Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2019, 12:31:41 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 193 »
  Print  
Author Topic: PhoenixMiner 4.7c: fastest Ethereum/Ethash miner with lowest devfee (Win/Linux)  (Read 197600 times)
j2james
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 14, 2018, 03:15:27 PM
 #1801

For now i have never problem with PhoenixMiner. Now i have a problem with this:
I using PM 2.9e
Code:
2018.05.13:10:26:26.668: GPU2 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.668: GPU2 GPU2 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.678: GPU5 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.678: GPU5 GPU5 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.694: GPU3 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.694: GPU3 GPU3 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.709: wdog Thread(s) not responding. Restarting.
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU6 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU6 GPU6 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU1 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU1 GPU1 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.756: GPU4 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)

My settings are same all time. I have gtx 1070 (8gb) gpus. How to solve this problem any idea?

try lowering the GPU2 overclock settings a bit, looks like that is the card that is causing the issue

I have also had the same problem for a couple of days, have you solved it and what did you like to report?

I have this error regularly beginning from 2018.04.22:18:14. I do not remove logs, so I have full history. Sometime I have other errors. My error history is the following:

error 719 - 5 times (the 1st of them was 2018.04.22:18:14)
error 999 - 1 time
error 719 - 1 time
error 719 and error 999 after 719 - 1 time
error 719 - 1 time
error 4 - 1 time
error 719 - 7 times
error 999 - 1 time
error 719 - 1 time (this one was 2018.05.11:15:24)

Also I had some restarts during this period w\o errors in log files.

All these errors in PM 2.9e. Before that I used 2.7c and 2.8c. And only one time I had only one error 999 in 2.7c. So looks like something wrong in 2.9e.

If PM developers want I can provide all logs.
1571401901
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571401901

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571401901
Reply with quote  #2

1571401901
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571401901
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571401901

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571401901
Reply with quote  #2

1571401901
Report to moderator
pinamalina
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 14, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
 #1802

For now i have never problem with PhoenixMiner. Now i have a problem with this:
I using PM 2.9e
Code:
2018.05.13:10:26:26.668: GPU2 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.668: GPU2 GPU2 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.678: GPU5 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.678: GPU5 GPU5 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.694: GPU3 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.694: GPU3 GPU3 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.709: wdog Thread(s) not responding. Restarting.
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU6 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU6 GPU6 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU1 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)
2018.05.13:10:26:26.725: GPU1 GPU1 search error: unspecified launch failure
2018.05.13:10:26:26.756: GPU4 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unspecified launch failure (719)

My settings are same all time. I have gtx 1070 (8gb) gpus. How to solve this problem any idea?

try lowering the GPU2 overclock settings a bit, looks like that is the card that is causing the issue

 Ok, tnx for advice. I’ll try this Smiley

I have also had the same problem for a couple of days, have you solved it and what did you like to report?

I got these same errors when OC-ing my 1070 to the limits.
Follow next steps to resolve this problem - worked 100% in my case:
  • Reduce the OC settings for the nvidia cards
  • Reinstall nvidia drivers
  • Run Phoenix ... it will for sure work again

I got this problem twice; In both cases when searching for maximum stable mem freq I can push the 1070 gpus.
Currently running stable at:
  Core: -200 (minus 200)
  Mem: 765
  Power Limit: 59
  Hashing: 32.770 MH/s
To tune, I am using nvidia Inspector as it allows me to easily tune individual gpus.
I have this line "call nvidia-tune.bat" in start.bat before the PhoenixMiner.exe line:
Code:
::nvidia-tune.bat file content: 7 nvidia cards 0..7 -
:: Note1: card 3 - it is stable at max 625 mem clock - any atampt to go higher will produce errors in minutes after the mining starts
:: Note2: The fans are set to run at constant speed - I have found these values (different for each fan) that keep my cards at around 50-55oC, depending on the ambient temperature
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:0,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:0,0,765 -setPowerTarget:0,59 -setTempTarget:0,1,65 -setFanSpeed:0,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:1,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:1,0,765 -setPowerTarget:1,59 -setTempTarget:1,1,65 -setFanSpeed:1,60
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:2,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:2,0,765 -setPowerTarget:2,59 -setTempTarget:2,1,65 -setFanSpeed:2,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:3,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:3,0,625 -setPowerTarget:3,55 -setTempTarget:3,1,65 -setFanSpeed:3,40
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:4,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:4,0,765 -setPowerTarget:4,59 -setTempTarget:4,1,65 -setFanSpeed:4,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:5,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:5,0,765 -setPowerTarget:5,59 -setTempTarget:5,1,65 -setFanSpeed:5,60
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:6,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:6,0,765 -setPowerTarget:6,59 -setTempTarget:6,1,65 -setFanSpeed:6,45

