Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2018, 11:55:05 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance | HP14 released!  (Read 396499 times)
arnuschky
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 516
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 11:07:03 AM
 #2041

I'm fairly certain that HP10 does NOT find blocks at 2 x the rate of HP9, despite the 2 x increase in chains per day value.

I can confirm this.

1534895705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534895705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534895705
Reply with quote  #2

1534895705
Report to moderator
1534895705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534895705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534895705
Reply with quote  #2

1534895705
Report to moderator
BOUNTY PORTALS
BLOG
WHERE BOUNTY MANAGEMENT
MEETS AUTOMATION
SIGNATURE CAMPAIGNS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
AND MORE!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534895705
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534895705

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534895705
Reply with quote  #2

1534895705
Report to moderator
mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 12:55:49 PM
 #2042

I'm fairly certain that HP10 does NOT find blocks at 2 x the rate of HP9, despite the 2 x increase in chains per day value.

I can confirm this.

Yup, it looks like the actual speedup doesn't match the chains/day estimate. I never did a full comparison between hp9 and hp10 myself on mainnet because it's pretty expensive to do that. So big thanks to the guys who did. I did try to adjust the chains/day estimate to account for effects of extending the sieve. It's possible there are some bugs with that. Of course the estimate isn't fully accurate in the first place either.
paulthetafy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 815
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 01:15:15 PM
 #2043

I'm fairly certain that HP10 does NOT find blocks at 2 x the rate of HP9, despite the 2 x increase in chains per day value.

I can confirm this.

Yup, it looks like the actual speedup doesn't match the chains/day estimate. I never did a full comparison between hp9 and hp10 myself on mainnet because it's pretty expensive to do that. So big thanks to the guys who did. I did try to adjust the chains/day estimate to account for effects of extending the sieve. It's possible there are some bugs with that. Of course the estimate isn't fully accurate in the first place either.
The CPD is a good reference point though.  I think the key here is that we need a stable metric that we can use to benchmark performance, whether it's accurate in what it is attempting to measure or not.  The downside now is that if you change the chains/day estimate to accurately reflect the sieve extension, when you release the next version people are going to complain that's its slower than HP10 Cheesy

With regards to the sieveextensions factor, will changing this value be reflected in the CPD?  i.e. if I change it and I see CPD increase, can I take that as a positive thing, regardless if the increase % is inaccurate?

Do you have any other ideas for performance improvements in the pipeline?

mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 01:48:05 PM
 #2044

I'm fairly certain that HP10 does NOT find blocks at 2 x the rate of HP9, despite the 2 x increase in chains per day value.

I can confirm this.

Yup, it looks like the actual speedup doesn't match the chains/day estimate. I never did a full comparison between hp9 and hp10 myself on mainnet because it's pretty expensive to do that. So big thanks to the guys who did. I did try to adjust the chains/day estimate to account for effects of extending the sieve. It's possible there are some bugs with that. Of course the estimate isn't fully accurate in the first place either.
The CPD is a good reference point though.  I think the key here is that we need a stable metric that we can use to benchmark performance, whether it's accurate in what it is attempting to measure or not.  The downside now is that if you change the chains/day estimate to accurately reflect the sieve extension, when you release the next version people are going to complain that's its slower than HP10 Cheesy

With regards to the sieveextensions factor, will changing this value be reflected in the CPD?  i.e. if I change it and I see CPD increase, can I take that as a positive thing, regardless if the increase % is inaccurate?

Do you have any other ideas for performance improvements in the pipeline?

I agree that it would be nice to have a stable metric. The issue is that if the metric is broken then it's simply misleading. The 'sieveextensions' parameter is reflected in chains/day but I have a feeling that it may be broken. And if it's broken, then you can't really trust it.

There are still things on my to-do list but I'm not sure if there's going to be anything big anymore.
paulthetafy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 815
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
 #2045

I'm fairly certain that HP10 does NOT find blocks at 2 x the rate of HP9, despite the 2 x increase in chains per day value.

I can confirm this.

Yup, it looks like the actual speedup doesn't match the chains/day estimate. I never did a full comparison between hp9 and hp10 myself on mainnet because it's pretty expensive to do that. So big thanks to the guys who did. I did try to adjust the chains/day estimate to account for effects of extending the sieve. It's possible there are some bugs with that. Of course the estimate isn't fully accurate in the first place either.
The CPD is a good reference point though.  I think the key here is that we need a stable metric that we can use to benchmark performance, whether it's accurate in what it is attempting to measure or not.  The downside now is that if you change the chains/day estimate to accurately reflect the sieve extension, when you release the next version people are going to complain that's its slower than HP10 Cheesy

With regards to the sieveextensions factor, will changing this value be reflected in the CPD?  i.e. if I change it and I see CPD increase, can I take that as a positive thing, regardless if the increase % is inaccurate?

