Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 04:22:24 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 ... 830 »
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.9.2  (Read 4821650 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.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 01:13:47 AM
 #3401

AH... I see we are Windows bashing again.

Some people need Windows because they mine with 69XX cards. You can lower the mem to 300 with MSI Afterburner on these cards.

You sure about that? AB will set it but have you checked in the sensor tab of GPU-Z to see what it is actually running at?
1481127744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481127744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481127744
Reply with quote  #2

1481127744
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481127744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481127744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481127744
Reply with quote  #2

1481127744
Report to moderator
1481127744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481127744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481127744
Reply with quote  #2

1481127744
Report to moderator
1481127744
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481127744

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481127744
Reply with quote  #2

1481127744
Report to moderator
RoloTonyBrownTown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 01:17:15 AM
 #3402

Yes, Vista sucked, but Windows 7 is just as stable as XP and perfectly usable as an everyday OS...
There, without knowing what you just said, you said it.
Windows is a decent everyday OS.
Serious bitcoin mining, however, is much simpler, easier, and less resource-intensive using a leaner, task-oriented OS like your favourite Linux flavor.

What good do automatic updates, insane amounts of background housekeeping stuff, the indexing service, or wide open NETBIOS ports do you for bitcoin mining purposes?
How suitable for mining are all those default Power Management options? How useful are System Restore and Shadow Files?
For all those useless (from mining POV) features you don't even get a functional Remote Desktop server...
...and worst of all, you have to dole out money for the doubtful pleasure of installing Windows on your mining rig.
Insanity.

Well sure, I agree that if you have a solo box that you've dedicated just to mining, then stick one of the million iterations of Linux on it.   Personally though, I have one PC (and some laptops) in my place, and that PC is used for several things.  It's my download box, it's my media server and it's my mining box.  I have Windows 7 on it because it works for all three (Linux probably would as well, but I know Windows inside out so until I have a lot of free time to learn Linux inside out, I'll be sticking with it)



Anyway, whatever, cgminer... carry on !

sharky112065
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 02:43:15 AM
 #3403

AH... I see we are Windows bashing again.

Some people need Windows because they mine with 69XX cards. You can lower the mem to 300 with MSI Afterburner on these cards.

You sure about that? AB will set it but have you checked in the sensor tab of GPU-Z to see what it is actually running at?

Yes I have. They are at 300. Allowing cgminer to set it to 300 it does not actually change and thus the cards run hotter. This is why I use Afterburner.

My rigs that have 5870's are running on Linux.

Donations welcome: 12KaKtrK52iQjPdtsJq7fJ7smC32tXWbWr
sharky112065
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
 #3404

AH... I see we are Windows bashing again.
Begging your pardon, my post was clearly targeted at someone else but since you decided to hop in:

Some people need Windows because they mine with 69XX cards.
Some people mine with their nVidia cards - doesn't mean they should either. That's all I have to say in regards to 40nm VLIW4 cards.

Begging your pardon, you were not the only person that was targeted at.

I will mine with what I have, as will others.

Donations welcome: 12KaKtrK52iQjPdtsJq7fJ7smC32tXWbWr
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:00:32 AM
 #3405

Yes, Vista sucked, but Windows 7 is just as stable as XP and perfectly usable as an everyday OS...
There, without knowing what you just said, you said it.
Windows is a decent everyday OS.
Serious bitcoin mining, however, is much simpler, easier, and less resource-intensive using a leaner, task-oriented OS like your favourite Linux flavor.

What good do automatic updates, insane amounts of background housekeeping stuff, the indexing service, or wide open NETBIOS ports do you for bitcoin mining purposes?
How suitable for mining are all those default Power Management options? How useful are System Restore and Shadow Files?
For all those useless (from mining POV) features you don't even get a functional Remote Desktop server...
...and worst of all, you have to dole out money for the doubtful pleasure of installing Windows on your mining rig.
Insanity.

