OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1

[poon-TANG]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

[Mobius]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

Yes, or Diff3 or Diff(n) depending on the difficulty of the share that you are receiving from the pool that you are on.

[poon-TANG]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

Yes, or Diff3 or Diff(n) depending on the difficulty of the share that you are receiving from the pool that you are on.

Sweet..thanks

[BitMinerN8]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

Yes, or Diff3 or Diff(n) depending on the difficulty of the share that you are receiving from the pool that you are on.

Sweet..thanks

IIRC the faster the rig the higher the Diff will go, if the pool supports it. For example, on BTCGuild via Stratum, my ~5 GHash BFL rig is doing Diff 8.

[mdude77]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

Yes, or Diff3 or Diff(n) depending on the difficulty of the share that you are receiving from the pool that you are on.

Sweet..thanks

IIRC the faster the rig the higher the Diff will go, if the pool supports it. For example, on BTCGuild via Stratum, my ~5 GHash BFL rig is doing Diff 8.

Um... I didn't think cgminer had stratum support yet?

EDIT: must be using a proxy.

M

[Mobius]

Just download 2.7.6 and now it shows "Diff 1, or Diff 2" ?

Yes, or Diff3 or Diff(n) depending on the difficulty of the share that you are receiving from the pool that you are on.

Sweet..thanks

IIRC the faster the rig the higher the Diff will go, if the pool supports it. For example, on BTCGuild via Stratum, my ~5 GHash BFL rig is doing Diff 8.

Um... I didn't think cgminer had stratum support yet?

EDIT: must be using a proxy.

M

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg1236151#msg1236151

[-ck]

Stratum update

The code has been in testing for a while now, and numerous issues have been ironed out. I've been mining with it for a few days in a mixture of regular pools + stratum pools and things seem to working out okay. I've just managed to get it building and working on windows and have created the first binary for people to start testing it. It's still not mature enough for a full release, but at some stage I need people to start testing it so I can sort out issues as they arise.

If you're on linux, and can use git, checkout the stratum branch and build from that.
git pull -a && git checkout stratum

For those on windows, here is a test binary.
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer.exe

Just drop  it into your existing 2.7.6 directory. It will still read version 2.7.6, but don't let that fool you. For stratum to be active, you need - of course - to mine on one of the 2 pools that currently support it: slush's pool and btcguild . The way I've set up the code, you shouldn't need to do anything special to mine stratum, just use your regular settings (or you can plug in the stratum info directly if you're so inclined). The advantages to the miner should be far far less network communications with less network delays which should also translate into less rejects. Of course the real advantage is to the pools and for the ability to scale to much higher hashrates with the advent of ASICs.

Lots has been written about it here (though it may be rather confusing):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108533.0

EDIT: There is NO proxy support whatsoever for stratum at this stage.

[kaerf]

thanks for all your hard work, ckolivas.

i tried this on linux, but got the following errors:

Code:

 [2012-10-04 14:06:42] Probing for an alive pool
 [2012-10-04 14:06:42] Switching pool 0 http://api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 to stratum+tcp://api-stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333
 [2
   012-10-04 1[42:00162:-4130]- 0P4o o1l4 :00 6s:t4r3a]t uPmo+otlc p0: /s/tarpait-usmt+rtactpu:m/./baiptic-ositnr.actzu:m3.3b3i3t caoliinv.ecz:3333 alive
 [2012-10-04 14:06:43] Switching pool 1 http://mine3.btcguild.com:8332 to stratum+tcp://198.154.98.196:9332
 [2012-10-04 14:06:49] Rejected bb6e3804 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce
 [2012-10-04 14:06:49] Stratum from pool 0 requested work restart
 [2012-10-04 14:06:49] Rejected 9de81d7d Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce
 [2012-10-04 14:06:50] Rejected 544a476e Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce
 [2012-10-04 14:06:59] Rejected e177e632 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce
 [2012-10-04 14:06:59] Rejected c7ea7fd8 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce
 [2012-10-04 14:07:06] Rejected 972a4688 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0 (Incorrect size of extranonce

and then i get 0 accepts


BTW, I also had to add the strtod fix in driver-bitforce.c (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=94420.0) to get things going.

....

just checked debug output and it keeps saying:

Code:

 [2012-10-04 14:13:27] Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line

[dlasher]

Stratum update

<snip>
If you're on linux, and can use git, checkout the stratum branch and build from that.
git pull -a && git checkout stratum

Grabbed, compiled, playing with it on a single machine. (wish it had a subversion# or something so I'd know which was running..)  Didn't change a single line of my config file, and it's working for multiple host entries and pools, including moving away from the stratum proxy directly to the stratum pool.

