Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2017, 11:56:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 388229 times)
mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301


View Profile
September 13, 2013, 05:26:18 PM
 #2221

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)


Well, the second if-statement should say nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers. I read rdebourbon's release notes and saw the bug in the code earlier already.

And yes, the first if-statement could be simplified to nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC2Layers since that implies nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers, if that's what you meant.

The bug causes the sieve to produce BiTwin candidates for 8-chains instead of 9-chains on mainnet. That means there will be more TWN candidates but they are a lot less likely to produce blocks. More candidates means that more primality tests are done which in turn falsely inflates the chains/day estimate. Basically this is the big bug in HP10 that I've been looking for. Once the bug is fixed, the miner will be producing more blocks and chains/day will be a lot closer to reality.
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
1503100612
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503100612

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503100612
Reply with quote  #2

1503100612
Report to moderator
cabin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310



View Profile
September 13, 2013, 05:40:57 PM
 #2222

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)


Well, the second if-statement should say nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers. I read rdebourbon's release notes and saw the bug in the code earlier already.

And yes, the first if-statement could be simplified to nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC2Layers since that implies nLayerSeq < nBiTwinCC1Layers, if that's what you meant.

The bug causes the sieve to produce BiTwin candidates for 8-chains instead of 9-chains on mainnet. That means there will be more TWN candidates but they are a lot less likely to produce blocks. More candidates means that more primality tests are done which in turn falsely inflates the chains/day estimate. Basically this is the big bug in HP10 that I've been looking for. Once the bug is fixed, the miner will be producing more blocks and chains/day will be a lot closer to reality.


Thanks, that clears things up!

KICKICO██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
|██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301


View Profile
September 13, 2013, 06:17:13 PM
 #2223

Well, I pushed the fix for the big bug to github. I'm also changing the default value of 'sieveextensions' to 9. That seems to be the new sweet spot now that the bug in the sieve is fixed. If all goes well, I will probably do a release some time tomorrow.
Ifaistos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18



View Profile
September 13, 2013, 09:15:55 PM
 #2224

pulled the code from github and build it
cpd wend from 0.30 to 0.19 no idea about block finds though, as i started yesterday with H10 on 5 similar machines (old dual xeon servers)

{
    "blocks" : 163249,
    "chainspermin" : 1,
    "chainsperday" : 0.19348673,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 9.86140740,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "primespersec" : 380,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "sieveextensions" : 9,
    "sievepercentage" : 10,
    "sievesize" : 1000000,
    "testnet" : false
}


Ifaistos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18



View Profile
September 13, 2013, 09:34:09 PM
 #2225

I've spend the day yesterday going over this thread (all 113 pages of it  Roll Eyes ) trying to figure out optimal settings.
(People mention several times in the thread that the defaults are pretty much the best settings)
I have a number of old dual Xeon 3.4Ghz servers with 16k L1 and 1MB L2 and 2GB ram and i am not sure if the defaults are actually the best option for them, as newer cpu's have much bigger L1 and L2 caches.

As far as i understood without going over the code, sievesize is the pool of primes we look at, sievepercentage is the % of the numbers we look from the sieve for candidates for the chains.
I am not sure what the sieveextensions parameter means (there was a mention but can't locate it)
What is not clear to me and i would be great full if someone could explain, is how sievesize translates to actual memory footprint ?
Cause i believe that if that does not fit in the L2 cache things would slow down considerable (then again i might be wrong)

Thanks for your time
Trillium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
September 14, 2013, 08:02:55 AM
 #2226

I've spend the day yesterday going over this thread (all 113 pages of it  Roll Eyes ) trying to figure out optimal settings.
(People mention several times in the thread that the defaults are pretty much the best settings)
I have a number of old dual Xeon 3.4Ghz servers with 16k L1 and 1MB L2 and 2GB ram and i am not sure if the defaults are actually the best option for them, as newer cpu's have much bigger L1 and L2 caches.

As far as i understood without going over the code, sievesize is the pool of primes we look at, sievepercentage is the % of the numbers we look from the sieve for candidates for the chains.
I am not sure what the sieveextensions parameter means (there was a mention but can't locate it)
What is not clear to me and i would be great full if someone could explain, is how sievesize translates to actual memory footprint ?
Cause i believe that if that does not fit in the L2 cache things would slow down considerable (then again i might be wrong)

Thanks for your time

While I can't answer your question re cache optimization, I can tell you that those CPU's wont break even against electricity costs unless you have almost-free or free electricity. I have a pile of 10 rackmount servers behind me with those kinds of CPU (release dates roughly 2003 - 2007) and they're simply not worth mining on. An i7 4770k is about as fast of ten of those older single core xeons and only uses <120 watts even before you overclock it.

My work laptop (i5-560M) gets 0.8 chainsperday and uses 40 watts from the wall, it's faster than about 500 watts of my old rackmount servers (not to mention essentially silent and 1/100th the size).

