hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap

[jdubya]

Are there any updates coming soon for this miner?


Thanks

[badfad]

I'm having a problem with the miner closing when I use the cpu to mine other coins. 2 x 1080 + 1070ti otherwise running very well.
Any ideeas?

[Mr.Spider703]

I'm having a problem with the miner closing when I use the cpu to mine other coins. 2 x 1080 + 1070ti otherwise running very well.
Any ideeas?

overclocking reduce for 1080 = PL 70-80 mem 150-250 core 100-150, for 1070ti i don't know, i havn't this card.
for 1070ti try at 80% tdp. +135 +700
Or from the overclocking which is now done for -50 for the memory and -10 the core. Run and see how it will work, if we leave it steadily, if it takes off, then we reduce it, you can choose the thresholds yourself, I chose in step of 20

Are there any updates coming soon for this miner?


Thanks

waiting Palgin

[Elange]

I'm really eager to test out your miner, but I run Linux rigs. Are you planning to release linux binaries?

I can betatest, if needed. I have 1060s, 1050s, 980s, 970s.

Thanks!

[MagicSmoker]

...
I just concluded another test of hsrminer on the Trezarcoin official pool and so far the results don't look good but I need all the blocks to confirm before I bury the hatchet on this one. Let's just say that with average difficulty over the last 24 hours (which would be conservative, because current difficulty spent most of the day below that) I should have earned 38 TZC but so far the sum of confirmed and unconfirmed is around 29.

Difficulty on ZEN has been really high today so it's as good a time as any to have the 6x GTX 1060 rig do another neoscrypt mining test. The results reported in the quote above were with hsrminer claiming it was hashing at 4.32 MH/s. The KlausT fork of ccminer (v8.19) is reporting a hashrate of 4.06 MH/s after 10 minutes of operation (it does take awhile for neoscrypt to get up to speed for some reason), so about 6.4% less than what hsrminer was claiming. However, I only got credited for 29 coins instead of the 38 that whattomine said I should have received given the hashrate and average difficulty, which comes out to a 24% haircut... If I get screwed by the same percentage with ccminer then either both are lying at exactly the same magnitude or else I can't trust whattomine and/or the pool.

I just concluded the 24 hour test of ccminer klaust 8.19 and its effective hashrate came in at 3.68 MH/s vs. 4.06 MH/s reported, while hsrminer's effective hashrate was 3.30 MH/s vs. 4.32 MH/s reported. Since these results are so different and I only tested hsrminer for 4.5 hours I am going to give it yet another chance and do a full 24 hour test on the same pool once my existing balance fully clears. This way I can have more confidence that the average difficulty is truly average and eliminate as many variables as possible.

[jp1981]

So I have been reading up on this thread and saw that a lot of people say they are not getting the same hash rates at the pool as what the local miner reports. This has had me worried. I run a small farm and I directed all my cards to use the hsrminer.

I have taken one card out of the batch and created a new Nicehash wallet, to see exactly what hsrminer does.

1. On my side the miner disconnects every hour and mines for about 30-60 seconds to the devs wallet.
2. Below the hash rate reported by the miner. This is a evga 1070 running at 70 power target - 137 core and 495 mem. The miner reports an avg of 1088 kH/s

https://image.prntscr.com/image/isMeUGeCQ3iM0l7v8WwNRw.png

3. Below the stats from Nicehash

https://image.prntscr.com/image/Phlslh5LRfOd97ShUVQpEQ.png

So to me it looks like it is submitting what it is reporting locally, actually slightly more.

Hope it helps

[Dipakdhawani]

where can I check my CC version, and what does it means anyways? I am a noob
I have 6 asus dual OC gtx 1070 8GB and 6 giga byte windforce gtx 1070 8gb, will this miner work on this cards?

and can someone explain me this
Example:
I have 6x1080 rig, on each kernel allocates 6260 Mb memory, so sum of RAM + pagefile should be more than 6260*6 = 37560.

Keep that in mind when launching on multi-GPU systems.

I have my virtual ram set to (6(cards)x8(gb)x1024(mb)) 49152.
is this correct.
currently running klaust miner.

thank you

[MagicSmoker]

So I have been reading up on this thread and saw that a lot of people say they are not getting the same hash rates at the pool as what the local miner reports. This has had me worried. I run a small farm and I directed all my cards to use the hsrminer.

