mikaelh (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 05:10:22 PM |
|
New version is up. -yac2 fixes a problem which has annoyed me greatly. I noticed that the miner always starts experiencing lots of network failures when mining on a pool for a while. I investigated the issue and I think the cause is that the miner does not close long polling connections. -yac2 fixes that by telling the cURL library to limit the number of long polling connections. It's not a perfect fix because the miner is still keeping more than one connection open but at least it shouldn't stall anymore.
|
|
|
|
3dcgminer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 06:01:23 PM |
|
Thank you for the update.
Sorry about nagging, but I am still interested in a Ybcoin version of the Yacminer. Would a small YAC donation and promise of 5% of all mined Ybcoins spark your interest?
Tried and failed at updating the source myself, yes, that is how dumb I am.
|
|
|
|
3dcgminer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 06:51:28 PM Last edit: July 03, 2013, 10:00:11 PM by 3dcgminer |
|
Benchmarks of my AMD 7970 3GB running at 900MHz core, 1000MHz mem and 0.975V in Afterburner, with yacminer-3.3.1-yac2-windows-x64 in Win 7 64bit on http://yac2.ltcoin.net150Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 4 (uses 0,8GB RAM) 236.5Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 (uses 1,4GB RAM) 103Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 1 (uses 2,4GB RAM) Benchmarks of my 7970 running at 900MHz core, 1500MHz mem and 0.975V in Afterburner, with yacminer-3.3.1-yac2-windows-x64 on http://yac2.ltcoin.net151Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 4237.7Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 181Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 8192 -I 13 -g 2 -w 256 --lookup-gap 1 (140 for the card running Windows) Higher thread concurrencies (900/1000/0.975): 229Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 38000 -I 13 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 (uses 2,6GB RAM) 233Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 38000 -I 15 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 (uses 2,6GB RAM) 233Kh/s --scrypt --thread-concurrency 38000 -I 17 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 (uses 2,6GB RAM) Trying -g 2 crashes, increasing lookup gap kills he performance. EDIT: At 1100/1500MHz I get: 287Khps, temp are getting to high though.
|
|
|
|
mikaelh (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 07:11:58 PM |
|
Thank you for the update.
Sorry about nagging, but I am still interested in a Ybcoin version of the Yacminer. Would a small YAC donation and promise of 5% of all mined Ybcoins spark your interest?
Tried and failed at updating the source myself, yes, that is how dumb I am.
Fine, I might make one since there's popular demand. Easy enough to change 4 lines...
|
|
|
|
JDDev
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 07:32:21 PM |
|
Can you use all of the same commands as cgminer?
|
|
|
|
mikaelh (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 07:33:07 PM |
|
Can you use all of the same commands as cgminer?
Yup. It's based on cgminer with minimal changes to support Yacoin.
|
|
|
|
JDDev
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 07:41:23 PM |
|
Ok great, I'll try to find some good settings for 7950s
|
|
|
|
mikaelh (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 08:02:47 PM |
|
Thank you for the update.
Sorry about nagging, but I am still interested in a Ybcoin version of the Yacminer. Would a small YAC donation and promise of 5% of all mined Ybcoins spark your interest?
Tried and failed at updating the source myself, yes, that is how dumb I am.
Well, the Ybcminer has arrived: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=249360.0Please keep further discussion of Ybcminer or Ybcoin in the new thread.
|
|
|
|
Eli0t
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 08:09:38 PM |
|
thanks for the update had the network problem today also found this minor cosmetic thing where i have extra blank lines above and below the bottom ----- line ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXG0Jhfe.jpg&t=665&c=3VAPPAuNm_wBIA) also not sure if i should be using more than the memory buffer of the card for anyone wanting some nvidia settings, heres what im using for my 560ti --scrypt --worksize 128 --lookup-gap 1 -I 11 --thread-concurrency 5376
|
LTC: LKpJf3uk7KsHU73kxq8iFJrP1AAKN7Yni7 DGC: DKXGvEbj3Rwgrm2QQbRyNPDDZDYoq4Y44d XPM: AWV5AKfLFyoBaMjg9C77rGUBhuFxz5DGGL
|
|
|
JDDev
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 08:26:21 PM Last edit: July 03, 2013, 08:54:55 PM by JDDev |
|
Averaging 245 kh/s with 7950s
Used thread concurrency of 21712, gpu-powertune of 20, core speed of 1100 and mem speed of 1500
|
|
|
|
Eli0t
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 03, 2013, 09:10:13 PM |
|
had this (v2) and the previous version crash the video driver on exit a few times now
|
LTC: LKpJf3uk7KsHU73kxq8iFJrP1AAKN7Yni7 DGC: DKXGvEbj3Rwgrm2QQbRyNPDDZDYoq4Y44d XPM: AWV5AKfLFyoBaMjg9C77rGUBhuFxz5DGGL
|
|
|
igysa
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 04, 2013, 08:16:04 PM |
|
Great work Mikaelh ! you made us all some money.. Some donations shoud come your way ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
BTC 1Hm2qSb1XZ8iAuogEqCBod17KQPHepjwF LTC LWu3fAQuw36UVm6vASQgk6yQjgLgKmeWPD YAC YKVQi33Jv7UaBtStgTDiCB2uL6vsYdX7be
|
|
|
kentt
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 07, 2013, 10:18:22 PM |
|
With the new n update, it seems I can't get my 7950s back in the 200 range. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
cryptrol
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 07, 2013, 10:29:40 PM |
|
With the new n update, it seems I can't get my 7950s back in the 200 range. Any ideas?
