Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 05:58:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 [150] 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 ... 830 »
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.9.2  (Read 4822345 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 01:41:11 AM
 #2981

The LP gnar1ta$ was refering to (5 per share) had nothing to do w/ merge mining.  p2pool uses larger shares.  1 p2pool share ~= 150 difficulty 1 shares.  It also builds a share chain to continually recalculate reward split and roughly every 10 seconds a new share will be found by the network and thus an LP.

Right, so if my work is being discarded roughly every 10 seconds due to an LP, shouldn't my scantime roughly match that to not waste so much work?
Exactly the opposite. If you're already forced to throw out work every 10 seconds, the last thing you want to do is throw out any more work than necessary.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
1481176729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481176729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481176729
Reply with quote  #2

1481176729
Report to moderator
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 01:57:22 AM
 #2982

Relatively often is all relative.

***I was hopelessly, utterly, and pathetically wrong, disregard***

His hardware solves 3.45 shares per minute, taking on average 17.3 seconds to find each share.
Statistically, that's just over 34 solved shares per BTC block.
Let's for the sake of clarity of argument (ease of calculations) assume 2 NMC blocks per 1 BTC block.
It translates to over 17 seconds of his work being lost, on average, during each BTC block.
That's nearly 3% performance hit due to merged mining right there.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:08:59 AM
 #2983

Relatively often is all relative.

Roger that, here's how I see it from my POV:

His hardware solves 3.45 shares per minute, taking on average 17.3 seconds to find each share.
Statistically, that's just over 34 solved shares per BTC block.

Let's for the sake of clarity of argument (ease of calculations) assume 2 NMC blocks per 1 BTC block.

It translates to over 17 seconds of his work being lost, on average, during each BTC block.
That's nearly 3% performance hit due to merged mining right there.
There's no escaping that, it's just the nature of the beast.

That isn't how it works.  That assumes that the GPU will hash an entire nonce range at one time (2^32 hashes) but it does't.  The number of hashes performed is a fraction of that.  It depends on difficulty, maybe ckolivas can give us the formula.  So when an LP occurs the amount of work lost is much less.

Another way to look at it is the hypothetical miner above processes 34 shares.  If your analysis was right it would have 1 stale out of 34 even when not merged mining and thus could never have a stale rate of <3%.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 02:11:09 AM
 #2984

As much as I'm not a fan of merged mining, I have to say that's (17.3s) wrong. You get to submit a share not long after it's found by the device. Usually the device is out for 1-2 seconds at most depending on card speed, intensity and number of threads. The most work you will lose is one chunk of work submitted to the GPU during the block change that is done needlessly before the GPU can respond again. At most it will amount to say 1 second of work with average settings per block change. That's a change from 1 second with regular mining to 3 seconds with merged mining over an average 10 minutes.

HOWEVER this is all assuming one longpoll only per block change, and poolserverj with merged mining support can do some amazing shit. I've seen up to 10 longpolls...

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
gnar1ta$
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:16:59 AM
 #2985

How about I just run a day with merged mining and a day without and compare U? Does U take into account discarded work due to new block - which is LP request?

Losing hundreds of Bitcoins with the best scammers in the business - BFL, Avalon, KNC, HashFast.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 02:19:18 AM
 #2986

How about I just run a day with merged mining and a day without and compare U? Does U take into account discarded work due to new block - which is LP request?
Yes, but this assumes luck doesn't change over 24 hours... and it most definitely does so it will be nigh on impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Luck of even the biggest pool can be down 40% over 24 hours, and that's over 3 THash of miners.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
SleeperUnit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:20:36 AM
 #2987


Dutch, buddy, can you tell me your cgminer Utility? Preferably a list of values for each miner.
Perhaps the best thing you can do is use an older (unaware of merged-mining and not dropping all work on LPs) release of cgminer or find yourself a pool not doing merged mining.

An quicker and easier test would be to simply disable LP. It'll cause a 2% or so increase in stales but it will provide a big boost to efficiency.
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:28:31 AM
 #2988

Another way to look at it is the hypothetical miner above processes 34 shares.  If your analysis was right it would have 1 stale out of 34 even when not merged mining and thus could never have a stale rate of <3%.

I stand corrected. Not thinking straight. Guess it's beddy-bye time after all (check my local time DAT) Smiley
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 02:38:45 AM
 #2989

Another way to look at it is the hypothetical miner above processes 34 shares.  If your analysis was right it would have 1 stale out of 34 even when not merged mining and thus could never have a stale rate of <3%.
And this is probably the best way to see how much "extra" merged mining is costing you.

In your status line:
SS is Stale Shares discarded (detected and not submitted so don't count as rejects)

This will show you shares that might have otherwise been valid if you were not mining merged. cgminer does not submit them so your stale rate actually will not go up as DeathAndTaxes suggested unless you enable the --submit-stale option. (I don't suggest you do).

