Bitcoin Forum
September 16, 2019, 09:29:10 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ... 186 »
  Print  
Author Topic: PhoenixMiner 4.6c: fastest Ethereum/Ethash miner with lowest devfee (Win/Linux)  (Read 189275 times)
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 10:58:19 AM
 #261

Only on my end that I have noticed a massive increase in stale shares with the 2.5d version?

I typically average around 2-4 stales per hour, which was true for version 2.4 and also for claymore, but with 2.5d im consistently at 25-30 stales per hour which is naturally a major problem.

It is worth noting that this is pool side, in the client the stale shares are ~2%
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568626150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568626150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568626150
Reply with quote  #2

1568626150
Report to moderator
1568626150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568626150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568626150
Reply with quote  #2

1568626150
Report to moderator
1568626150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568626150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568626150
Reply with quote  #2

1568626150
Report to moderator
tlaskows
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 529
Merit: 100


Join GANTECH’s team of game changers


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2018, 11:27:28 AM
 #262

I cannot get more than (in the past) 20 MH/s from my rx 480 and any miner I have tried.

I ended up with the slowest version ever released.  4GB, hynix RAM.

Flashing BIOS.  Blockchain drivers are even worse and cannot use my computer.

Equiqhash it can do at 580 s/s 24/7 with 2 of them.

I know, it doesn't make sense.

GANTECH | End-User Computing Solutions
http://gantech.net/who-we-are/our-leaders/
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 11:28:20 AM
 #263

I cannot get more than (in the past) 20 MH/s from my rx 480 and any miner I have tried.

I ended up with the slowest version ever released.  4GB, hynix RAM.

Flashing BIOS.  Blockchain drivers are even worse and cannot use my computer.

Equiqhash it can do at 580 s/s 24/7 with 2 of them.

I know, it doesn't make sense.

You most likely did not flash the bios correctly, the numbers suggest it is running stock bios.

In regards to 2.5d - After going through the logs I can see that I have actually had 7 hardware errors, somethings up with this build, my cards run perfectly stable with anything but 2.5d - Claymore, ethminer and v 2.4 can run for days without any errors, not even mem errors in hwinfo is logged.
yyyam2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 11:35:58 AM
 #264

Hi,
  
   I have been running  2.5d for 24 hrs. I have changed to nanopool.org. It dont have any problem.  Grin
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 11:42:11 AM
 #265

Hi,
  
   I have been running  2.5d for 24 hrs. I have changed to nanopool.org. It dont have any problem.  Grin

Nanopool does not report stats for stale shares, but the stales are still there.

I tried switching one of my machines (10 in total) back to v2.4 and at leat over the past hour the stale shares has dropped back to 5 for that rig, down from 31 the hour before that - 2.4 have even found 27% more shares in that timeframe, but too soon to tell if there's anything up with that.
phuocduong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 12:55:10 PM
 #266

anyone use it, i need more information to use it, compare with claymore?
rocketr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 12:56:31 PM
 #267

Just switched over to 2.5d from Claymore. Working good so far... I'm going to let it run today and see how it does.
Lebaaaron
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 02:12:21 PM
 #268

I'm still using 2.4 and it's working great since the miner has been white listed to avoid disconnection.
Good job to devs.
miner_in_bkk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 02:19:58 PM
 #269

As the poster above mentioned, I am too finding that 2.5d is providing for more stale shares than 2.4. But will leave it go for a little longer.

To the dev's, are any of the cclock/mclock/cvddc/mvddc/tt command line options being tabled for inclusion in later releases ?
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 02:57:41 PM
 #270

Just an update here, I have two rigs running now on 2.4 and 2.5d (One on each) and I can confirm that on the 2.5d im seeing a massive increase in stale shares, 4-5 times the amount.

Over 3 hours, the 2.4 version has hit 11 stale shares, 2.5d is currently on 49 so there's definately something going on there, judging from the output im seeing shares being submitted on the 2.5d version with 8-9000ms in delay, this never happens on the 2.4 rig, that might correlate to more stales due to the longer report time.
pinoli
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 04:57:27 PM
 #271

I have been running PhoenixMiner 2.5d instead of Claymore for more than 24 hours and have to admit it is amazing.
My rig is 6x 1070 OC and I used to total 187 MH/s with Claymore: hashrate jumped 3.5% with same OC settings on Asus GPU Tweak II, so I was very pleased.
But the nicest part is that I was able to push OC even more with this miner, so GPUs are now running @ -91 core / +1592 mem smoothly, with avg hashrate of 196 MH/s.
Just by instaling this software and tweaking the GPUs, I gained more than 5% in hashrate, while paying less for dev fees.