In my experience the nvidia is not gracefully handling errors when it comes to errors from OC. In best scenario (when slightly overclocked), PhoenixMiner will restart as expected. In worst case, when OC is too high, nvidia driver/configuration gets corrupted and the error as above ends any attempt to mine with the card. The reboot, restart nor cold restart will not make it go away. Only the driver reinstall fixes the problem.
j2james
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 14, 2018, 03:38:50 PM
 #1803

I got this problem twice; In both cases when searching for maximum stable mem freq I can push the 1070 gpus.
Currently running stable at:
  Core: -200 (minus 200)
  Mem: 765
  Power Limit: 59
  Hashing: 32.770 MH/s
To tune, I am using nvidia Inspector as it allows me to easily tune individual gpus.
I have this line "call nvidia-tune.bat" in start.bat before the PhoenixMiner.exe line:
Code:
::nvidia-tune.bat file content: 7 nvidia cards 0..7 -
:: Note1: card 3 - it is stable at max 625 mem clock - any atampt to go higher will produce errors in minutes after the mining starts
:: Note2: The fans are set to run at constant speed - I have found these values (different for each fan) that keep my cards at around 50-55oC, depending on the ambient temperature
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:0,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:0,0,765 -setPowerTarget:0,59 -setTempTarget:0,1,65 -setFanSpeed:0,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:1,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:1,0,765 -setPowerTarget:1,59 -setTempTarget:1,1,65 -setFanSpeed:1,60
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:2,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:2,0,765 -setPowerTarget:2,59 -setTempTarget:2,1,65 -setFanSpeed:2,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:3,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:3,0,625 -setPowerTarget:3,55 -setTempTarget:3,1,65 -setFanSpeed:3,40
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:4,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:4,0,765 -setPowerTarget:4,59 -setTempTarget:4,1,65 -setFanSpeed:4,45
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:5,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:5,0,765 -setPowerTarget:5,59 -setTempTarget:5,1,65 -setFanSpeed:5,60
start C:\dev\Tools\Guru3D.com\nvidiaInspector.exe -setBaseClockOffset:6,0,-200 -setMemoryClockOffset:6,0,765 -setPowerTarget:6,59 -setTempTarget:6,1,65 -setFanSpeed:6,45

In my experience the nvidia is not gracefully handling errors when it comes to errors from OC. In best scenario (when slightly overclocked), PhoenixMiner will restart as expected. In worst case, when OC is too high, nvidia driver/configuration gets corrupted and the error as above ends any attempt to mine with the card. The reboot, restart nor cold restart will not make it go away. Only the driver reinstall fixes the problem.

Thank you. I will play with that
EthCiN
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 07:30:57 AM
 #1804

Hello,
With this version I have lots of share timeouts.
I never had this problem, I have stable Internet connection and using DwarfPool.
Here the log:


Code:
2018.05.14:09:55:59.521: main Eth speed: 155.620 MH/s, shares: 240/0/0, time: 0:54
2018.05.14:09:55:59.521: main GPUs: 1: 33.271 MH/s (51) 2: 24.619 MH/s (31) 3: 31.424 MH/s (52) 4: 33.007 MH/s (60) 5: 33.298 MH/s (46)
2018.05.14:09:56:03.610: GPU3 Eth: GPU3: ETH share found!
2018.05.14:09:56:03.611: eths Eth: Send: {"id":13,"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"eth_submitWork","params":["0x6d002bc2c16113db","0x6087a8f6886a0f261b6fedeba190e517035789954da6daa64b9f3f080c42b599","0x3ee348896117da0e9051e859fccfd6b81374f28aa8989757942aaf84ad7cf022"]}

2018.05.14:09:56:03.611: eths Eth: Share actual difficulty: 4100 MH
2018.05.14:09:56:03.649: eths Eth: Received: {"id":13,"jsonrpc":"2.0","result":true}
2018.05.14:09:56:03.649: eths Eth: Share accepted in 39 ms
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main 
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main *** 0:54 ***************************************************
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Mining ETH on eth-eu.dwarfpool.com:8008 for 0:00