This is normal, every N incerase hashrate halves for everybody. The problem now are the HW errors, getting lots of them with the same settings as with Nfactor=10, still trying new settings without any luck.
|
|
|
|
mikaelh (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 07:24:18 AM |
|
There isn't going to be another release of the miner any time soon. The best tuning options have already been implemented. Keep thread concurrency as high as possible and after that increase the lookup gap to allow higher intensities. You may want to check how many HW errors exactly you're getting. If you're lucky like me, you could be getting only 3% HW errors. I'm still mining with the same settings on my 7790: --scrypt -w 128 --lookup-gap 2 -I 17 --thread-concurrency 8000 -g 1 You can quite easily calculate the total number of difficulty-1 shares your GPU is producing with the following formula: hashrate * running_time / 65536 For example, if you've been mining for an hour at 59.3 kh/s, the number of difficulty-1 shares would be: 59300 * 3600 / 65536 = 3257 Now you can go and compare that number with the amount of HW errors you got.
|
|
|
|
FreeTrade
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1030
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 08:36:23 AM |
|
Well, let's re-iterate this once more. GPU mining is not going to magically stop at N = 8192. My miner should survive it just fine. I'm not going to benchmark it because people always keep finding new settings after N changes. Some people will use a higher lookup gap and others will find ways to use lower values. I might come up with some new tricks but at the moment I'm pretty happy how the code scales with the lookup gap.
Hi Mikael. Firstly, thanks for your releases. Could you make a prediction about the long term viability of GPU mining? Yacoin was originally designed to be a currency that could be mined with CPU efficiently. Is that a busted flush now? Or will continued increments in N lead to a situation where CPU miners compete with, or even outmine GPU for equivalent energy input? I'm sure it's difficult to say for certain, but your guess is likely to be more educated than others.
|
Membercoin - Layer 1 Coin used for the member.cash decentralized social network. 10% Interest On All Balances. Browser and Solo Mining. 100% Distributed to Users and Developers.
|
|
|
gyverlb
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 09:37:55 AM |
|
There isn't going to be another release of the miner any time soon. The best tuning options have already been implemented. Keep thread concurrency as high as possible and after that increase the lookup gap to allow higher intensities.
You may want to check how many HW errors exactly you're getting. If you're lucky like me, you could be getting only 3% HW errors. I'm still mining with the same settings on my 7790:
Just noticed that all my 7950 and 7970 don't have any errors at I=17 although 5870/5970 get them as soon as I set intensity at 12 or higher. I used various combinations of thread-concurrency, lookup-gap and threads but nothing works past I=11 for 5x70 cards for me (on several versions of Xubuntu Linux). So this HW errors problem might be specific to <7xxx cards.
|
|
|
|
paulthetafy
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 10:24:04 AM |
|
There isn't going to be another release of the miner any time soon. The best tuning options have already been implemented. Keep thread concurrency as high as possible and after that increase the lookup gap to allow higher intensities.
You may want to check how many HW errors exactly you're getting. If you're lucky like me, you could be getting only 3% HW errors. I'm still mining with the same settings on my 7790:
Just noticed that all my 7950 and 7970 don't have any errors at I=17 although 5870/5970 get them as soon as I set intensity at 12 or higher. I used various combinations of thread-concurrency, lookup-gap and threads but nothing works past I=11 for 5x70 cards for me (on several versions of Xubuntu Linux). So this HW errors problem might be specific to <7xxx cards. Don't think that's true. I had HW errors on my 7950 until I upped the threadcount. Now happily running at 123.2 kh/s
|
|
|
|
gyverlb
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 10:48:36 AM |
|
There isn't going to be another release of the miner any time soon. The best tuning options have already been implemented. Keep thread concurrency as high as possible and after that increase the lookup gap to allow higher intensities.
You may want to check how many HW errors exactly you're getting. If you're lucky like me, you could be getting only 3% HW errors. I'm still mining with the same settings on my 7790:
Just noticed that all my 7950 and 7970 don't have any errors at I=17 although 5870/5970 get them as soon as I set intensity at 12 or higher. I used various combinations of thread-concurrency, lookup-gap and threads but nothing works past I=11 for 5x70 cards for me (on several versions of Xubuntu Linux). So this HW errors problem might be specific to <7xxx cards. Don't think that's true. I had HW errors on my 7950 until I upped the threadcount. Now happily running at 123.2 kh/s Before N increased I used the maximum threadcount my systems supported with lookup-gap = 2 (unless it was faster with a higher threadcount and lookup-gap = 3). I didn't change my configurations after N increased (other than trying to find parameters without HW errors on my 5x70, but results weren't good and I reverted to my previous configurations). I use threadcount = 41216 on my 7950 and 7970 with lookup-gap = 2, 8000 or 12000 on my 5x70 (lookup-gap = 3 with threadcount = 12000). I suppose results vary wildly with OS/drivers.
|
|
|
|
nfuse
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 08, 2013, 12:50:57 PM |
|
i tryed mining for a while (about 18 hours) didnt found any blocks with about 283kh/s per card. am i doing something wrong?
settings i use with solomining and Yacminer 3.3.1 x64
yacminer --scrypt -o 127.0.0.1:8112 -u yacoin -p x -I 12 -w 256 --thread-concurrency 8192 -g 2
|
|
|
|
|