[XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance | HP14 released!

[bcp19]

I gave yPool a try for a proper 24-hours. On my rack server, I earned 0.01 XPM in those 24-hours. Soloing, I got a block after 3 days of mining.

My final verdict on yPool: fucking shit.

I'm going back to soloing.

im pretty sure you fucked up, and shouldnt be blaming ypool for your own mistakes, there is no way you only found .01 xpm in a whole day of mining without screwing something u.

The problem here is you aren't dealing with absolutes.  On SHA-256 it takes ~72MH per minute average to solve a difficulty 1 hash.  The chains found by Primecoin are random and as ypool found out, some people could tweak to forego the longer chains and concentrate on getting mass quantities of the 6-ch, basically stealing from the honest block finders.  You could have 1000 identical CPUs running the exact same setting and see a variance unheard of in SHA-256 processing.  In unscientific terms, it's the 'luck' factor.

So how do I do this thing that you speak of?

I know when I was doing testing I got higher 6ch at 200,000 sieve primes, but I never got around to playing with the other tweaks.  I left the program running for 24 hours on each setting and still saw some wide variations as I changed SP.  IMHO it'd be rather useless to go this route since the 6-ch are only worth 0.000976 now and you'd need ~1024 of them to equal a single 8ch and 16,384 to equal a 9ch.

[magnificat_mafia]

What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

Changing sievesize doesn't seem to do much.

[xTachibana]

I gave yPool a try for a proper 24-hours. On my rack server, I earned 0.01 XPM in those 24-hours. Soloing, I got a block after 3 days of mining.

My final verdict on yPool: fucking shit.

I'm going back to soloing.

im pretty sure you fucked up, and shouldnt be blaming ypool for your own mistakes, there is no way you only found .01 xpm in a whole day of mining without screwing something u.

The problem here is you aren't dealing with absolutes.  On SHA-256 it takes ~72MH per minute average to solve a difficulty 1 hash.  The chains found by Primecoin are random and as ypool found out, some people could tweak to forego the longer chains and concentrate on getting mass quantities of the 6-ch, basically stealing from the honest block finders.  You could have 1000 identical CPUs running the exact same setting and see a variance unheard of in SHA-256 processing.  In unscientific terms, it's the 'luck' factor.

So how do I do this thing that you speak of?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sq24hzo993afy9c/l7icP0KiuM

download 3.2 (64bit, not avx), you can use the same .bat if you wish, you were probably running the original ypool miner that literally no one uses anymore, because it sucks.

[xTachibana]

I gave yPool a try for a proper 24-hours. On my rack server, I earned 0.01 XPM in those 24-hours. Soloing, I got a block after 3 days of mining.

My final verdict on yPool: fucking shit.

I'm going back to soloing.

im pretty sure you fucked up, and shouldnt be blaming ypool for your own mistakes, there is no way you only found .01 xpm in a whole day of mining without screwing something u.

The problem here is you aren't dealing with absolutes.  On SHA-256 it takes ~72MH per minute average to solve a difficulty 1 hash.  The chains found by Primecoin are random and as ypool found out, some people could tweak to forego the longer chains and concentrate on getting mass quantities of the 6-ch, basically stealing from the honest block finders.  You could have 1000 identical CPUs running the exact same setting and see a variance unheard of in SHA-256 processing.  In unscientific terms, it's the 'luck' factor.

So how do I do this thing that you speak of?

I know when I was doing testing I got higher 6ch at 200,000 sieve primes, but I never got around to playing with the other tweaks.  I left the program running for 24 hours on each setting and still saw some wide variations as I changed SP.  IMHO it'd be rather useless to go this route since the 6-ch are only worth 0.000976 now and you'd need ~1024 of them to equal a single 8ch and 16,384 to equal a 9ch.

jh doubled the value of 6ch, so its actually more, however, he also increased the minimum 6ch diff  from 6.0 to 6.5, meaning that leaving your system at defaults is probably your best bet

[Trillium]

What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

Changing sievesize doesn't seem to do much.

The best settings are the default settings. Some very smart people with large resources have gone to great effort to determine those best values. Unless you really know what you are doing then don't change them.