BTC:1AaaAAAAaAAE2L1PXM1x9VDNqvcrfa9He6
peoplecoin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24



View Profile
September 14, 2013, 08:33:35 AM
 #2227

I heard that someone sell new block hashes?
Carra23
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Need a campaign manager? PM me


View Profile
September 14, 2013, 09:46:00 AM
 #2228

I have been continuously mining from day 1. I have never optimized anything, and just run the qt with setgenerate true. Is there anything I can do to improve?
Ifaistos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18



View Profile
September 14, 2013, 10:02:19 AM
 #2229

While I can't answer your question re cache optimization, I can tell you that those CPU's wont break even against electricity costs unless you have almost-free or free electricity. I have a pile of 10 rackmount servers behind me with those kinds of CPU (release dates roughly 2003 - 2007) and they're simply not worth mining on. An i7 4770k is about as fast of ten of those older single core xeons and only uses <120 watts even before you overclock it.

My work laptop (i5-560M) gets 0.8 chainsperday and uses 40 watts from the wall, it's faster than about 500 watts of my old rackmount servers (not to mention essentially silent and 1/100th the size).

You are right that it does not make sense without free electricity given current difficulty and price ~0.30$

I measured them with a Voltcratf energy logger at around 300W with both cpus and hyperthreading on, running H10
With the 'old' H10 they do around 0.3 cpd, with the version from github goes down to 0.22
So doing the math gives us

block/day = (1 - 0.86185294 ) * 0.22924828 = 0.031669976 which is around 1 block every 30 days
 12 xpm * 0.30$ =3.6$/month

power consumption

 330W = 7.92 Kw/h a day = 237.6 Kw/h per month

so to *break even* (no profit) you need an electricity price of less than  0.015 Kw/h (237.6/3.6) and without factoring in things like cooling,internet connection etc.

If on the other hand if you don't have to pay for any of the running costs with 10 machines and current prices you could get around 36$/month  from some piece of junk equipment lol  Smiley
mikaelh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301


View Profile
September 14, 2013, 10:17:35 AM
 #2230

-hp11 is out! Download links are on the first page as usual.

Changes in -hp11:
 * Fixed a bug in the BiTwin filter that was inflating the chains/day estimate and reducing the chances of finding a block
 * Slightly improved the accuracy of the prime probability estimate with regards to the 'sieveextensions' parameter
 * Other small fixes and improvements from cabin

This is mainly a bugfix release without any new features. The chains/day number does go down with this release now that the bug in HP10's sieve has been fixed. Nevertheless, the actual chance of finding a block is improved. Furthermore, the reduced chains/day estimate is actually a lot closer to reality now.
Trillium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
September 14, 2013, 10:39:01 AM
 #2231

-hp11 is out! Download links are on the first page as usual.

Changes in -hp11:
 * Fixed a bug in the BiTwin filter that was inflating the chains/day estimate and reducing the chances of finding a block
 * Slightly improved the accuracy of the prime probability estimate with regards to the 'sieveextensions' parameter
 * Other small fixes and improvements from cabin

This is mainly a bugfix release without any new features. The chains/day number does go down with this release now that the bug in HP10's sieve has been fixed. Nevertheless, the actual chance of finding a block is improved. Furthermore, the reduced chains/day estimate is actually a lot closer to reality now.

Our god has spoken. Bow down and receive His gift graciously.

BTC:1AaaAAAAaAAE2L1PXM1x9VDNqvcrfa9He6
arnuschky
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 502


View Profile
September 14, 2013, 12:23:10 PM
 #2232

-hp11 is out! Download links are on the first page as usual.

Changes in -hp11:
 * Fixed a bug in the BiTwin filter that was inflating the chains/day estimate and reducing the chances of finding a block
 * Slightly improved the accuracy of the prime probability estimate with regards to the 'sieveextensions' parameter
 * Other small fixes and improvements from cabin

This is mainly a bugfix release without any new features. The chains/day number does go down with this release now that the bug in HP10's sieve has been fixed. Nevertheless, the actual chance of finding a block is improved. Furthermore, the reduced chains/day estimate is actually a lot closer to reality now.

Thank you. Not only for making this, but also for continuing to support Primecoin, the hp client, and all the other work!
hasle2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123


View Profile
September 14, 2013, 05:21:51 PM
 #2233

I have been continuously mining from day 1. I have never optimized anything, and just run the qt with setgenerate true. Is there anything I can do to improve?

As long as you are always running the latest hp then you are pretty much doing the best you can. The default parameters are pretty much optimal for most processors.
ReCat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
September 14, 2013, 05:56:27 PM
 #2234



Well, No wonder my rack server was mining so many blocks! Although it's from 2006 the CPU beat even the fastest i7 at prime numbers.

Interesting stuff!

BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW
Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when - Oh. What you love is now gone.
Trillium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
September 14, 2013, 10:34:29 PM
 #2235

http://i.imgur.com/3GDcG0N.png

Well, No wonder my rack server was mining so many blocks! Although it's from 2006 the CPU beat even the fastest i7 at prime numbers.

Interesting stuff!

I think for primecoin integer math is also important. IIRC mikaelh has mentioned this before (specifically in regards to integer / floating point ops). I don't think that cpumark prime score translates directly to primecoin performance. How many watts on your rack? In my experience servers are not very efficient but if I recall correctly your server (from previous pics) was mostly just motherboard+CPUs so perhaps its more efficient than most systems from the big vendors (HP, IBM, Dell etc). I see a lot of rackmount servers that use 200+ watts of juice while idling and I wonder where exactly that power is going... Oh and keep in mind that a 3770k can overclock 25-40%+ without much effort or additional cooling. I think that cpumark disregards submitted results where an overclock is present to prevent skewing of the results.

BTC:1AaaAAAAaAAE2L1PXM1x9VDNqvcrfa9He6
ReCat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2013, 04:49:03 PM
 #2236

http://i.imgur.com/3GDcG0N.png

Well, No wonder my rack server was mining so many blocks! Although it's from 2006 the CPU beat even the fastest i7 at prime numbers.

Interesting stuff!

I think for primecoin integer math is also important. IIRC mikaelh has mentioned this before (specifically in regards to integer / floating point ops). I don't think that cpumark prime score translates directly to primecoin performance. How many watts on your rack? In my experience servers are not very efficient but if I recall correctly your server (from previous pics) was mostly just motherboard+CPUs so perhaps its more efficient than most systems from the big vendors (HP, IBM, Dell etc). I see a lot of rackmount servers that use 200+ watts of juice while idling and I wonder where exactly that power is going... Oh and keep in mind that a 3770k can overclock 25-40%+ without much effort or additional cooling. I think that cpumark disregards submitted results where an overclock is present to prevent skewing of the results.

It's a Dual-Processor Motherboard. Each CPU pulls a maximum of 50 watts. About 220 watts are drawn when on full load, 170 otherwise. I measured it with a Killawatt meter on site.

You can't really beat that when considering I got the entire server for just 150 bucks. Tongue

BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW
Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when - Oh. What you love is now gone.
FoldingTime
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 162


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 06:48:21 PM
 #2237

Well one month of continuous solo mining on the latest HP* and found 8 blocks on Xeon E3-1230. Also there appears to be no continuity on when I'll find a block:

Sun Aug 11 22:11:51 CEST 2013
Mon Aug 12 23:37:51 CEST 2013
Sun Aug 18 11:19:38 CEST 2013
Tue Aug 27 17:31:03 CEST 2013
Wed Aug 28 11:53:26 CEST 2013
Fri Sep  6 08:24:34 CEST 2013
Sun Sep 15 08:11:59 CEST 2013
Sun Sep 15 10:23:27 CEST 2013

Ifaistos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 07:10:48 PM
 #2238

What's the CPD you are getting ?
Want to see if the formula used to "predict" blocks has actually any meaning, although variance can be a bitch
Ifaistos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 07:18:16 PM
 #2239

http://i.imgur.com/3GDcG0N.png

Well, No wonder my rack server was mining so many blocks! Although it's from 2006 the CPU beat even the fastest i7 at prime numbers.

Interesting stuff!

I think for primecoin integer math is also important. IIRC mikaelh has mentioned this before (specifically in regards to integer / floating point ops). I don't think that cpumark prime score translates directly to primecoin performance. How many watts on your rack? In my experience servers are not very efficient but if I recall correctly your server (from previous pics) was mostly just motherboard+CPUs so perhaps its more efficient than most systems from the big vendors (HP, IBM, Dell etc). I see a lot of rackmount servers that use 200+ watts of juice while idling and I wonder where exactly that power is going... Oh and keep in mind that a 3770k can overclock 25-40%+ without much effort or additional cooling. I think that cpumark disregards submitted results where an overclock is present to prevent skewing of the results.

It's a Dual-Processor Motherboard. Each CPU pulls a maximum of 50 watts. About 220 watts are drawn when on full load, 170 otherwise. I measured it with a Killawatt meter on site.

You can't really beat that when considering I got the entire server for just 150 bucks. Tongue

I am getting similar numbers in terms of power (250W) from a Dell poweredge 2900 with 2  E5405  @ 2.00GHz.
HP11 gives a 1.5 in CPD but no block yet after a day and  half of running
FoldingTime
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 162


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 10:15:44 PM
 #2240

What's the CPD you are getting ?
Want to see if the formula used to "predict" blocks has actually any meaning, although variance can be a bitch
HP10 shows 2.13 CPD
Pages: « 1 ... 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!