Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2018, 06:13:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 [408] 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 ... 847 »
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1  (Read 5761148 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.
bicer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 24, 2012, 04:58:06 AM
 #8141

Inaba were you able to resolve this? I'm running into exactly the same issue.

Ok, so I'm at stumped, maybe someone has an idea:

I have a W7 x64 box that I reloaded recently.  I loaded the ATI drivers and the SDK... firing up CGMiner, it mines just fine.  However, when I q out of CGminer, W7 will BSOD with a SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION in atikmdag.sys.  I've Googled the hell out of it and tried all the suggestions and nothing seems to work.  I've uninstalled and reinstalled several different drivers versions, including 11.2 which I know worked with v2.4, v2.5 and v2.6 of the SDK.  Nothing changes the behavior.  

I realize it's not directly a CGMiner problem and something is wrong somewhere in the system, but bugger all if I can figure out what it is.  Does anyone have any ideas?  I've tried Driver Sweeper and reinstalled the drivers from scratch, but nothing works.

The system operates fine, I can play games, etc... and CGMiner mines fine.  The only time there is a problem is when I quit CGMiner, otherwise zero problems at all.  I'm completely stumped.

PS - this is mining with a pair of 6990's.


Anyone?

1534616005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534616005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534616005
Reply with quote  #2

1534616005
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534616005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534616005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534616005
Reply with quote  #2

1534616005
Report to moderator
1534616005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534616005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534616005
Reply with quote  #2

1534616005
Report to moderator
1534616005
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534616005

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534616005
Reply with quote  #2

1534616005
Report to moderator
luffy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 607
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 24, 2012, 06:12:25 AM
 #8142

sorry if this has been asked again:
(U)tility is a sum of all the shares, accepted,rejected,HW?
is there any measurement (shares/min) only for accepted ones?
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 986
Merit: 500


DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize


View Profile
November 24, 2012, 09:54:55 AM
 #8143

Pretty sure it was just Accepted shares. Since rejects kill your hashrate I would expect the U (SPM) to drop off too.
HW in my experience (BFL single) did change U (SPM). This would be caused by 15 seconds of doing nothing. I am not sure about GPU based work as I do not own profitable hardware for that.

I am sure Kano, Con or someone far better informed will let you know if I am wrong. I could be wrong and it is even semi-likely that I am.

          ▄▄
        ▄█▀▀█▄
      ▄█▀ ▄▄ ▀█▄
      ▀ ▄████▄ ▀
   ▄▀ ▄ ▀████▀ ▄ ▀▄
 ▄▀ ▄███▄ ▀▀ ▄███▄ ▀▄
█  ███████  ███████  █
 ▀▄ ▀███▀ ▄▄ ▀███▀ ▄▀

   ▀▄ ▀ ▄████▄ ▀ ▄▀
      ▄ ▀████▀ ▄
      ▀█▄ ▀▀ ▄█▀
        ▀█▄▄█▀
          ▀▀
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀▀▀████▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀███████
██████            ▀████████     ████     █████    █████     ███████
██████     ▄▄▄▄▄    ▀██████     █████    ████      ████    ████████
██████     ██████▄    █████     █████    ▀██▀  ▄▄  ▀██▀    ████████
██████     ███████    █████     ██████    ██   ██   ██    █████████
██████     ███████    █████     ██████    ██   ██   ██    █████████
██████     ███████    █████     ██████     █   ██   █     █████████
██████     █████▀    ██████     ███████       ████       ██████████
██████     ▀▀▀▀▀    ▄██████     ████████     ██████     ███████████
██████            ▄████████     ████████     ██████     ███████████
██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄▄██████▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.DIWtoken.com.
▄██████████████████▄
███       ▀███████
███       █████████
███       █████████
███       █████████
███              ██
███   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ███
███   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ███
███              ███
███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███
██████████████████▀

▄██████████████████▄
███████████▀ ███████
█████████▀   ███████
███████▀     ██▀ ███
███ ▀▀       █▄▄████
███          █▀▀▀▀██
███ ▄▄       ███████
██████▄     █▄ ▀███
█████████▄   ███▄███
███████████▄ ███████
▀██████████████████▀

▄██████████████████▄
████████████████████
███████████████▀▀ ██
█████████▀▀     ███
████▀▀     ▄█▀   ███
███▄    ▄██      ███
█████████▀      ▄██
█████████▄     ████
█████████████▄ ▄████
████████████████████
▀██████████████████▀
......SECURITY DECENTRALIZED...
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1052


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 24, 2012, 10:13:38 AM
 #8144

Pretty sure it was just Accepted shares. Since rejects kill your hashrate I would expect the U (SPM) to drop off too.
HW in my experience (BFL single) did change U (SPM). This would be caused by 15 seconds of doing nothing. I am not sure about GPU based work as I do not own profitable hardware for that.