2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth speed: 155.580 MH/s, shares: 241/0/0, time: 0:54
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main GPUs: 1: 33.272 MH/s (51) 2: 24.619 MH/s (31) 3: 31.414 MH/s (53) 4: 32.978 MH/s (60) 5: 33.297 MH/s (46)
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Accepted shares 241 (0 stales), rejected shares 0 (0 stales)
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Incorrect shares 0 (0.00%), est. stales percentage 0.00%
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Maximum difficulty of found share: 910.6 GH (!)
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Average speed (5 min): 155.457 MH/s
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main Eth: Effective speed: 147.49 MH/s; at pool: 147.49 MH/s
2018.05.14:09:56:04.621: main 
2018.05.14:09:56:06.465: eths Eth: Send: {"id":5,"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"eth_getWork","params":[]}

2018.05.14:09:56:06.465: eths Eth: Share timeout in 606 s
2018.05.14:09:56:06.508: eths Eth: Received: {"result":["0x6087a8f6886a0f261b6fedeba190e517035789954da6daa64b9f3f080c42b599","0xe6073b5528bd0132af704e709c5723848c28e74e1d250eff85fc89e916b8515e","0x0000000225c17d04dad2965cc5a02a23e254c0c3f75d9178046aeb27ce1ca574"],"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":5}
2018.05.14:09:56:09.731: main Eth speed: 155.589 MH/s, shares: 241/1/0, time: 0:54


How can I fix it?
Regards,
Marcin
j2james
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 09:25:59 AM
 #1805

I got this problem twice; In both cases when searching for maximum stable mem freq I can push the 1070 gpus.
Currently running stable at:
  Core: -200 (minus 200)
  Mem: 765
  Power Limit: 59
  Hashing: 32.770 MH/s

Do not understand how your 1070s work on these settings. With PL 59 for my 1070 hasrate is very not stable. When I setted MC 750, after some seconds I had 719 error and reboot. CC -200 also makes hashrate unstable. Now I'm testing PL +64, CC -100, MC +670 with power 750W and avg hashrate per card 32.06 (about 192.4 per 6 cards). So all my changes of previous OC settings is changing CC from +0 to -100.
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 10:16:17 AM
 #1806

I got this problem twice; In both cases when searching for maximum stable mem freq I can push the 1070 gpus.
Currently running stable at:
  Core: -200 (minus 200)
  Mem: 765
  Power Limit: 59
  Hashing: 32.770 MH/s

Do not understand how your 1070s work on these settings. With PL 59 for my 1070 hasrate is very not stable. When I setted MC 750, after some seconds I had 719 error and reboot. CC -200 also makes hashrate unstable. Now I'm testing PL +64, CC -100, MC +670 with power 750W and avg hashrate per card 32.06 (about 192.4 per 6 cards). So all my changes of previous OC settings is changing CC from +0 to -100.

Not all cards are the same, overclock potential will be different between models, individual chips etc so you basically need to be lucky aswell.
crypper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 239
Merit: 12


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 02:01:29 PM
 #1807

I've been using claymore for my RX X80s for over a year now. Decided to give phoenix a go...and I'm damn happy I did: slight improvement in hashrate at the same clocks and power and significant reduction in stale shares! I've been suffering from 5-15% stales (ethermine.org) since Byzantium fork in 2017. With phoenix I have <1% stales.
Great job, man.

Retraction of my previous statement: number of stale shares is marginally lower than claymore's. During the first few hours of running phoenix I indeed had <1% of stales; number increased with time though and as of now I'm back to 5-10% stales.
Bad job, man!
pinamalina
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 05:37:29 PM
 #1808

I've been using claymore for my RX X80s for over a year now. Decided to give phoenix a go...and I'm damn happy I did: slight improvement in hashrate at the same clocks and power and significant reduction in stale shares! I've been suffering from 5-15% stales (ethermine.org) since Byzantium fork in 2017. With phoenix I have <1% stales.
Great job, man.

Retraction of my previous statement: number of stale shares is marginally lower than claymore's. During the first few hours of running phoenix I indeed had <1% of stales; number increased with time though and as of now I'm back to 5-10% stales.
Bad job, man!