ABOUT STALE SHARES: I have 28 after 24 hours, amounting to 1.36% on the total. Since I have no reference (first time mining with Phoenix), let me know if it's similar to what you are getting.
I am using ethermine and my config.txt file is the following:

Code:
-pool eu1.ethermine.org:4444
-pool2 us1.ethermine.org:4444
-wal <myethaddress>.<myrigname>
-pass <mypwd>
-worker <myrigname>
-mi 10
-gt 15

QUESTION: do you know if ethermine allows sending stale shares? I am not specifying the "-stales <n>" parameter, hence it's defaulting to 1 = "send stales"

So, I want to thank PhoenixMiner for the fantastic job and the great software.
Please keep squeezing performance from our almost-exhausted GPUs
Mustang24
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 05:09:59 PM
 #272

Started using this miner a few days ago, the reported hashrate increase from 176,8 to 177,1/4 but is now back at 176,4 +- after cleaning the gpu's and restarting the system really weird
DeDeRa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 06:41:49 PM
 #273

@PhoenixMiner - please research a bit the stale problem. With 2.5d i get 3, 4 even 5 times more stale vs. 2.4. Smiley Anyway, the miner is amazing, getting 6 mhs more from 192 to 198 mhs with 6 rx 580. Good job.
Also, please add to the miner cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc and other commands from Claymore, it would be really awesome.
gsrcrxsi314
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 367
Merit: 30


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 07:32:55 PM
 #274

@PhoenixMiner - please research a bit the stale problem. With 2.5d i get 3, 4 even 5 times more stale vs. 2.4. Smiley Anyway, the miner is amazing, getting 6 mhs more from 192 to 198 mhs with 6 rx 580. Good job.
Also, please add to the miner cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc and other commands from Claymore, it would be really awesome.

can everyone please check effective hashrate on the pool side?

its relatively easy to have the excavator SAY you're running X MH/s, but if you aren't submitting shares consistent with that value, it doesnt matter and you will be paid based on a slower rate. this is what i experienced. I dont think anything nefarious is happening, and i like the communication from the dev thus far, but everyone should be diligent in tracking their ACTUAL performance vs what's reported.

in my case, over a 24hr period, Phoenix said it was running 2-3% faster, but submitted shares on nanopool were actually 2-3% lower than with claymore. I've switched back to claymore for now, but mainly ONLY because of the lack of tt and clock adjust functions. when those are added and the miner matures a bit, I'll give it a second shot.
ANewMiner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 09:41:25 PM
 #275

its so nice to be amungst many 40+ people who remember the old stuff

So.. to @pheonixminer actually, it did it for EVERY devfee.. but it does seem to have stopped now.. Ive nothing my end which should stop it, in essence my firewall is all out nothing in if it was a 1 time error, Id not have reported it ran for about 8 hours never making a fee connection and then failed to make any connections at all

So the current main question is stale rate and are the numbers reporting the numbers received the other end..

So

Eth: Accepted shares 1600 (73 stales), rejected shares 0 (0 stales)
Eth: Incorrect shares 1 (0.04%), est. stales percentage 4.56%
Eth: Maximum difficulty of found share: 597.6 TH (!!!)
Eth: Average speed (5 min): 75.857 MH/s
Eth: Effective speed: 74.60 MH/s; at pool: 74.60 MH/s

ethermine says

reported: 76.01
average: 74.98

stales: 5%

so its pretty darn close to be fair.
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 10:27:11 PM
 #276

@PhoenixMiner - please research a bit the stale problem. With 2.5d i get 3, 4 even 5 times more stale vs. 2.4. Smiley Anyway, the miner is amazing, getting 6 mhs more from 192 to 198 mhs with 6 rx 580. Good job.
Also, please add to the miner cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc and other commands from Claymore, it would be really awesome.

can everyone please check effective hashrate on the pool side?

its relatively easy to have the excavator SAY you're running X MH/s, but if you aren't submitting shares consistent with that value, it doesnt matter and you will be paid based on a slower rate. this is what i experienced. I dont think anything nefarious is happening, and i like the communication from the dev thus far, but everyone should be diligent in tracking their ACTUAL performance vs what's reported.

in my case, over a 24hr period, Phoenix said it was running 2-3% faster, but submitted shares on nanopool were actually 2-3% lower than with claymore. I've switched back to claymore for now, but mainly ONLY because of the lack of tt and clock adjust functions. when those are added and the miner matures a bit, I'll give it a second shot.