I have taken one card out of the batch and created a new Nicehash wallet, to see exactly what hsrminer does.

1. On my side the miner disconnects every hour and mines for about 30-60 seconds to the devs wallet.
2. Below the hash rate reported by the miner. This is a evga 1070 running at 70 power target - 137 core and 495 mem. The miner reports an avg of 1088 kH/s

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours. I am retesting hsrminer on the same pool now - results available in about 12 hours - but so far at just a little over the halfway mark I have earned 44.5 TZC vs. a predicted earnings of 63.5, or about 30% less, which is even worse than my previous test of hsrminer (24% less than predicted).

EDIT - I should note that this is on the official TZC pool which finds a block every 4 minutes on average.

[jugger1028]

So I have been reading up on this thread and saw that a lot of people say they are not getting the same hash rates at the pool as what the local miner reports. This has had me worried. I run a small farm and I directed all my cards to use the hsrminer.

I have taken one card out of the batch and created a new Nicehash wallet, to see exactly what hsrminer does.

1. On my side the miner disconnects every hour and mines for about 30-60 seconds to the devs wallet.
2. Below the hash rate reported by the miner. This is a evga 1070 running at 70 power target - 137 core and 495 mem. The miner reports an avg of 1088 kH/s

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours. I am retesting hsrminer on the same pool now - results available in about 12 hours - but so far at just a little over the halfway mark I have earned 44.5 TZC vs. a predicted earnings of 63.5, or about 30% less, which is even worse than my previous test of hsrminer (24% less than predicted).

EDIT - I should note that this is on the official TZC pool which finds a block every 4 minutes on average.

You will never get the coins whattomine says because the difficulty changes literally every block. The only way to measure which miner you should be using is mining for an extended period of time and taking a look at both the shares submitted at the pool and the hashrate reported at the pool. You can never look at the coins earned because of the difficulty variable and you can never say I made 50 coins today with CCMiner and 75coins the day before with HSRMiner, because that tells you nothing since the difficulty determines coins earned.

I just finished a 7 hour test with CCMiner mining TZC and confirmed the hashrate and shares submitted are lower than Hsrminer. The miner reports about 100-200 kh/s less than hsrminer per card on the miner itself and that's the result I was seeing in shares submitted and hashrate on the pool itself. I was skeptical, but after this test I can't really dispute the reported rates. I will say my hashrate with one card is higher than when I have a bunch of them running. I have this same problem with all miners though..

[MagicSmoker]

I just concluded the 24 hour test of ccminer klaust 8.19 and its effective hashrate came in at 3.68 MH/s vs. 4.06 MH/s reported, while hsrminer's effective hashrate was 3.30 MH/s vs. 4.32 MH/s reported. Since these results are so different and I only tested hsrminer for 4.5 hours I am going to give it yet another chance and do a full 24 hour test on the same pool once my existing balance fully clears. This way I can have more confidence that the average difficulty is truly average and eliminate as many variables as possible.

The results are in from my retest of hsminer over a full 24 hour period and its performance was even worse than before: it only earned 91.8 TZC instead of the 130.6 predicted based on its claimed hashrate of 4.3 MH/s and an average difficulty for 24 hours of 66, as reported by minethecoin.com. In other words, hsrminer earned 30% fewer coins because its effective hashrate was closer to 3 MH/s, instead of the 4.3 MH/s it was touting the entire time.

So not only is hsrminer not any faster than the KlausT fork of ccminer, it is actually significantly slower...

The rig used consists of (6) GTX 1060 3GB cards and the pool is the official one for Trezarcoin, pool.trezarcoin.com, and which finds a block every 4 minutes or less on average so a 24 hour test should keep error due to variation in luck below 1%. A 24 hour test also allows the use of the average difficulty reported by minethecoin.com which keeps error due to swings in difficulty to a minimum.

I am definitely curious to see if anyone else can corroborate or refute my results, especially with a different coin and/or pool, but please make sure to follow the same methodology I used so we are all comparing apples to apples here.