I am sure Kano, Con or someone far better informed will let you know if I am wrong. I could be wrong and it is even semi-likely that I am.
Yes you are correct, U is accepted shares per minute.

You can calculate U directly from the screen: 60 * A / Elapsed
(Elapsed = now - Started: at the top)

Also, WU is the amount of 1 diff work done per minute by the hardware.

Note the other difference there: U is shares per minute, WU is 1 diff work per minute.
Share per minute is obviously affected by the share difficulty.

The API has all the numbers in it (both of: based on shares and based on difficulty)

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 24, 2012, 03:15:23 PM
 #8145

The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's.  Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO).

Come on now, lets be honest.  The variable difficulty isn't the problem here, Stratum is the problem: it's difficulty to work relation is broken from the ground up and needs to be fixed.  If the difficulty were too unstable, why can GW and GBT keep up just fine?  CGminer doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with it in GW, right?


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 24, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
 #8146

The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's.  Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO).

Come on now, lets be honest.  The variable difficulty isn't the problem here, Stratum is the problem: it's difficulty to work relation is broken from the ground up and needs to be fixed.  If the difficulty were too unstable, why can GW and GBT keep up just fine?  CGminer doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with it in GW, right?

Um.. Oz has variable difficulty, I'm not seeing people complain it not working there.

M

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1123


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 24, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
 #8147

New release - 2.9.5, 25th November 2012

Bugfix release.


Human readable changelog:

Fixed the crash when a GBT pool was used either as primary or backup when its gbt coinbase was very large.
Fixed the ztex submits lots of dupes bug based on an idea by luke-jr
Fixed the much larger amount of shares being leaked to backup pools
"getworks" will not be counted now from backup pools when they're just being used to see the pool is alive
Mips openwrt fixes


Full changelog:

- fixes target calc for mips openwrt
- openwrt needs roundl
- Get rid of unused last_work in opencl thread data.
- Do away with the flaky free_work api in the driver code which would often lose
the work data in opencl and simply flush it before exiting the opencl scanhash.
- Use base_work for comparison just for cleanness in __copy_work
- Remove all static work structs, using the make and free functions.
- Add pool no. to stale share detected message.
- Add info about which pool share became stale while resubmitting.
- Copy the work on opencl_free_work
- Add an extra slot in the max backlog for ztex to minimise dupes.
- Do not use or count the getworks submitted which are simply testing that pools
are still up. This was increasing share leakage and making stats not reflect
real work.
- Track all dynamically allocated memory within the work struct by copying work
structs in a common place, creating freshly allocated heap ram for all arrays
within the copied struct. Clear all work structs from the same place to ensure
memory does not leak from arrays within the struct. Convert the gbt coinbase and
stratum strings within the work struct to heap ram. This will allow arbitrary
lengths without an upper limit for the strings, preventing the overflows that
happen with GBT.
- libztex: Work around ZTEX USB firmware bug exposed by the FreeBSD libusb
- opencl: Use new dev_error function for REASON_DEV_NOSTART

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 24, 2012, 11:14:33 PM
 #8148

Thanks once again for all your hard work. I will send a donation tomorrow when I get back to my wallet!

Like what I said : 1JosHWaA2GywdZo9pmGLNJ5XSt8j7nzNiF
Don't like what I said : 1FuckU1u89U9nBKQu4rCHz16uF4RhpSTV
stevegee58
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 918
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 24, 2012, 11:54:29 PM
 #8149

The auto-gpu switch is no longer recognized.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1123


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 24, 2012, 11:58:26 PM
 #8150

The auto-gpu switch is no longer recognized.
I assume you mean on windows? I may have built it without adl support, lemme check

EDIT: yes my fault. Repackaged the windows binaries. Try redownloading.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
stevegee58
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 918
Merit: 1003



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 12:30:33 AM
 #8151

There ya go!  Thanks, it works now.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
sharky112065
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 382
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 04:08:40 AM
 #8152

New Windows build instructions.

http://pastebin.com/3pzivj32

Can someone with a Windows rig that has a Ztex test the new libusb section?
Need to know if you can mine successfully using libusb instead of libusbx because that is what cgminer will be going to in the future supposedly.