Do you have any other ideas for performance improvements in the pipeline?

I agree that it would be nice to have a stable metric. The issue is that if the metric is broken then it's simply misleading. The 'sieveextensions' parameter is reflected in chains/day but I have a feeling that it may be broken. And if it's broken, then you can't really trust it.

There are still things on my to-do list but I'm not sure if there's going to be anything big anymore.
Cool, thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI, I did a major test (500-1000 machines from 4 to 16 cores for several hours) of both HP9 and HP10 on mainnet and for the most part found that the default settings you had selected were the optimal.  When I did the HP9 test it was just about profitable enough to run for a full day and cover costs (though I had my wallet hacked/stolen along with my entire XPM collection!)  HP10 was not even close to profitable, so I won't be running any more tests unless there is a likelihood of 2x performance Smiley

I think it's time to turn your attention to the GPU now Mikael Smiley

mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 03:25:53 PM
 #2046

Well, I found some small issues in the chains/day estimate with regards to the 'sieveextensions' parameter. The fix is now on github. The estimate seems to have gone down by about 5% so it's not a big issue. That also means that the estimate still doesn't match the actual block rates people have been reporting.

https://github.com/mikaelh2/primecoin/commit/42496a823b15fadd1a8809298c20310686d12ce9
gigawatt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 26, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
 #2047

Cool, thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI, I did a major test (500-1000 machines from 4 to 16 cores for several hours) of both HP9 and HP10 on mainnet and for the most part found that the default settings you had selected were the optimal. 

Holy balls, and I thought running 20x cc2.8xlarge AWS instances was nuts.
Out of curiosity, how does one come across so much computing power?  Were you using AWS as well?

BTC: 1E2egHUcLDAmcxcqZqpL18TPLx9Xj1akcV   Ψ: AWHJbwoM67Ez12SHH4pH5DnJKPoMSdvLz2   Primecoin All-In-One VPS Setup Script   Quarkcoin All-In-One VPS Setup Script   Metiscoin VPS Pool Mining Script
paulthetafy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 815
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 08:46:07 PM
 #2048

Cool, thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI, I did a major test (500-1000 machines from 4 to 16 cores for several hours) of both HP9 and HP10 on mainnet and for the most part found that the default settings you had selected were the optimal. 

Holy balls, and I thought running 20x cc2.8xlarge AWS instances was nuts.
Out of curiosity, how does one come across so much computing power?  Were you using AWS as well?
aws with increased limits. Incidentally the cc2.8xlarge is not the most cost effective for xpm as the L1 cache appears to be a bottleneck. To prove it, try running just 16 threads instead of all 32 and you'll see little difference!! Or at least that was true for hp9. You can get more bang for buck with 8 cores.

gateway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 10:11:16 PM
 #2049

hmm hp10 blows up on my core i7 795 box..

Lyddite
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10



View Profile
August 26, 2013, 10:50:21 PM
 #2050

Incidentally the cc2.8xlarge is not the most cost effective for xpm as the L1 cache appears to be a bottleneck. To prove it, try running just 16 threads instead of all 32 and you'll see little difference!! Or at least that was true for hp9. You can get more bang for buck with 8 cores.

The slowdown is caused by Hyperthreading.  The cc2.8xlarge instances have 32 logical cores, 16 physical cores.

- Lyddite -
akspa
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 53
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
August 26, 2013, 11:06:53 PM
 #2051

hmm hp10 blows up on my core i7 795 box..



You might need to reinstall your Visual C++ runtimes. I'm guessing either the 2010 or 2012 runtimes in this case.

BTC: 15v4Awn59Mz5gTf564DGtDnTs4JQJQuqg4
atariguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 100


https://eloncity.io/


View Profile
August 26, 2013, 11:14:29 PM
 #2052

Cool, thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI, I did a major test (500-1000 machines from 4 to 16 cores for several hours) of both HP9 and HP10 on mainnet and for the most part found that the default settings you had selected were the optimal. 

Holy balls, and I thought running 20x cc2.8xlarge AWS instances was nuts.
Out of curiosity, how does one come across so much computing power?  Were you using AWS as well?
aws with increased limits. Incidentally the cc2.8xlarge is not the most cost effective for xpm as the L1 cache appears to be a bottleneck. To prove it, try running just 16 threads instead of all 32 and you'll see little difference!! Or at least that was true for hp9. You can get more bang for buck with 8 cores.