24hours is way too little to make any measurements, you need 4-5 times that to get a good picture - From my experience phoenixminer, even the 2.5d is giving me more shares per day on ethermine compared to claymore, I actually have a machine with 12xRX580 which consistently underperforms with claymore miner, giving me fewer shares per hour than it should, on phoenix that machine runs smooth as butter.

V2.5d appears to have some stale share issues, it is actually leveling out a bit for me, but are still producing about 50% more stales compared to 2.4 - But 2.5d solves a problem which I have been having on one of my machines so overall there is improvement to track.
gsrcrxsi314
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 367
Merit: 30


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 10:35:27 PM
 #277

@PhoenixMiner - please research a bit the stale problem. With 2.5d i get 3, 4 even 5 times more stale vs. 2.4. Smiley Anyway, the miner is amazing, getting 6 mhs more from 192 to 198 mhs with 6 rx 580. Good job.
Also, please add to the miner cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc and other commands from Claymore, it would be really awesome.

can everyone please check effective hashrate on the pool side?

its relatively easy to have the excavator SAY you're running X MH/s, but if you aren't submitting shares consistent with that value, it doesnt matter and you will be paid based on a slower rate. this is what i experienced. I dont think anything nefarious is happening, and i like the communication from the dev thus far, but everyone should be diligent in tracking their ACTUAL performance vs what's reported.

in my case, over a 24hr period, Phoenix said it was running 2-3% faster, but submitted shares on nanopool were actually 2-3% lower than with claymore. I've switched back to claymore for now, but mainly ONLY because of the lack of tt and clock adjust functions. when those are added and the miner matures a bit, I'll give it a second shot.

24hours is way too little to make any measurements, you need 4-5 times that to get a good picture - From my experience phoenixminer, even the 2.5d is giving me more shares per day on ethermine compared to claymore, I actually have a machine with 12xRX580 which consistently underperforms with claymore miner, giving me fewer shares per hour than it should, on phoenix that machine runs smooth as butter.

V2.5d appears to have some stale share issues, it is actually leveling out a bit for me, but are still producing about 50% more stales compared to 2.4 - But 2.5d solves a problem which I have been having on one of my machines so overall there is improvement to track.

The DAG epoch changes in that time span.. it invalidates any comparison as whatever is run for round 2 will inherently be slower/less shares slightly that if it were run on round 1
dohfish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 30, 2018, 10:52:40 PM
 #278

That is true, but giving that luck can factor for some 10% in some cases you really need more than 24 hours to give it a proper assesment.
benosimo06
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 31, 2018, 03:59:26 AM
 #279

Even with 2.5d now I'm unable to run the miner, though I'm starting to think it's something on my end. After further investigation once GPUs are identified in the console the error message: "FATAL ERROR: Debugger detected" is shown immediately before it crashes.

Any idea what might be the cause of this?

So I still have yet to find what is causing this. As per an early post in this thread with a similar issue with a Quadro GPU I understand that it's an anti-debugging feature kicking in, but I can't come up with a reason for it to do so.

Any suggestions? This miner was working amazingly for me prior to the ethermine issue and I'd love to get it running again!
PhoenixMiner
Member
**
Online Online

Activity: 219
Merit: 13


View Profile
January 31, 2018, 06:21:49 AM
 #280

So I still have yet to find what is causing this. As per an early post in this thread with a similar issue with a Quadro GPU I understand that it's an anti-debugging feature kicking in, but I can't come up with a reason for it to do so.

Any suggestions? This miner was working amazingly for me prior to the ethermine issue and I'd love to get it running again!
   There was a change in the OpenCL initialization code in 2.5 (which will be made optional in 2.6) but if you are unable to run even 2.4 then something else has changed. Did you install any new software lately - new drivers, major Windows update, etc.?

I have been running PhoenixMiner 2.5d instead of Claymore for more than 24 hours and have to admit it is amazing.
My rig is 6x 1070 OC and I used to total 187 MH/s with Claymore: hashrate jumped 3.5% with same OC settings on Asus GPU Tweak II, so I was very pleased.
But the nicest part is that I was able to push OC even more with this miner, so GPUs are now running @ -91 core / +1592 mem smoothly, with avg hashrate of 196 MH/s.
Just by instaling this software and tweaking the GPUs, I gained more than 5% in hashrate, while paying less for dev fees.

