|
ReCat
|
 |
July 20, 2013, 06:34:36 PM |
|
No.
Desktop and server processors are identical. Server Xeons are just rebranded versions of the current era of desktop processors.
Your xeon is probably based on an architecture before the i7.
|
BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW
Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when - Oh. What you love is now gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Alex P
Member
 Offline
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
|
|
July 20, 2013, 06:39:54 PM |
|
My server processor shows 12 cores running and my desktop shows only 8 cores. but it's still slower than the desktop by almost half. Also my server processor cost 4x more than the the desktop processor... No.
Desktop and server processors are identical. Server Xeons are just rebranded versions of the current era of desktop processors.
Your xeon is probably based on an architecture before the i7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikaelh (OP)
|
|
July 20, 2013, 06:43:47 PM |
|
My server processor shows 12 cores running and my desktop shows only 8 cores. but it's still slower than the desktop by almost half. Also my server processor cost 4x more than the the desktop processor...
Well, your server shouldn't be lagging behind by that much. Which operating system is the server running? Which version of the client are you using? Did you compile it yourself? |
|
|
|
|
Alex P
Member
Offline
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
|
|
July 20, 2013, 07:08:58 PM |
|
I used your version hp5. I'm running Windows 8 R2 Standard 64 bit. The processor is: Intel Xeon CPU E5-2420 @1.90 ghz My settings are: maxconnections=256 genproclimit=-1 sievesize=4000000 gen=1 My server processor shows 12 cores running and my desktop shows only 8 cores. but it's still slower than the desktop by almost half. Also my server processor cost 4x more than the the desktop processor...
Well, your server shouldn't be lagging behind by that much. Which operating system is the server running? Which version of the client are you using? Did you compile it yourself? |
|
|
|
|
crazyearner
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 20, 2013, 07:26:22 PM |
|
Help needed AMD (Piledriver) FX-8350 4.00GHz
Only getting 4500 primes any idea whats going on?
|
|
|
|
|
rethaw
|
|
July 20, 2013, 07:49:27 PM |
|
primecoind: checkqueue.h:167: CCheckQueueControl<T>::CCheckQueueControl(CCheckQueue<T>*) [with T = CScriptCheck]: Assertion `pqueue->nTotal == pqueue->nIdle' failed. I pushed a fix for this crash to bitbucket. If someone wants to try it, it would be appreciated. The crash is quite random. Looks like this bug has been squashed. |
|
|
|
|
Tamis
|
|
July 20, 2013, 07:51:22 PM |
|
I've been mining with sievesize=4M for about 22 hours.
I found a block 4 hours after mining with this setting and nothing more for the next 18 hours.
So yes we still find blocks with this setting but it's not a "magical" setting even if the period is too short to draw any solid conclusion...
So I end up not knowing anymore after this test, the random aspect of mining is not helping finding the best sievesize.
It would be great if everyone shared their tests on this variable but i have a feeling some don't want to...
I've never found a block with 4M - only 1M and 2M. But I think this has to do more with the randomness than anything else.. Did you find more blocks at 1M or at 2M ? And yes the randomness of the process is not helping finding the best settings as I've said earlier. |
|
|
|
|
gnome2
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:12:12 PM |
|
I have primecoin-qt how dose it find nodes?
It has just sat there for 20 hours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xyzzy099
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1062
Merit: 1041
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:15:10 PM |
|
I used your version hp5. I'm running Windows 8 R2 Standard 64 bit. The processor is: Intel Xeon CPU E5-2420 @1.90 ghz My settings are: maxconnections=256 genproclimit=-1 sievesize=4000000 gen=1 My server processor shows 12 cores running and my desktop shows only 8 cores. but it's still slower than the desktop by almost half. Also my server processor cost 4x more than the the desktop processor...
Well, your server shouldn't be lagging behind by that much. Which operating system is the server running? Which version of the client are you using? Did you compile it yourself? 'genproclimit=1' will cause it to only create one thread for mining. Is that really what you want? |
Libertarians: Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
|
|
|
gnome2
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:24:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superfluouso
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:26:46 PM |
|
I've been mining with sievesize=4M for about 22 hours.
I found a block 4 hours after mining with this setting and nothing more for the next 18 hours.
So yes we still find blocks with this setting but it's not a "magical" setting even if the period is too short to draw any solid conclusion...
So I end up not knowing anymore after this test, the random aspect of mining is not helping finding the best sievesize.
It would be great if everyone shared their tests on this variable but i have a feeling some don't want to...
