stability too. Rig - 6  xdifferent type of 1070 cards, differnet OC. Maybe is problem OC, but I can not find good solution for rig yet.
With EWBF I have not problem at all. So I switched to ZM only for short time.

If I compare second rig /ZM and EWBF/ with my 1080ti cards - there is not difference for me.

Thanks for good job.

Code:

017-11-26 12:42:48|#  GPU0  connected to: equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357

Code:

2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU3  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:54|#  GPU4  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:58|>  GPU0  71C  Sol/s: 459.3  Sol/W: 3.65  Avg: 467.6  I/s: 249.4  Sh: 1.66   1.00 63  +
2017-11-26 12:45:59|   GPU1  70C  Sol/s: 497.2  Sol/W: 2.99  Avg: 495.2  I/s: 264.7  Sh: 2.66   0.88 63  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:01|>  GPU2  67C  Sol/s: 493.5  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 496.1  I/s: 265.1  Sh: 3.33   1.00 51  
2017-11-26 12:46:03|   GPU3  73C  Sol/s: 505.1  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 495.3  I/s: 264.0  Sh: 2.33   0.86 47  +++
2017-11-26 12:46:05|>  GPU4  66C  Sol/s: 475.4  Sol/W: 3.70  Avg: 474.3  I/s: 251.8  Sh: 2.65   1.00 47  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   GPU5  64C  Sol/s: 467.6  Sol/W: 3.09  Avg: 466.8  I/s: 249.6  Sh: 4.32   1.00 54  
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   ========== Sol/s: 2898.0 Sol/W: 3.24  Avg: 2895.4 I/s: 1544.6 Sh: 16.94  0.94 54 
2017-11-26 12:46:15|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]

[cTnko]

@dstm Is there any reason why the process wouldn't exit on its own under such condition?

Thx for reporting. 0.5.6 has some changes how it handles GPU crashes - it contains some initial recover infrastructure. Previous versions exited immediately in this case - I'll look into it.

Thanks for acknowledging this, ill keep an eye on the next version in the future, keep up the good work 

[dstm]

Dstm can you help me. Why new version lost conn? And old 5.5 is stable?

There are no changes with respect to this in 0.5.6.

[dstm]

I had some problem with "Share above target " - Nicehash pool.

I have problem with stability too. Rig - 6  xdifferent type of 1070 cards, differnet OC. Maybe is problem OC, but I can not find good solution for rig yet.
With EWBF I have not problem at all. So I switched to ZM only for short time.

If I compare second rig /ZM and EWBF/ with my 1080ti cards - there is not difference for me.

Thanks for good job.

Code:

017-11-26 12:42:48|#  GPU0  connected to: equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357

Code:

2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU3  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:54|#  GPU4  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:58|>  GPU0  71C  Sol/s: 459.3  Sol/W: 3.65  Avg: 467.6  I/s: 249.4  Sh: 1.66   1.00 63  +
2017-11-26 12:45:59|   GPU1  70C  Sol/s: 497.2  Sol/W: 2.99  Avg: 495.2  I/s: 264.7  Sh: 2.66   0.88 63  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:01|>  GPU2  67C  Sol/s: 493.5  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 496.1  I/s: 265.1  Sh: 3.33   1.00 51  
2017-11-26 12:46:03|   GPU3  73C  Sol/s: 505.1  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 495.3  I/s: 264.0  Sh: 2.33   0.86 47  +++
2017-11-26 12:46:05|>  GPU4  66C  Sol/s: 475.4  Sol/W: 3.70  Avg: 474.3  I/s: 251.8  Sh: 2.65   1.00 47  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   GPU5  64C  Sol/s: 467.6  Sol/W: 3.09  Avg: 466.8  I/s: 249.6  Sh: 4.32   1.00 54  
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   ========== Sol/s: 2898.0 Sol/W: 3.24  Avg: 2895.4 I/s: 1544.6 Sh: 16.94  0.94 54 
2017-11-26 12:46:15|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]

Thx for reporting, will check.

[mountaintoy]

I had some problem with "Share above target " - Nicehash pool.

I have problem with stability too. Rig - 6  xdifferent type of 1070 cards, differnet OC. Maybe is problem OC, but I can not find good solution for rig yet.
With EWBF I have not problem at all. So I switched to ZM only for short time.

If I compare second rig /ZM and EWBF/ with my 1080ti cards - there is not difference for me.

Thanks for good job.