EDIT - I am not changing any of the above, but notifying any who come across this that I did another test of ccminer and hsrminer, except run concurrently mining to different addresses on the same pool, and this time hsrminer was 11% faster (though claiming to be 22% faster).

[MagicSmoker]

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours.
...

You will never get the coins whattomine says because the difficulty changes literally every block. The only way to measure which miner you should be using is mining for an extended period of time and taking a look at both the shares submitted at the pool and the hashrate reported at the pool. You can never look at the coins earned because of the difficulty variable and you can never say I made 50 coins today with CCMiner and 75coins the day before with HSRMiner, because that tells you nothing since the difficulty determines coins earned.

I just finished a 7 hour test with CCMiner mining TZC and confirmed the hashrate and shares submitted are lower than Hsrminer. The miner reports about 100-200 kh/s less than hsrminer per card on the miner itself and that's the result I was seeing in shares submitted and hashrate on the pool itself. I was skeptical, but after this test I can't really dispute the reported rates. I will say my hashrate with one card is higher than when I have a bunch of them running. I have this same problem with all miners though..

Sorry, I meant to write that the site I used for average difficulty was minethecoin.com, not whattomine.com. I just concluded a full 24 hour test of hsrminer after doing a 24 hour test of ccminer which was preceded by a ~5 hour test of hsrminer, etc., and the results are not pretty; see post above this one.

EDIT - actually, I did refer to minethecoin and not whattomine in the post you referenced, so whatchootalkinboutwillis?

[proteus7]

When GTX Titan Xp support will be added?

Its really strange, I've never seen ANYTHING that worked for 1080ti that didn't for Titan XP, until now. Makes no sense, its almost the same card, just fully enabled.

[ManuBBXX]

Is it possible to mine Scrypt-N coins with this miner ?

And if yes, does it support solo mine ?

[jrock17]

i have a MSI gtx 1060 6gb car core clocks at 180 mem clock at 295 getting hashrate of 966khs on ccminer 8.19 I get 775 khs with same OC
so good job to the person who created hsr miner!!!! hope you have more good stuff to come

[giveen1]

Is it possible to mine Scrypt-N coins with this miner ?

And if yes, does it support solo mine ?

Scrypt-N =\= NeoScrypt

Scrypt-N =\= HSR

[jugger1028]

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours.
...

You will never get the coins whattomine says because the difficulty changes literally every block. The only way to measure which miner you should be using is mining for an extended period of time and taking a look at both the shares submitted at the pool and the hashrate reported at the pool. You can never look at the coins earned because of the difficulty variable and you can never say I made 50 coins today with CCMiner and 75coins the day before with HSRMiner, because that tells you nothing since the difficulty determines coins earned.

I just finished a 7 hour test with CCMiner mining TZC and confirmed the hashrate and shares submitted are lower than Hsrminer. The miner reports about 100-200 kh/s less than hsrminer per card on the miner itself and that's the result I was seeing in shares submitted and hashrate on the pool itself. I was skeptical, but after this test I can't really dispute the reported rates. I will say my hashrate with one card is higher than when I have a bunch of them running. I have this same problem with all miners though..

Sorry, I meant to write that the site I used for average difficulty was minethecoin.com, not whattomine.com. I just concluded a full 24 hour test of hsrminer after doing a 24 hour test of ccminer which was preceded by a ~5 hour test of hsrminer, etc., and the results are not pretty; see post above this one.

EDIT - actually, I did refer to minethecoin and not whattomine in the post you referenced, so whatchootalkinboutwillis?

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

[MagicSmoker]

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

[Mr.Spider703]

on HSR in algo X17 i have 25 Mh -i 19, on last klausT 23 Mh, whow many Mh on SP_mod give?who has an SP-mode x17?

[Bitbander]

I receive a following warning while starting the miner: "GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, flags: 1, 0, 0"

My bat is extremely simple: "hsrminer_neoscrypt.exe -o stratum+tcp://pool.bsod.pw:2030 -u RNJNCJmUrGsqFsyYSudYqCTJPgfpuGo7Sr -p c=RAP"

GPU seems to mine @ 1628.69kH/s. Is there anything to be concerned about?

[zorday]

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).