ABOUT STALE SHARES: I have 28 after 24 hours, amounting to 1.36% on the total. Since I have no reference (first time mining with Phoenix), let me know if it's similar to what you are getting.
QUESTION: do you know if ethermine allows sending stale shares? I am not specifying the "-stales <n>" parameter, hence it's defaulting to 1 = "send stales"

So, I want to thank PhoenixMiner for the fantastic job and the great software.
Please keep squeezing performance from our almost-exhausted GPUs
    Ehtermine do accept stale shares as do most of the other pools. While they do not credit the shale shares at the same rate as normal shares, there is no downside in submitting stale shares if the pool accepts them. If the pool rejects all stale shares, you can stop sending them by using the -stales 0 (or -stales2 0 for the fail-over pool). You should check about your pool but as far as we know (and we can be wrong) from the big pools only nicehash doesn't accept stales.

    Another thing connected to stale shares is that we can't give 100% accurate assessment which shares are stale. The reasons are explained in our first post in this thread in the FAQ section:
Quote
Q003: What is a stale share?
   A: The ethash coins usually have very small average block time (15 seconds in most instances).
   On the other hand, to achieve high mining speed we must keep the GPUs busy so we can't switch
   the current job too often. If our rig finds a share just after the someone else has found a
   solution for the current block, our share is a stale share. Ideally, the stale shares should be
   minimal as same pools do not give any reward for stale shares, and even these that do reward
   stall shares, give only partial reward for these shares. If the share is submitted too long
   after the block has ended, the pool may even fully reject it.
 
Q004: Why is the percentage of stale shares reported by PhoenixMiner smaller than the one shown
   by the pool?
   A: PhonixMiner can only detect the stale shares that were discovered after it has received a
   new job (i.e. the "very stale") shares. There is additional latency in the pool itself, and in
   the network connection, which makes a share stall even if it was technically found before the
   end of the block from the miner's point of view. As pools only reports the shares as accepted
   or rejected, there is no way for the miner to determine the stale shares from the pool's
   point of view.

   The TLDR; version is that the estimated stale percentage shown by PhoenixMiner (or any other miner that reports stale shares) is at best equal, and in most cases lower than the final stales percentage, for which you should refer to the pool statistics. So why do we even bother to report it? Because high estimated stale percentages shown by PhoenixMiner indicate a latency problem in the rig itself and/or the miner options. For example the -mi (mining intensity) option can increase your hashrate but at the cost of higher latency, which leads to more stale shares. The default value of 10 works fine in most cases but if you like fine-tuning, play away, just know that there are trade-offs.


@PhoenixMiner - please research a bit the stale problem. With 2.5d i get 3, 4 even 5 times more stale vs. 2.4. Smiley Anyway, the miner is amazing, getting 6 mhs more from 192 to 198 mhs with 6 rx 580. Good job.
Also, please add to the miner cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc and other commands from Claymore, it would be really awesome.
24hours is way too little to make any measurements, you need 4-5 times that to get a good picture - From my experience phoenixminer, even the 2.5d is giving me more shares per day on ethermine compared to claymore, I actually have a machine with 12xRX580 which consistently underperforms with claymore miner, giving me fewer shares per hour than it should, on phoenix that machine runs smooth as butter.

V2.5d appears to have some stale share issues, it is actually leveling out a bit for me, but are still producing about 50% more stales compared to 2.4 - But 2.5d solves a problem which I have been having on one of my machines so overall there is improvement to track.
   While we can't see a significant change in the stale shares on our test rigs, one of the changes that we hastily made in 2.5d in an effort to prevent the ethermine connectivity problems could be causing this for some users. As we now know that that has nothing to do with the connectivity problems, we are rolling back these changes, so 2.6 should fix any unusual issues. The beta of 2.6 is already undergoing internal testing and will be released in less than 24 hours.

   The hardware control commands (cclock, mclock, cvddc, mvddc, etc.) are our next priority. Version 2.7 will contain some experimental support but we would need to test a lot on a matrix of GPUs and driver versions before releasing it. Please note that only AMD provides open access to its Overdrive API via the ADL library. While Nvidia has similar capabilities via the NVAPI, the hardware control and overclocking are only available if the developers are pre-approved by them. We will try to get access but it's probably not going to happen. So, at least for now the hardware control capabilities will be limited to AMD cards.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ... 186 »
  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!