I suspect you think that your chainsperday is low because you over-estimate your Xeons performance. Also, saying you have a 2.66 GHz Xeon is like saying you have a 2.66 meter long car. It doesn't actually mean very much because there are half a dozen Xeons that fit that description. Single core? Dual core? Quad core? How about a model number (eg SL___) or series type (eg Xeon E5####).

If I had to guess, your CPU's are probably the Core-equivalent Xeon's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Core-based_Xeons which were released ~2006-2008 and the performance you are getting is completely reasonable from such CPU. In fact, the poorer quad-core Xeons will also give about that performance too.

[rwessels]

I have 28 of the 5410 Xeons and 26 of the 5420 Xeons and I am pretty impressed with the performance.  Each of the dual cpu 5420 servers is getting just under 100 6-chains an hour - pretty much the same thing as my hex core E5-2420.

[fhh]

jeh my dual XEON L5420 System gives me 2.81 chainsperday from getmininginfo of hp10

  

edit: thats a bit more than a Core i7-3770 gets me

is that what you get? where do you get the 6-chains per hour value from?

whats the performance of a dual 5410 system?

[magnificat_mafia]

It is a dual processor Xeon X5650.  I think it should be performing better than this.

What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

Changing sievesize doesn't seem to do much.

The best settings are the default settings. Some very smart people with large resources have gone to great effort to determine those best values. Unless you really know what you are doing then don't change them.

I suspect you think that your chainsperday is low because you over-estimate your Xeons performance. Also, saying you have a 2.66 GHz Xeon is like saying you have a 2.66 meter long car. It doesn't actually mean very much because there are half a dozen Xeons that fit that description. Single core? Dual core? Quad core? How about a model number (eg SL___) or series type (eg Xeon E5####).

If I had to guess, your CPU's are probably the Core-equivalent Xeon's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Core-based_Xeons which were released ~2006-2008 and the performance you are getting is completely reasonable from such CPU. In fact, the poorer quad-core Xeons will also give about that performance too.

[fhh]

It is a dual processor Xeon X5650.  I think it should be performing better than this.

What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

so 24 threads (2x6coresxHT) giving this results? that seems low.
give 12 threads (genproclimit . 12) a try - HT is throtteling on some cpus...

[magnificat_mafia]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it didn't work unfortunately.  I'm using HP10 also.

{
    "blocks" : 158764,
    "chainspermin" : 7,
    "chainsperday" : 1.10043503,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86619937,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : 10,
    "primespersec" : 1701,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

It is a dual processor Xeon X5650.  I think it should be performing better than this.

What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}

so 24 threads (2x6coresxHT) giving this results? that seems low.
give 12 threads (genproclimit . 12) a try - HT is throtteling on some cpus...

[shoggot]

{
"blocks" : 158941,
"chainspermin" : 33,
"chainsperday" : 4.23677822,
"currentblocksize" : 1521,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 9.86579484,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 4397,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"sieveextensions" : 6,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}

2x e5645 with hp10

{
"blocks" : 158941,
"chainspermin" : 61,
"chainsperday" : 5.25560817,
"currentblocksize" : 1521,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 9.86579484,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 5457,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"sieveextensions" : 6,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}

2x e5-2630 with hp10

{
"blocks" : 158943,
"chainspermin" : 16,
"chainsperday" : 1.47739306,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.86568880,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 1538,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sieveextensions" : 6,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}

1x e5620

there you have some xeon figures.

[crendore]

I'm looking forward to those Broadwell chips coming out at the end of this year:
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/ia-large-integer-arithmetic-paper.pdf

[Trillium]

It is a dual processor Xeon X5650.  I think it should be performing better than this.

author=magnificat_mafia link=topic=255782.msg3114986#msg3114986 date=1378745514]
What are the best settings for Xeon processors? I'm running 2x 2.66 GHz Xeon's and getting pretty low chains per day:
{
    "blocks" : 157519,
    "chainspermin" : 10,
    "chainsperday" : 1.18470870,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86931497,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 1754,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 6,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false

Yes something is wrong, those CPU's each get about ~7500+ on the passmark scores ( http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php )

I have a single Core 2 Quad Q9550 which gets up to 1.5 CPD yet it is only ~4000 in the passmark scores.

This might be a silly question, but are you sure that you are using the 64-bit version of HP10 and you have it running on all cores on both CPU?