Donations welcome: 12KaKtrK52iQjPdtsJq7fJ7smC32tXWbWr
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1052


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 25, 2012, 04:38:04 AM
 #8153

cut/paste ...

2.9.5
An Xubuntu 11.04 x86_64 executable is in my github downloads called cgminer-2.9.5a
https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer/downloads
(it also works on Fedora 16 and 17)

For anyone who didn't realise, it's just the executable file to put in place of 'cgminer'
Nothing else needs changing
First get and extract the full binary release from ckolivas and then copy my file in place of 'cgminer'

No problems so far on my '2xGPU' or 'BFL+2xICA' (90 minutes so far)
GPUs (687Mh/s) on solo and BFL+ICAs (1.6GH/s) on OzCoin Stratum with fixed 8 diff
(MMQ is doing new code testing)

The same configure options as cvolivas' binary version
In case anyone was wondering:
CFLAGS="-O2 -W -Wall" ./autogen.sh --enable-icarus --enable-bitforce --enable-ztex --enable-modminer --enable-scrypt
make clean
make


--

(and yes I made a 2.9.4a but didn't post about it)

--

sharky112065's post above is actually (indirectly) about ASIC.

I've rewritten the MMQ driver (as I've said a few times) and the problems with windows drivers included a problem with libusbx so I switched to libusb (thanks for help from the libusb developer) and the last problem was gone.
So when I finally get my changes into the main git - we need to use libusb not libusbx on windows.
Those changes include early code for the up coming ASICs.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Graet
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 05:05:26 AM
 #8154

The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's.  Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO).

Come on now, lets be honest.  The variable difficulty isn't the problem here, Stratum is the problem: it's difficulty to work relation is broken from the ground up and needs to be fixed.  If the difficulty were too unstable, why can GW and GBT keep up just fine?  CGminer doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with it in GW, right?


stratum and variable difficulty are 2 different pieces of code
Ozcoin implemented stratum then coded the vardiff- not sure what you consider "broken" but we have it working fine, maybe the vardiff you coded before implementing stratum is the issue?

| Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd https://ozcoin.net Double Geometric Reward System https://lc.ozcoin.net for Litecoin mining DGM| https://crowncloud.net VPS and Dedicated Servers for the BTC community
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 05:10:48 AM
 #8155

The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's.  Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO).

Come on now, lets be honest.  The variable difficulty isn't the problem here, Stratum is the problem: it's difficulty to work relation is broken from the ground up and needs to be fixed.  If the difficulty were too unstable, why can GW and GBT keep up just fine?  CGminer doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with it in GW, right?


stratum and variable difficulty are 2 different pieces of code
Ozcoin implemented stratum then coded the vardiff- not sure what you consider "broken" but we have it working fine, maybe the vardiff you coded before implementing stratum is the issue?

The implementation of stratum and vardiff on OZCO is running flawlessly with cgminer
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 05:13:37 AM
 #8156

The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's.  Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO).

Come on now, lets be honest.  The variable difficulty isn't the problem here, Stratum is the problem: it's difficulty to work relation is broken from the ground up and needs to be fixed.  If the difficulty were too unstable, why can GW and GBT keep up just fine?  CGminer doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with it in GW, right?



Seems to be your implementation of variable difficulty with stratum. It works fine on all the other implementations that were not influenced by GBT.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 05:25:56 AM
 #8157

No, it's an acknowledged problem with Stratum.  The original Stratum design is flawed.  Difficulty is decoupled from work and that is simply an incorrect way to handle mining.  Difficulty and work are inseparable from a mining perspective.  The way Stratum handles is is entirely incorrect and needs to be addressed. This is not really in question, everyone involved pretty much agrees that something needs to be done about it, the only question is exactly what.