Your 5-10% stale share is arguably bad. With the PH 2.9e, migrated from Claymore 11.5 my stale share rate is slightly higher than on Claymore yet still in the range of 1-3% - varies from day to day.
Stale share is sensitive not only to the miner code but also on the quality of your network speed and latency. Shares are accepted in 40-42ms in my case. What is yours? What is your ping to your pool? Here is what I have:
C:\Program Files\NVIDIA Corporation\NVSMI>ping eu1.ethermine.org

Pinging eu1.ethermine.org [46.105.121.53] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 46.105.121.53: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=54
Reply from 46.105.121.53: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=54
Reply from 46.105.121.53: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=54
Reply from 46.105.121.53: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 46.105.121.53:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 41ms, Maximum = 59ms, Average = 45ms

Connect a rig to network using wired connection (avoid wireless at any cost). Make sure you are not using switches/APs that introduce unexpected latency.
crypper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 239
Merit: 12


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 06:40:33 PM
 #1809

I've been using claymore for my RX X80s for over a year now. Decided to give phoenix a go...and I'm damn happy I did: slight improvement in hashrate at the same clocks and power and significant reduction in stale shares! I've been suffering from 5-15% stales (ethermine.org) since Byzantium fork in 2017. With phoenix I have <1% stales.
Great job, man.

Retraction of my previous statement: number of stale shares is marginally lower than claymore's. During the first few hours of running phoenix I indeed had <1% of stales; number increased with time though and as of now I'm back to 5-10% stales.
Bad job, man!

Your 5-10% stale share is arguably bad. With the PH 2.9e, migrated from Claymore 11.5 my stale share rate is slightly higher than on Claymore yet still in the range of 1-3% - varies from day to day.
Stale share is sensitive not only to the miner code but also on the quality of your network speed and latency. Shares are accepted in 40-42ms in my

could you please explain to a noob (me) the difference between network speed and network latency? Huh
pinamalina
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 1


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
 #1810

I've been using claymore for my RX X80s for over a year now. Decided to give phoenix a go...and I'm damn happy I did: slight improvement in hashrate at the same clocks and power and significant reduction in stale shares! I've been suffering from 5-15% stales (ethermine.org) since Byzantium fork in 2017. With phoenix I have <1% stales.
Great job, man.

Retraction of my previous statement: number of stale shares is marginally lower than claymore's. During the first few hours of running phoenix I indeed had <1% of stales; number increased with time though and as of now I'm back to 5-10% stales.
Bad job, man!

Your 5-10% stale share is arguably bad. With the PH 2.9e, migrated from Claymore 11.5 my stale share rate is slightly higher than on Claymore yet still in the range of 1-3% - varies from day to day.
Stale share is sensitive not only to the miner code but also on the quality of your network speed and latency. Shares are accepted in 40-42ms in my

could you please explain to a noob (me) the difference between network speed and network latency? Huh

You will get the best answer if you Google: network latency definition.
roptix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 10:27:27 PM
 #1811

Hello all - could really use some help here.

I switched from Claymore 11.6 to PhoenixMiner 2.9e due to the DAG and MSWindows 10 issues that prevent the nVidia 1060 3GB cards from working.  However for the last 3 weeks I have been getting an illegal memory error:

 GPU10 CUDART error in CudaProgram.cu:127 : an illegal memory access was encountered (77)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.328: GPU11 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:102 : an illegal memory access was encountered (700)

To be clear, I can no longer get the nVidia 1060 cards to work with Claymore or PhoenixMiner on ETH or PIRL....

OC'ing the cards seems to be a common cause, but I'm not OCing the cards, I can't even get to the point of doing that...


Rig:

ASRosk HTC110 Mobo
3 AMD 570 gpus
8 nVidia 1060 3 GB GPUs
8 GB RAM
250 GB HD

nvidia driver 376.09 (I've tried 397.64, 397.31 and 388.59)
Virtual Memory - minimum set to 60,000, max set to 160,000.
Set to mine PIRL