Want to know something really strange? I've been running 3 VMs on Azure. I'm doing the free trial, so I'm limited to 20 cores. I had 2 VMs with 8 cores and 1 with 4. Over about 5 days, 1 of the 8 core VMs got 4 blocks, and the other 2 got absolutely nothing. I'm burning through the $200 credit pretty fast, so I turned off the 2 "unlucky" ones, and I'm hoping the lucky streak continues on the one that's left. But once the free trial is over, it's gone as well - it certainly won't be paying for itself at this rate.

gigawatt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 26, 2013, 11:20:47 PM
 #2053

Cool, thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI, I did a major test (500-1000 machines from 4 to 16 cores for several hours) of both HP9 and HP10 on mainnet and for the most part found that the default settings you had selected were the optimal. 

Holy balls, and I thought running 20x cc2.8xlarge AWS instances was nuts.
Out of curiosity, how does one come across so much computing power?  Were you using AWS as well?
aws with increased limits. Incidentally the cc2.8xlarge is not the most cost effective for xpm as the L1 cache appears to be a bottleneck. To prove it, try running just 16 threads instead of all 32 and you'll see little difference!! Or at least that was true for hp9. You can get more bang for buck with 8 cores.

Which would you recommend? Multiple c1.xlarge or just using cc2.8xlarge with threads = core/2?

BTC: 1E2egHUcLDAmcxcqZqpL18TPLx9Xj1akcV   Ψ: AWHJbwoM67Ez12SHH4pH5DnJKPoMSdvLz2   Primecoin All-In-One VPS Setup Script   Quarkcoin All-In-One VPS Setup Script   Metiscoin VPS Pool Mining Script
Tamis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 27, 2013, 12:17:15 AM
 #2054

Multiple c1.xlarge
gateway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 27, 2013, 12:56:51 AM
 #2055

Multiple c1.xlarge

which ami ?
atariguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 100


https://eloncity.io/


View Profile
August 27, 2013, 01:31:38 AM
 #2056

Multiple c1.xlarge

How close does that come to paying for itself these days?

Entz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


I not use any kind of messenger beware of scammers


View Profile
August 27, 2013, 03:51:37 AM
 #2057

Incidentally the cc2.8xlarge is not the most cost effective for xpm as the L1 cache appears to be a bottleneck. To prove it, try running just 16 threads instead of all 32 and you'll see little difference!! Or at least that was true for hp9. You can get more bang for buck with 8 cores.
I noticed this as well. Even though the cc2s put out amazing numbers the ROI just doesn't seem to be there (get 2-3x as many larges). Would be nice if there was something in between

How close does that come to paying for itself these days?
In my experience they do not. Variance/luck killed it for me, some days a loss/some good, but overall the profit was getting too low for my tastes. That was with 50 instances which is a small number so YMMV, esp with the "luck" factor.

TheSpiral
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 27, 2013, 04:37:44 AM
 #2058

Multiple c1.xlarge

How close does that come to paying for itself these days?
That's mostly luck. You may get zero blocks, you may get several. Northern Virginia c1.xlarge is ~0.07 an hour. I have found about 4 blocks in 2 weeks (3 of them have been today though). Quick rough estimate, I earned 0.25 BTC and paid $23.52. Very slim margins, though still profitable, *IF* you're lucky. I'd advise trying it out and seeing, killing the instance when it gets to 10 Difficulty.

[Cex.io] - Cheap virtual mining.
theDF
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
August 27, 2013, 05:58:49 AM
 #2059

Multiple c1.xlarge

How close does that come to paying for itself these days?
That's mostly luck. You may get zero blocks, you may get several. Northern Virginia c1.xlarge is ~0.07 an hour. I have found about 4 blocks in 2 weeks (3 of them have been today though). Quick rough estimate, I earned 0.25 BTC and paid $23.52. Very slim margins, though still profitable, *IF* you're lucky. I'd advise trying it out and seeing, killing the instance when it gets to 10 Difficulty.

I guess I dont have that luck Sad

█ ♠ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game (https://coinroll.it/?r=6) ♠ █ • Coinroll Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191176.0) • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=223474.0)
one4many
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497
Merit: 500



View Profile
August 27, 2013, 06:49:24 AM
 #2060

I can see the (your) money burning in AWS EC2 powered charcoal power plants ...   Undecided  Sad
http://www.zdnet.com/greenpeace-slams-amazon-over-green-datacentre-efforts-3040155041/
Please use a different more environment friendly cloud provider!
Pages: « 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!