My implementation of variable difficulty is the original implementation of variable difficulty and has been working fine on both GW and GBT for months now. It works fine in CGminer on GW, it also works fine in GBT, Stratum and GW in BFGminer. The only implementation it does not work on is CGMiner with Stratum, but that's not really CGMiners fault as its' a design flaw in Stratum and Conman doesn't really have control over that.

I hope you realize that every other Stratum implementation throws away a bunch of valid work you are doing for the pool and it even throws away solved blocks if the conditions are just right because of the flawed difficulty design of Stratum.  So tell me which would you prefer?  Shares going POOF magically on your Stratum server of choice or you getting paid for your work?


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1123


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
 #8158

No, it's an acknowledged problem with Stratum.  The original Stratum design is flawed.  Difficulty is decoupled from work and that is simply an incorrect way to handle mining.  Difficulty and work are inseparable from a mining perspective.  The way Stratum handles is is entirely incorrect and needs to be addressed. This is not really in question, everyone involved pretty much agrees that something needs to be done about it, the only question is exactly what.

My implementation of variable difficulty is the original implementation of variable difficulty and has been working fine on both GW and GBT for months now. It works fine in CGminer on GW, it also works fine in GBT, Stratum and GW in BFGminer. The only implementation it does not work on is CGMiner with Stratum, but that's not really CGMiners fault as its' a design flaw in Stratum and Conman doesn't really have control over that.

I hope you realize that every other Stratum implementation throws away a bunch of valid work you are doing for the pool and it even throws away solved blocks if the conditions are just right.  EMC's implementation will NEVER throw away valid work.  So tell me which would you prefer?  Shares going POOF magically on your Stratum server of choice or you getting paid for your work?


Excuse me but 99.99% of the stratum code in bfgminer is from cgminer

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 25, 2012, 05:29:13 AM
 #8159

No, it's an acknowledged problem with Stratum.  The original Stratum design is flawed.  Difficulty is decoupled from work and that is simply an incorrect way to handle mining.  Difficulty and work are inseparable from a mining perspective.  The way Stratum handles is is entirely incorrect and needs to be addressed. This is not really in question, everyone involved pretty much agrees that something needs to be done about it, the only question is exactly what.

My implementation of variable difficulty is the original implementation of variable difficulty and has been working fine on both GW and GBT for months now. It works fine in CGminer on GW, it also works fine in GBT, Stratum and GW in BFGminer. The only implementation it does not work on is CGMiner with Stratum, but that's not really CGMiners fault as its' a design flaw in Stratum and Conman doesn't really have control over that.

I hope you realize that every other Stratum implementation throws away a bunch of valid work you are doing for the pool and it even throws away solved blocks if the conditions are just right.  EMC's implementation will NEVER throw away valid work.  So tell me which would you prefer?  Shares going POOF magically on your Stratum server of choice or you getting paid for your work?


Excuse me but 99.99% of the stratum code in bfgminer is from cgminer

I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that it works though? The problem is not with the Stratum code, it's with the Stratum protocol.  It's broken.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 25, 2012, 05:30:28 AM
 #8160

No, it's an acknowledged problem with Stratum.  The original Stratum design is flawed.  Difficulty is decoupled from work and that is simply an incorrect way to handle mining.  Difficulty and work are inseparable from a mining perspective.  The way Stratum handles is is entirely incorrect and needs to be addressed. This is not really in question, everyone involved pretty much agrees that something needs to be done about it, the only question is exactly what.

My implementation of variable difficulty is the original implementation of variable difficulty and has been working fine on both GW and GBT for months now. It works fine in CGminer on GW, it also works fine in GBT, Stratum and GW in BFGminer. The only implementation it does not work on is CGMiner with Stratum, but that's not really CGMiners fault as its' a design flaw in Stratum and Conman doesn't really have control over that.

I hope you realize that every other Stratum implementation throws away a bunch of valid work you are doing for the pool and it even throws away solved blocks if the conditions are just right.  EMC's implementation will NEVER throw away valid work.  So tell me which would you prefer?  Shares going POOF magically on your Stratum server of choice or you getting paid for your work?
Excuse me but 99.99% of the stratum code in bfgminer is from cgminer
Yes, but as with other code that BFGMiner inherited from cgminer, I've fixed numerous bugs in it.

Pages: « 1 ... 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 [408] 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 ... 847 »
  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!