Code:

017-11-26 12:42:48|#  GPU0  connected to: equihash.eu.nicehash.com:3357

Code:

2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:45:52|#  GPU3  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:54|#  GPU4  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-26 12:45:58|>  GPU0  71C  Sol/s: 459.3  Sol/W: 3.65  Avg: 467.6  I/s: 249.4  Sh: 1.66   1.00 63  +
2017-11-26 12:45:59|   GPU1  70C  Sol/s: 497.2  Sol/W: 2.99  Avg: 495.2  I/s: 264.7  Sh: 2.66   0.88 63  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:00|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:01|>  GPU2  67C  Sol/s: 493.5  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 496.1  I/s: 265.1  Sh: 3.33   1.00 51  
2017-11-26 12:46:03|   GPU3  73C  Sol/s: 505.1  Sol/W: 3.01  Avg: 495.3  I/s: 264.0  Sh: 2.33   0.86 47  +++
2017-11-26 12:46:05|>  GPU4  66C  Sol/s: 475.4  Sol/W: 3.70  Avg: 474.3  I/s: 251.8  Sh: 2.65   1.00 47  ++
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   GPU5  64C  Sol/s: 467.6  Sol/W: 3.09  Avg: 466.8  I/s: 249.6  Sh: 4.32   1.00 54  
2017-11-26 12:46:07|   ========== Sol/s: 2898.0 Sol/W: 3.24  Avg: 2895.4 I/s: 1544.6 Sh: 16.94  0.94 54 
2017-11-26 12:46:15|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU1  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-26 12:46:16|#  GPU3  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]

Thx for reporting, will check.

If it's any help I've seen this a couple times on usa.nicehash as well.

Code:

2017-11-26 4:57:11 AM|#  GPU0  connected to: equihash.usa.nicehash.com:3357

Code:

2017-11-27 3:55:49 AM|#  GPU0  server set difficulty to: 000f0f0f0f00000000000000...
2017-11-27 3:55:50 AM|   GPU0  55C  Sol/s: 499.2  Sol/W: 3.55  Avg: 506.7  I/s: 270.9  Sh: 2.75   1.00 75  +
2017-11-27 3:55:58 AM|#  GPU0  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-27 3:56:01 AM|#  GPU0  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-27 3:56:10 AM|   GPU0  55C  Sol/s: 502.0  Sol/W: 3.55  Avg: 506.5  I/s: 270.7  Sh: 2.98   0.93 70  +++
2017-11-27 3:56:14 AM|#  GPU0  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-27 3:56:24 AM|#  GPU0  rejected share: [1,"Share above target.",null]
2017-11-27 3:56:30 AM|   GPU0  55C  Sol/s: 510.5  Sol/W: 3.55  Avg: 506.7  I/s: 270.8  Sh: 3.30   0.87 90  ++++

[Vispilio]

let the fee at least be 1%, when the fee is almost non existent for your main competitor, it's a bit strange to hard code it at 2%, at this rate there is absolutely no visible improvement on 1080ti's when using your miner...

[smurfymurfy]

@ DSTM my computer occasionally crashes and the log shows nvmlDeviceGetTemperature failed. Sometime happens after 10 mins or 2 days.

any ideas what this might be?

Running GTX1070
5.6 version on windows

Thanks

[CreamyG31337]

let the fee at least be 1%, when the fee is almost non existent for your main competitor, it's a bit strange to hard code it at 2%, at this rate there is absolutely no visible improvement on 1080ti's when using your miner...

Yeah, that's why I was asking too -- I have 1080 Ti + 1080 in my desktop computer and don't really see any difference between this and EWBF. It just sucks to know your miner *is* faster but the fee eats all the profit. But at least if I use nicehash I'm not losing anything by being stuck with EWBF

[Kejvu]

Cant mine Bitcoin Gold?

[r3lentleSs]

On one miner i'm see seeing on telemetry Page.
Uptime over 6 hours. And con time only 30 minutes.

Miner is mining and everything looks good. But i have a very small share rate.

What's causing this con time error ? The last six hours Ive been basicly mining only 30 minutes ?

[thebd]

Do you consider selling the miner without the dev fee?

[toptek]

Cant mine Bitcoin Gold?

Yes dstm's ZCash can mine Bitcoin Gold.  I'm using it to mine Bitcoin Gold right now

Lower the fee and you might get less complaints an more users.

They don't mind paying it but it is to high at least with CM zec miner it's adjustable i know CM Zec miner only runs AMD cards but don't look at it that way because what happens if CM decides to give it NV card support most here now will use it,don't think they won't .

Do you consider selling the miner without the dev fee?

I would Pay as long as it's reason able and a one time charge .... with no fee  updates he will make a lot selling it with no fee an others will keep buying it and if any one wanted to use the fee version they could but most would op for the one time charge if i seem greedy then I'm greedy at least i won't lie and say I'm not .if i could write some thing like this i would share it with no fee, i hate using the word free in some cases because nothing is free some one pays it some place .

[dstm]

@ DSTM my computer occasionally crashes and the log shows nvmlDeviceGetTemperature failed. Sometime happens after 10 mins or 2 days.

any ideas what this might be?

Running GTX1070
5.6 version on windows

Thanks

Overcloking / unstable power supply / driver issues could cause this.