Well sure, I agree that if you have a solo box that you've dedicated just to mining, then stick one of the million iterations of Linux on it.   Personally though, I have one PC (and some laptops) in my place, and that PC is used for several things.  It's my download box, it's my media server and it's my mining box.  I have Windows 7 on it because it works for all three (Linux probably would as well, but I know Windows inside out so until I have a lot of free time to learn Linux inside out, I'll be sticking with it)



Anyway, whatever, cgminer... carry on !
OK the noob needs some help ...
Firstly, this: Smiley is called a smiley.
I'll explain why I used it in my windows xp post since you still haven't worked that out yet.
They are often posted when people are joking about something.
Let me know if you need that term (joking) explained ...

Next lesson: when your a noob and you've posted 11 posts of no useful content and calling people trolls and dicks you really need to learn to chill and pretend you actually aren't a complete noob with some strange complex.

Next: I don't care about calling me a troll in the other thread and saying above that I never get anything right - yeah so what ... just hope you don't ever need to ask me anything coz I certainly wont be replying ... saving you from being trolled by me or given false information - aren't I nice Smiley

... but calling D&T a troll and a dick - lol - seriously? - you've posted nothing but useless crap here at bitcointalk so far - that's the funniest thing I've read all day Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
(yes anyone can go see a single list of every post you've posted so far with 2 clicks)

Oh and lastly, don't forget to reply to this so you can have the last word - I'm sure that's important for you and I'll let you have the last word - as I said above about replying ...



... as for everyone else - c'mon chill - this isn't a I love windows thread (or an I hate windows thread ... unless ckolivas wants it to be Cheesy) we've heard enough of Bill Gates virtues to convince everyone to get rid of linux on their rigs Smiley

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
fred0
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:03:32 AM
 #3406

I was thinking that a nice feature for cgminer would be load balance target percentages.

Since shares are split between donation and our own, then (I think) why not load balance using the same mechanism.

For example, one could specify --load-balance 55,45,0 .  This would specify 55% of shares go to pool 0, 45 to pool 1, and pool 2 would get 0% shares(thus being a failover-only pool).

Is this a reasonable feature?
kentrolla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:05:44 AM
 #3407

update to fix winxp bug PLZ

But I could also add the other obvious reply Smiley

There is no fix for windows xp - windows xp is just one very large bug and all the MS fixes since then don't seem to have resolved that ... vista, 7, 8 ... Tongue

Yeah. IMHO kano is totally right.

Well, there's a first time for everything, but this isn't one of them.   WinXP is very stable, and has been for a long time.  Yes, Vista sucked, but Windows 7 is just as stable as XP and perfectly usable as an everyday OS.

Honestly you just embarrass yourself by posting generic clichés like that.
I was just joking of course Tongue
I think that was obvious.

But the point is that mr kentrolla was last complaining about cgminer not working properly in a virtual windows - so seriously yeah no one's gonna take any notice of that.

Otherwise - if he has some actual windows xp problem, speak up ...
i do have a windows XP problem. It doesnt work on my friend's machine either (hes running winxp 32 bit) 

RoloTonyBrownTown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:20:59 AM
 #3408

OK the noob needs some help ...
Firstly, this: Smiley is called a smiley.
I'll explain why I used it in my windows xp post since you still haven't worked that out yet.
They are often posted when people are joking about something.
Let me know if you need that term (joking) explained ...

Next lesson: when your a noob and you've posted 11 posts of no useful content and calling people trolls and dicks you really need to learn to chill and pretend you actually aren't a complete noob with some strange complex.

Next: I don't care about calling me a troll in the other thread and saying above that I never get anything right - yeah so what ... just hope you don't ever need to ask me anything coz I certainly wont be replying ... saving you from being trolled by me or given false information - aren't I nice Smiley

... but calling D&T a troll and a dick - lol - seriously? - you've posted nothing but useless crap here at bitcointalk so far - that's the funniest thing I've read all day Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
(yes anyone can go see a single list of every post you've posted so far with 2 clicks)

Oh and lastly, don't forget to reply to this so you can have the last word - I'm sure that's important for you and I'll let you have the last word - as I said above about replying ...



...