2018.05.15:15:12:51.882: main Phoenix Miner 2.9e Windows/msvc - Release
2018.05.15:15:12:51.882: main Cmd line: -pool stratum+tcp://us-west.pirlpool.eu:8002 -wal 0xac1CbCB36704BD0BE0A773cDAFE98c72a70707e2 -pass x -worker CocoSpency -eres 0 -lidag 2
2018.05.15:15:12:56.054: main Available GPUs for mining:
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU1: Radeon RX 570 Series (pcie 1), OpenCL 2.0, 4 GB VRAM, 32 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU2: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 2), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU3: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 3), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU4: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 4), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU5: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 5), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU6: Radeon RX 570 Series (pcie Cool, OpenCL 2.0, 4 GB VRAM, 32 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU7: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 9), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU8: Radeon RX 570 Series (pcie 11), OpenCL 2.0, 4 GB VRAM, 32 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU9: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 12), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU10: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 13), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
2018.05.15:15:12:56.056: main GPU11: GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (pcie 14), CUDA cap. 6.1, 3 GB VRAM, 9 CUs
....
2018.05.15:15:12:57.540: eths Eth: Received: {"id":5,"jsonrpc":"2.0","result":["0xba59fa1663dc115be208375f438f043e803c155ca857d96f214b11bf619d853f","0xd6a8400b7f4cc5e082e8239662ed0ee7162892f74016107a7586195f4d591efb","0x0225c17d04dad2965cc5a02a23e254c0c3f75d9178046aeb27ce1ca574"]}
2018.05.15:15:12:57.541: eths Eth: New job #ba59fa16 from us-west.pirlpool.eu:8002; diff: 2000MH
2018.05.15:15:12:57.542: GPU2 GPU2: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.542: GPU2 Eth: Generating light cache for epoch #46
2018.05.15:15:12:57.544: GPU3 GPU3: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.546: GPU4 GPU4: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.548: GPU5 GPU5: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.550: GPU7 GPU7: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.552: GPU9 GPU9: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.554: GPU10 GPU10: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.556: GPU11 GPU11: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.558: GPU1 GPU1: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.560: GPU6 GPU6: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:57.562: GPU8 GPU8: Starting up... (0)
2018.05.15:15:12:59.482: GPU4 GPU4: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:12:59.608: GPU4 GPU4: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:12:59.652: GPU2 GPU2: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:12:59.716: GPU2 GPU2: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:12:59.874: GPU9 GPU9: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:12:59.894: GPU10 GPU10: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:12:59.949: GPU2 GPU2: Generating DAG for epoch #46
2018.05.15:15:12:59.958: GPU10 GPU10: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:12:59.959: GPU9 GPU9: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.111: GPU11 GPU11: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:13:00.113: GPU4 GPU4: Generating DAG for epoch #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.130: GPU7 GPU7: Allocating DAG for epoch #46 (1.36) GB
2018.05.15:15:13:00.158: GPU11 GPU11: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.226: GPU10 GPU10: Generating DAG for epoch #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.276: GPU9 GPU9: Generating DAG for epoch #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.285: GPU7 GPU7: Allocating light cache buffer (21.7) MB; good for epoch up to #46
2018.05.15:15:13:00.328: GPU10 CUDART error in CudaProgram.cu:127 : an illegal memory access was encountered (77)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.328: GPU11 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:102 : an illegal memory access was encountered (700)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.329: GPU10 GPU10 initMiner error: an illegal memory access was encountered
2018.05.15:15:13:00.329: GPU11 GPU11 initMiner error: an illegal memory access was encountered
2018.05.15:15:13:00.332: GPU7 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:102 : an illegal memory access was encountered (700)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.332: GPU7 GPU7 initMiner error: an illegal memory access was encountered
2018.05.15:15:13:00.347: GPU2 CUDART error in CudaProgram.cu:127 : an illegal memory access was encountered (77)


Would welcome any thoughts, I can't seem to find any solutions online.

Russell
lesjokolat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 15, 2018, 11:39:46 PM
 #1812

Hello all - could really use some help here.

I switched from Claymore 11.6 to PhoenixMiner 2.9e due to the DAG and MSWindows 10 issues that prevent the nVidia 1060 3GB cards from working.  However for the last 3 weeks I have been getting an illegal memory error:

 GPU10 CUDART error in CudaProgram.cu:127 : an illegal memory access was encountered (77)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.328: GPU11 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:102 : an illegal memory access was encountered (700)

To be clear, I can no longer get the nVidia 1060 cards to work with Claymore or PhoenixMiner on ETH or PIRL....

OC'ing the cards seems to be a common cause, but I'm not OCing the cards, I can't even get to the point of doing that...

Would welcome any thoughts, I can't seem to find any solutions online.

Russell

do you have at least 19 gig virtual memory on your system, might be a reason if its too little.
roptix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 02:36:17 AM
 #1813

Hello all - could really use some help here.