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:54:20 AM
 #2990

This will show you shares that might have otherwise been valid if you were not mining merged. cgminer does not submit them so your stale rate actually will not go up as DeathAndTaxes suggested unless you enable the --submit-stale option. (I don't suggest you do).

Any reason why?

Also background on why I recommend enabling "--submit-stale" for those who may not know is for the following scenario:
1) your find a BTC share
2) the pool detects a change in NMC block and issues an LP
3) if you discard the work you discard a valid BTC share
4) if you submit it you gain a valid share.

now if the LP is because BTC block is invalid then yes you are submitting a stale share but you don't lose anything.  Instead of a SS locally you get a R but it doesn't negatively affect how many valid shares.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 02:55:55 AM
 #2991

4) if you submit it you gain a valid share.
This. It won't be considered valid if I'm not mistaken.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:13:49 AM
 #2992

4) if you submit it you gain a valid share.
This. It won't be considered valid if I'm not mistaken.

It depends on the pool.  Some (most?) pools track validity of shares on each chain separately.  I know on Bitminter for example after an LP due to NMC block change the share is still valid for BTC purposes (but not NMC).

A pool could handle multiple chains in three ways
a) only given credit for a share if it is valid for all chains
b) given credit if it is valid for master chain (BTC)
c) track each chain separately and give credit is it is a valid share for that chain (each chain has separate share count).

Slush uses method B.  Bitminter uses method C.  You are correct if the pool uses method A then there is no value in submit-stale option.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 03:15:23 AM
 #2993

Yes siree, I do hate merged mining.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:28:36 AM
 #2994

Yes siree, I do hate merged mining.

Yeah it does complicate things BUT I would argue that things are going to get more complicated anyways.  Pools will eventually need to use to provide a mechanism to update miners when transactions change (when fees becoming more importantly).  p2pool needs a method to track when the share chain has changed.  Likely in the future there will be other as of yet implemented events which will require altering the work being done.

Using LP for everything is an ugly hack but it works.  However what all this ugliness is pointing to is the fact that the pool-miner communication protocol needs to be more robust.   Miners today are relatively "dumb" and rely too much on the server.
gnar1ta$
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:51:11 AM
 #2995

Well good since I was using --submit-stale, merged mining, and was completely backwards on scantime, I'll consider that strike 3 for the day and just push the default button on cgminer...too bad --donation isn't default  Tongue

Losing hundreds of Bitcoins with the best scammers in the business - BFL, Avalon, KNC, HashFast.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 03:53:26 AM
 #2996

Well good since I was using --submit-stale, merged mining, and was completely backwards on scantime, I'll consider that strike 3 for the day and just push the default button on cgminer...too bad --donation isn't default  Tongue
Heh, you know I tried to make --donation default but there was outrage and threats of forking cgminer and death threats. All right, perhaps not the last but the others.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 04:06:44 AM
 #2997

Heh, you know I tried to make --donation default but there was outrage and threats of forking cgminer and death threats. All right, perhaps not the last but the others.

Set it to 1% in example.conf file with a note to comment it out if donations aren't desired. I hope you're at least getting a reasonable trickle from those who do have it enabled.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 04:54:00 AM
 #2998

Heh, you know I tried to make --donation default but there was outrage and threats of forking cgminer and death threats. All right, perhaps not the last but the others.

Set it to 1% in example.conf file with a note to comment it out if donations aren't desired. I hope you're at least getting a reasonable trickle from those who do have it enabled.
Yes, thanks!  Kiss I'm currently getting ~450Mhash of donations. Since my mining rig is still in the workshop, this is actually all the mining I'm doing at the moment  Cry

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Fiyasko
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Okey Dokey Lokey


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 08:26:12 AM
 #2999

Heh, you know I tried to make --donation default but there was outrage and threats of forking cgminer and death threats. All right, perhaps not the last but the others.

Set it to 1% in example.conf file with a note to comment it out if donations aren't desired. I hope you're at least getting a reasonable trickle from those who do have it enabled.
Yes, thanks!  Kiss I'm currently getting ~450Mhash of donations. Since my mining rig is still in the workshop, this is actually all the mining I'm doing at the moment  Cry
you wantz moar? Smiley

http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=DingoRabiit&sign=ANY&type=RECV <-My Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0 GAWminers and associated things are not to be trusted, Especially the "mineral" exchange
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2012, 09:34:52 AM
 #3000

Kiss I'm currently getting ~450Mhash of donations. Since my mining rig is still in the workshop, this is actually all the mining I'm doing at the moment  Cry
you wantz moar? Smiley
From the land of rhetorical questions  Wink But of course, I would never turn them down!

If you want to check out what my donation rate is, simply drop into irc.freenode.net #ozcoin

Here is the way to test it, and the current returned value (it fluctuates a lot):
<conman> !worker ckolivas.donation
<ozco> Worker ckolivas.donation hashrate is 401 is active: yes and is being monitored: no

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Pages: « 1 ... 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 [150] 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 ... 830 »
  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!