That's OK.  You've given out so much crappy advice in this thread so far I very rarely read your posts anymore.  Thanks for your concern anyway (and your crappy psychology attempt at the end there isn't going to get me to shut up, but good (not really) effort anyway).

miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
 #3409

I was thinking that a nice feature for cgminer would be load balance target percentages.

Since shares are split between donation and our own, then (I think) why not load balance using the same mechanism.

For example, one could specify --load-balance 55,45,0 .  This would specify 55% of shares go to pool 0, 45 to pool 1, and pool 2 would get 0% shares(thus being a failover-only pool).

Is this a reasonable feature?

This could be useful, particularly in reserving some power for solo mining without it being evenly split among others.

On another note, is there a record for lowest Rejected/Accepted ratio? I'm at 0.12% with A:>5k. I have to say, pool choice can make a big difference.
mmortal03
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1395


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 05:19:25 AM
 #3410

However, this was before I realized the potential capabilities of Advanced Power Options -> Processor Power Management -> Maximum processor state in Windows.  By default, maximum processor state is set to 100%. Using CPU-Z, I've been able to demonstrate that once I increase the intensity setting to 10 or more in CGMINER, my Atom processor in fact scales up from 800 MHz to 1600 MHz along with the increase in CPU usage.  My thinking here is that this may likely have been where the additional increase in wattage had been coming from when I'd originally found that intensity settings higher than 9 were detrimental to profitability.

So, I've just experimented with setting my maximum processor state down to 50%, and, as expected, when testing CGMINER at intensities higher than 9 (up to 12 so far), and my processor now no longer scales up to 1600 MHz in CPU-Z. My thinking is that this should allow me to squeeze a few more megahashes out of this setup without raising my overall wattage quite as much, if at all.

Read the first post.  Intensity 10+ was designed for future cards.  You shouldn't use intensity >8 or 9 with 5000 or 6000 series cards.  8 for lower end and 9 for higher end.

Intensity simply increases the size of each workload.  That it.  GPU work in "batches".  You can't interrupt a GPU once it starts working.

I am not sure the algorithm conman uses but (hypothetical numbers).

1 nonce range = 2^32 = 4 billion hashes.  An 300 MH/s card would take 11 seconds to complete.

An intensity of 8 might say do 300 million hashes and return results.
And inensity of 9 might say do 600 million hashes and return results.
An intensity of 10 might say do 1 billion hashes and return results.

All you are doing is increasing the "batch size" which takes longer to run.  You gain a small boost by eliminating the number of batches and thus overhead to complete a nonce but you also make the card unresponsive for longer and longer periods of time.  

However a hypothetical 1 GH/s card could do intensity 10 in 1 second.  So thus intensity 10 on this card is no different than intensity 8 on your card.

Make sense?  

TL/DR version:
You research is somewhat useless.  You will not find intensity 10+ improves performance with CURRENT cards.  Higher intensity exists simply to allow faster hashing engines.  If tomorrow someone released an FPGA which did 2GH/s on a single chip likely intensity 10 or 11 would be optimal.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I follow most of what you are saying.  That considered, are the 8 or 9 extra megahash that cgminer is reporting at the higher intensities actually fools gold? What I mean is that could the reported number by cgminer not be indicative of the numbers that the pool is getting from me, due to the longer periods of unresponsiveness at the higher intensities? I guess I'll have to compare the various intensity settings and the hashrates cgminer is reporting to what the mining server is calculating as the hashrate over a period of time and see if there is a disparity between the test cases.  Shouldn't that be the only place I see evidence of what you're describing, or is there another stat in cgminer I can refer to?
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 06:47:23 AM
 #3411

I was thinking that a nice feature for cgminer would be load balance target percentages.

Since shares are split between donation and our own, then (I think) why not load balance using the same mechanism.

For example, one could specify --load-balance 55,45,0 .  This would specify 55% of shares go to pool 0, 45 to pool 1, and pool 2 would get 0% shares(thus being a failover-only pool).

Is this a reasonable feature?

This could be useful, particularly in reserving some power for solo mining without it being evenly split among others.