[redphlegm]

I think something wonky is going on. I've got my rig running at 8.x chains per day but haven't found a block in 3 days now. Is this indicative of something amiss or is it likely just really shitty luck? I was pulling in 1-3 a day before and now it's just crickets.

Default settings, by the way.

[acoiner1]

Sadly, the difficulty level dropped and XPM price keeps dropping. If trend continues, the XPM market will crash.

[masterOfDisaster]

Sadly, the difficulty level dropped and XPM price keeps dropping. If trend continues, the XPM market will crash.

Yeah, I remember when I shut down my dual 5850 GPU Bitcoin miner in June 2011, because the combination of difficulty and price didn't seem to pay out. I'm not 100% sure about the details, but approximately 1 BTC/day was simply not enough at rates around 3 USD/BTC.
The thing is: you never know what will happen in such complex environments. I don't say that XPM will rise because BTC did. But you will not be able to predict a crash as well
One thing that can strongly support Primecoin is the fact that its proof-of-work might be useful.

[Carra23]

It may seem strange, but I am happy that price is dropping. I am still solomining so this should help.

[binaryFate]

Sadly, the difficulty level dropped and XPM price keeps dropping. If trend continues, the XPM market will crash.

Yeah, I remember when I shut down my dual 5850 GPU Bitcoin miner in June 2011, because the combination of difficulty and price didn't seem to pay out. I'm not 100% sure about the details, but approximately 1 BTC/day was simply not enough at rates around 3 USD/BTC.
The thing is: you never know what will happen in such complex environments. I don't say that XPM will rise because BTC did. But you will not be able to predict a crash as well
One thing that can strongly support Primecoin is the fact that its proof-of-work might be useful.

But the mecanism that relates in primecoin the number of coins released per block to difficulty is absent in bitcoin.
Here we have a potentially reinforcing cycle:  decrease of diff -> more coins created -> more coins to sell on market -> price drop -> less miners keep mining -> decrease of diff.

That potentially leads to sharp adjustments.

[mhps]

Sadly, the difficulty level dropped and XPM price keeps dropping. If trend continues, the XPM market will crash.

Yeah, I remember when I shut down my dual 5850 GPU Bitcoin miner in June 2011, because the combination of difficulty and price didn't seem to pay out. I'm not 100% sure about the details, but approximately 1 BTC/day was simply not enough at rates around 3 USD/BTC.
The thing is: you never know what will happen in such complex environments. I don't say that XPM will rise because BTC did. But you will not be able to predict a crash as well
One thing that can strongly support Primecoin is the fact that its proof-of-work might be useful.

But the mecanism that relates in primecoin the number of coins released per block to difficulty is absent in bitcoin.
Here we have a potentially reinforcing cycle:  decrease of diff -> more coins created -> more coins to sell on market -> price drop -> less miners keep mining -> decrease of diff.

That potentially leads to sharp adjustments.

The cycle is perhaps less strong as you think. Because of improvement in miners, one of my computer is finding 6-chains as fast as all miners in the world did on the release day of XPM. The network difficulty will perhaps never go under 8 again because only about 200 today's miners are needed to sustain it.  At diff=8 a block only has 50% XPMs than today.  I estimate 2000 machines are needed to sustain diff=9. There won't be significantly more coins created per day because there is a floor to the difficulty. So I think for a long term analysis the improvement of miners (and Moore's law, as Sunny King points out) will be the driving factor.

[cabin]

Mikael: in the below code block should it be nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC2Layers or nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers? It looks like it should be a 1, and rdebourbon made this change in his miner, but it seems the chains/d drop when I do this.. so curious if you knew what was going on there. The double check in the first if statement seems redundant too.

Code:

                if (nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers && nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC2Layers)
                {
                    for (unsigned int nWord = nMinWord; nWord < nMaxWord; nWord++)
                    {
                        vfCompositeCunningham1[nWord] |= vfCompositeLayerCC1[nWord];
                        vfCompositeCunningham2[nWord] |= vfCompositeLayerCC2[nWord];
                        vfCompositeBiTwin[nWord] |= vfCompositeLayerCC1[nWord] | vfCompositeLayerCC2[nWord];
                    }
                }
                else if (nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC2Layers)