I've never found a block with 4M - only 1M and 2M. But I think this has to do more with the randomness than anything else.. Did you find more blocks at 1M or at 2M ? And yes the randomness of the process is not helping finding the best settings as I've said earlier. Too hard to say-again because of the random nature and me not doing the best to keep track. Running everything at 2M now but no blocks in 24 hours.. |
|
|
|
|
PoolMinor
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1843
Merit: 1338
XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:29:10 PM |
|
Help needed AMD (Piledriver) FX-8350 4.00GHz
Only getting 4500 primes any idea whats going on?
I don't see much support on this thread for our situation owning these AMD 8-core chips, I have seen others with similar queries. I have an older bulldozer FX-8120 ran it up to 4.2Ghz similar pps and did not see a block for several days. I still think at this rate it is still a bingo game. |
Btc=C2MF Free BTC Poker Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent. -Marilyn vos Savant
|
|
|
|
rethaw
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:36:54 PM |
|
Help needed AMD (Piledriver) FX-8350 4.00GHz
Only getting 4500 primes any idea whats going on?
I don't see much support on this thread for our situation owning these AMD 8-core chips, I have seen others with similar queries. I have an older bulldozer FX-8120 ran it up to 4.2Ghz similar pps and did not see a block for several days. I still think at this rate it is still a bingo game. That's a good rate as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
|
Lollaskates
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:41:38 PM |
|
we need some windows compiling instructions, the gmp dependency is screwing with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
96redformula
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:54:08 PM |
|
we need some windows compiling instructions, the gmp dependency is screwing with me.
Some of the other coins have the gmp.h file with them. You can find the file by iteself and add it to the folder where it is looking for it. I would check and let you know which ones, but I just reinstalled windows and am setting things back up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lollaskates
|
|
July 20, 2013, 08:59:45 PM |
|
we need some windows compiling instructions, the gmp dependency is screwing with me.
Some of the other coins have the gmp.h file with them. You can find the file by iteself and add it to the folder where it is looking for it. I would check and let you know which ones, but I just reinstalled windows and am setting things back up. i've tried straight downloading the gmp libs, building from source, tried MIPS or whatever that other variation of the library was, no dice. I've gotten passed the gmp.h failure, its now failing at gmpxx.h EDIT: Got it fixed, had to frankenstein the source package and the static libs together. seems to be building fine, whats left is to check to see if its successful at all when running |
|
|
|
|
dudeguy
Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 10
|
|
July 20, 2013, 09:05:54 PM |
|
I've been mining with sievesize=4M for about 22 hours.
I found a block 4 hours after mining with this setting and nothing more for the next 18 hours.
So yes we still find blocks with this setting but it's not a "magical" setting even if the period is too short to draw any solid conclusion...
So I end up not knowing anymore after this test, the random aspect of mining is not helping finding the best sievesize.
It would be great if everyone shared their tests on this variable but i have a feeling some don't want to...
Ivy bridge i3 3225 3.3Ghz 2x32kb 8 way L1 data, 2x32kb 8 way L1 inst., Level 2 = 2x256kb 8 way, Level 3 cahche = 3MB 12 way. Sieve size recommended anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
blackboy
|
|
July 20, 2013, 09:40:24 PM |
|
I like to keep my sievesize at 1M just to have one less variable to worry about. At this point I think is best to experience with different processors, VPS configurations, etc.
|
Resistance is futile. Embrace cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
Tamis
|
|
July 20, 2013, 09:43:26 PM |
|
I've been mining with sievesize=4M for about 22 hours.
I found a block 4 hours after mining with this setting and nothing more for the next 18 hours.
So yes we still find blocks with this setting but it's not a "magical" setting even if the period is too short to draw any solid conclusion...
So I end up not knowing anymore after this test, the random aspect of mining is not helping finding the best sievesize.
It would be great if everyone shared their tests on this variable but i have a feeling some don't want to...
Ivy bridge i3 3225 3.3Ghz 2x32kb 8 way L1 data, 2x32kb 8 way L1 inst., Level 2 = 2x256kb 8 way, Level 3 cahche = 3MB 12 way. Sieve size recommended anyone? The only correct answer that I have right now is that this IS the question ! I usually find one block per 24h with sievesize=1M (i7 3770k @ 4400) Did a 24h test run with 4M and did find a block quite fast, around 4 hours and nothing for the rest of the time. So 4M works but I have no way to say if it is better or not than 1M :/ I just got the same result, one block a day. Once again randomness is the big problem. The only way to progress on this subject would be to centralize data regarding this parameter for enough time to get reliable data. I'm trying 2M for 24h just to see... |
|
|
|
|
|