On another note, is there a record for lowest Rejected/Accepted ratio? I'm at 0.12% with A:>5k. I have to say, pool choice can make a big difference.
When I switched back to ozcoin soon after they moved to DGM (beginning of January) I got 1 Reject in the first 15272 Accepted shares - not bad 0.00655 % Smiley
I got 4 more in the next 11480 shares after that (0.035%)

Edit: I should add, this is with 2x GA HD 6950 (one sits at 900Mhz and the other at 870Mhz) getting about 724Mh/s
So there were a lot of LP's (the usual cause of Rejects)

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 10:42:30 AM
 #3412

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I follow most of what you are saying.  That considered, are the 8 or 9 extra megahash that cgminer is reporting at the higher intensities actually fools gold? What I mean is that could the reported number by cgminer not be indicative of the numbers that the pool is getting from me, due to the longer periods of unresponsiveness at the higher intensities? I guess I'll have to compare the various intensity settings and the hashrates cgminer is reporting to what the mining server is calculating as the hashrate over a period of time and see if there is a disparity between the test cases.  Shouldn't that be the only place I see evidence of what you're describing, or is there another stat in cgminer I can refer to?
It would appear that you missed this:
So, I've just experimented with setting my maximum processor state down to 50%, and, as expected, when testing CGMINER at intensities higher than 9 (up to 12 so far), and my processor now no longer scales up to 1600 MHz in CPU-Z. My thinking is that this should allow me to squeeze a few more megahashes out of this setup without raising my overall wattage quite as much, if at all.
Your only metric should be U/W mate, MH/W may show better results with increased intensity but in most cases you will be lowering U, and only U matters. Tongue
* Vbs bows to U! Grin
U will vary some with luck, but it is as good as (or better than) what the server is calculating hashrate over time with.  As good as because the server's calculation is based on shares per time range (U is shares per minute).  Better because it is for the entire mining session instead of the last X minutes a pool server uses.  Also, on a related note, maybe your processor can get 8MH/s and the 8MH/s extra isn't even coming from the video card.  If that is the case, cutting the CPU frequency in half would lower it to a 4 MH/s gain at a still much more expensive MH/W (although realistically, even if it is the GPU getting that, running the CPU 100% at half frequency will probably still draw enough power to make it a net loss).  Also, maybe U will be lower because more stales will have to be discarded when it takes longer for the GPU to finish the larger batch of work, meaning higher MH/s in real life, but lower U (and lower MH/s calculated by the server).
jake262144
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
 #3413

Also, maybe U will be lower because more stales will have to be discarded when it takes longer for the GPU to finish the larger batch of work, meaning higher MH/s in real life, but lower U (and lower MH/s calculated by the server).
Precisely.
This fact seems to be oftentimes overlooked when users go only for MHash/s in their GPU tweaking.
If your pool server is constantly showing a significantly lower MHash/s estimate then what your miner tells you, consider dropping intensity a notch.
Using intensity 9 for low-to-medium class 200MHash/s GPUs is already too much, they really benefit from 8.
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 11:44:21 AM
 #3414

Also, maybe U will be lower because more stales will have to be discarded when it takes longer for the GPU to finish the larger batch of work, meaning higher MH/s in real life, but lower U (and lower MH/s calculated by the server).
Precisely.
This fact seems to be oftentimes overlooked when users go only for MHash/s in their GPU tweaking.
If your pool server is constantly showing a significantly lower MHash/s estimate then what your miner tells you, consider dropping intensity a notch.
Using intensity 9 for low-to-medium class 200MHash/s GPUs is already too much, they really benefit from 8.

What about 5870s ? What intensity to use for that ?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
 #3415

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I follow most of what you are saying.  That considered, are the 8 or 9 extra megahash that cgminer is reporting at the higher intensities actually fools gold? What I mean is that could the reported number by cgminer not be indicative of the numbers that the pool is getting from me, due to the longer periods of unresponsiveness at the higher intensities? I guess I'll have to compare the various intensity settings and the hashrates cgminer is reporting to what the mining server is calculating as the hashrate over a period of time and see if there is a disparity between the test cases.  Shouldn't that be the only place I see evidence of what you're describing, or is there another stat in cgminer I can refer to?