I switched from Claymore 11.6 to PhoenixMiner 2.9e due to the DAG and MSWindows 10 issues that prevent the nVidia 1060 3GB cards from working.  However for the last 3 weeks I have been getting an illegal memory error:

 GPU10 CUDART error in CudaProgram.cu:127 : an illegal memory access was encountered (77)
2018.05.15:15:13:00.328: GPU11 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:102 : an illegal memory access was encountered (700)

To be clear, I can no longer get the nVidia 1060 cards to work with Claymore or PhoenixMiner on ETH or PIRL....

OC'ing the cards seems to be a common cause, but I'm not OCing the cards, I can't even get to the point of doing that...

Would welcome any thoughts, I can't seem to find any solutions online.

Russell

do you have at least 19 gig virtual memory on your system, might be a reason if its too little.

I've actually set Virtual Memory as:  - minimum set to 60,000, max set to 160,000

And I'm fine not mining ETH, I can't mine PIRL either right now, which is the real conundrum as it's DAG should easily be supported by the 3GB cards.
singlass
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 04:59:35 AM
 #1814

the legendary AMD 15.12 driver triggers the debuging error,make some sort of exception / fix in your next release
b3ny97
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 05:53:04 AM
 #1815

I got this problems, what's the cause?

2018.05.16:13:33:53.550: main Eth speed: 333.457 MH/s, shares: 27/0/0, time: 0:03
2018.05.16:13:33:53.550: main GPUs: 1: 29.921 MH/s (5) 2: 31.603 MH/s (2) 3: 29.485 MH/s (3) 4: 29.812 MH/s (0) 5: 31.637 MH/s (4) 6: 29.763 MH/s (2) 7: 29.825 MH/s (0) 8: 29.976 MH/s (3) 9: 29.846 MH/s (0) 10: 29.941 MH/s (7) 11: 31.648 MH/s (1)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU2 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU5 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU2 GPU2 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU5 GPU5 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU1 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU1 GPU1 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU4 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU4 GPU4 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU11 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.967: GPU11 GPU11 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:53.987: GPU7 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:53.987: GPU7 GPU7 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU10 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU10 GPU10 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU8 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU8 GPU8 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU3 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:54.003: GPU3 GPU3 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.004: GPU9 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:54.004: GPU9 GPU9 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.004: GPU6 CUDA error in CudaProgram.cu:264 : unknown error (999)
2018.05.16:13:33:54.004: GPU6 GPU6 search error: unknown error
2018.05.16:13:33:54.766: wdog Thread(s) not responding. Restarting.
crypper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 239
Merit: 12


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 08:07:22 AM
 #1816

I've been using claymore for my RX X80s for over a year now. Decided to give phoenix a go...and I'm damn happy I did: slight improvement in hashrate at the same clocks and power and significant reduction in stale shares! I've been suffering from 5-15% stales (ethermine.org) since Byzantium fork in 2017. With phoenix I have <1% stales.
Great job, man.

Retraction of my previous statement: number of stale shares is marginally lower than claymore's. During the first few hours of running phoenix I indeed had <1% of stales; number increased with time though and as of now I'm back to 5-10% stales.
Bad job, man!

Your 5-10% stale share is arguably bad. With the PH 2.9e, migrated from Claymore 11.5 my stale share rate is slightly higher than on Claymore yet still in the range of 1-3% - varies from day to day.
Stale share is sensitive not only to the miner code but also on the quality of your network speed and latency. Shares are accepted in 40-42ms in my

could you please explain to a noob (me) the difference between network speed and network latency? Huh

You will get the best answer if you Google: network latency definition.

Yeah... no, thanks, I will probably not google, but you should. It's always good to understand what you are talking about (even on the internet).
cryptodunno
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 11:24:31 AM
 #1817

after a few weeks tests i really like phoenixminer, stale shares are much less comparing the others.
IT would be great to see linux version in nearest future

Erpelusas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 01:01:24 PM
 #1818

Will phoenix miner be implemented in hive os?
En@Ble
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 16, 2018, 02:11:28 PM
 #1819

Dev when will new coins appear? such as Egem,Clo ? Huh
DireWolfM14
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 789



View Profile WWW
May 16, 2018, 02:37:14 PM
 #1820

I would love me some nice juicy and fat linux version Cheesy
    Yes, but hopefully not that fat Smiley There is some progress on this but no ETA yet, sorry.


Yes, please keep it lean.  Wink  I love windows, shameless about it, too.  But for a "process pc" nothing beats a minimalist linux build.
Pages: « 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 193 »
  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!