No it isn't fool's gold.  Higher intensity = larger batch and the GPU does have some overhead in setting up and finishing a batch.  So larger batches = less setup & takedowns for same number of hashes.

That being said what matters most is U.  It is possible to have higher hashrate but because you are pushing the card too hard you increase rejects (due to bad calculations).  U is the only metric that matters.  U is what you get paid on.  It is possible (although improbable) that you would get a higher U w/ intensity 10.  For a dedicated rig the lagginess and unresponsiveness of the system doesn't really matter.


If you want to test the effect of intensity the best way is to use multiple GPU and just set each one to a different Itensity (and keep all other settings the same) and measure U (all hail the all-mighty U).  Run them that way for at least 3 or 4 hours (6 would be better) to reduce any effect on variance.  cgminer calculates U over the entire session so longer session is better.  If you don't have identical GPU you can do the same thing w/ multiple sequential tests it will just take longer.


DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 01:40:04 PM
 #3416

What about 5870s ? What intensity to use for that ?

For 5970 (basically same card) I find very little difference in U (to beat a dead horse deader, the only real measure of performance) between Intensity 8 or 9.  That being said on my dedicated rigs since I don't care about unresponsiveness or desktop lagginess I run them at 9.  Got to get every 0.01 extra shares per minute right?
Peao
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 431



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
 #3417

Guys, I need help.

I recently upgrade from 2.0.7 to 2.2.1 cgminer on my Ubuntu 64 rigs.

I noticed that eventually some GPUs appear OFF (not DEAD, not SICK). This did not happen in version 2.0.7.
This problem has bothered me because it is frequent (about 1-2 times a day @ random rigs), and ultimately hurts my average hash rate.

I searched quickly on this topic, read the README and NEWS file in the directory cgminer but not found anything that seemed to solve this problem.

Could anyone help me with some idea to solve the problem, please?

My command line:
cgminer -o xxx -u yyy -p zzz -I 8 --auto-fan --auto-gpu --gpu-engine 600-725 --gpu-memclock 160 --temp-target 76 --gpu-vddc 0.98

P.S.1: they are not overheating.
P.S.2: sorry, english is not my native language Smiley

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
 #3418

Guys, I need help.

I recently upgrade from 2.0.7 to 2.2.1 cgminer on my Ubuntu 64 rigs.

I noticed that eventually some GPUs appear OFF (not DEAD, not SICK). This did not happen in version 2.0.7.
This problem has bothered me because it is frequent (about 1-2 times a day @ random rigs - 3x5970, 3x5870, 2x5970, 1x5870&1x5970&1x6950, 2x6990 ...), and ultimately hurts my average hash rate.

I searched quickly on this topic, read the README and NEWS file in the directory cgminer but not found anything that seemed to solve this problem.

Could anyone help me with some idea to solve the problem, please?

My command line:
cgminer -o xxx -u yyy -p zzz -I 8 --auto-fan --auto-gpu --gpu-engine 600-725 --gpu-memclock 160 --temp-target 76 --gpu-vddc 0.98

P.S.1: they are not overheating.
P.S.2: sorry, english is not my native language Smiley



Only time I have seen OFF is when the card temp exceeded --temp-cutoff value.  If you don't set a --temp-cutoff I am not sure what it defaults to.
gnar1ta$
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:51:21 PM
 #3419

Only time I have seen OFF is when the card temp exceeded --temp-cutoff value.  If you don't set a --temp-cutoff I am not sure what it defaults to.

Quote
--temp-cutoff <arg> Temperature where a GPU device will be automatically disabled, one value or comma separated list (default: 95)

Will it still shut off without using --auto-gpu?  I just realized I have a rig without --auto-gpu because I want the clocks fixed, but does that mean it will burn up when the AC breaks?

Losing hundreds of Bitcoins with the best scammers in the business - BFL, Avalon, KNC, HashFast.
Peao
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 431



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:02:28 PM
 #3420


I'll add the instruction --temp-cutoff 96 to see if there is any change.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 ... 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!