[2012-10-04 14:46:26] Switching pool 0 http://my.internal.proxy:8332 to stratum+tcp://198.154.98.196:9332

Too soon to tell if there are any issues, but I'll let you know. Thanks again for all your hard work!

btw, what happens if stratum+tcp fails.. does it drop back to http or eliminate the pool# alltogether?

[PandaMiner]

I have A:2297 R:40 with version 275 running on litecoinpool.

[slush]

just checked debug output and it keeps saying:

Code:

 [2012-10-04 14:13:27] Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line

I have the same, looks like there's some issue with Stratum+BFL.

[-ck]

Stratum update

<snip>
If you're on linux, and can use git, checkout the stratum branch and build from that.
git pull -a && git checkout stratum

Grabbed, compiled, playing with it on a single machine. (wish it had a subversion# or something so I'd know which was running..)  Didn't change a single line of my config file, and it's working for multiple host entries and pools, including moving away from the stratum proxy directly to the stratum pool.

[2012-10-04 14:46:26] Switching pool 0 http://my.internal.proxy:8332 to stratum+tcp://198.154.98.196:9332

Too soon to tell if there are any issues, but I'll let you know. Thanks again for all your hard work!

btw, what happens if stratum+tcp fails.. does it drop back to http or eliminate the pool# alltogether?

Thanks. At the moment it only tries to use stratum+tcp if the pool supports it. I'll probably try to make it fall back to whichever works if I can.

[-ck]

just checked debug output and it keeps saying:

Code:

 [2012-10-04 14:13:27] Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line

I have the same, looks like there's some issue with Stratum+BFL.

I don't think that's it. Others have used this with BFL devices. Something else is trashing buffers somewhere for your setup, I just haven't found where or why yet. In your case slush, you are on ARM architecture so there are even more issues to deal with.

Kaerf, what version of linux/architecture are you on?

[dlasher]

Interesting behavior/question with stratum version..

On my test machine, I have pools set up the following way:

0 - stratum proxy
1 - btcguild #1
2 - btcguild #2
3 - btcguild #3

cgminer talked to pool0 (the proxy) and immediately punched right through to the real IP address for the stratum server, not using the proxy any more.

So should bypass the proxy when it sees the header, or should it stay pointed there? (IE what if the stratum server is diff hostname/IP than the configured pool?)

(as a side note, it immediately reduced all 4 pools to a single IP address, based on the headers it received from each server, since btcguild only has 1 stratum server today, but that will change has they add more)

[-ck]

Interesting behavior/question with stratum version..

On my test machine, I have pools set up the following way:

0 - stratum proxy
1 - btcguild #1
2 - btcguild #2
3 - btcguild #3

cgminer talked to pool0 (the proxy) and immediately punched right through to the real IP address for the stratum server, not using the proxy any more.

So should bypass the proxy when it sees the header, or should it stay pointed there? (IE what if the stratum server is diff hostname/IP than the configured pool?)

(as a side note, it immediately reduced all 4 pools to a single IP address, based on the headers it received from each server, since btcguild only has 1 stratum server today, but that will change has they add more)

Right, a question without an obvious answer. The point of the stratum header on the regular getwork pools is to redirect them to a better protocol pool. The fact that btcg redirects all pools to the same one stratum pool is more a sign of early days with btcg having only one stratum server. I'm guessing with time btcg will have 3 stratum servers to match its 3 getwork servers.

[eleuthria]

Right, a question without an obvious answer. The point of the stratum header on the regular getwork pools is to redirect them to a better protocol pool. The fact that btcg redirects all pools to the same one stratum pool is more a sign of early days with btcg having only one stratum server. I'm guessing with time btcg will have 3 stratum servers to match its 3 getwork servers.

I'll be updating the BTC Guild getwork-based backends to use different X-Stratum redirects this week, now that we're starting to see integration in the most widely used miner.

[dlasher]

Right, a question without an obvious answer. The point of the stratum header on the regular getwork pools is to redirect them to a better protocol pool. The fact that btcg redirects all pools to the same one stratum pool is more a sign of early days with btcg having only one stratum server. I'm guessing with time btcg will have 3 stratum servers to match its 3 getwork servers.

I'll be updating the BTC Guild getwork-based backends to use different X-Stratum redirects this week, now that we're starting to see integration in the most widely used miner.

Thank you!

[jork]

Leakage question...

I'm mining with cgminer with 2 workers one on ubuntu 12 and the other on windows 7 and I see the same odd behavior on both...

I've got 2 pools configured as failover (I did not choose load balance or rotate or anything like that), and about 80% of the time I see "leakage" over to my secondary pool! Weird.

I'm mining at 4500Mh/s at bitminter (2 workers) with no overt pool switching--either automatically or by my choice. I keep it steadily pointed at bitminter....But most of the time I'm seeing about 14Mh/s coming from my 2 workers to Mtred--my secondary pool!

I see no indication of this in either worker's console--they both look solidly connected to bitminter. I don't have any connection errors or slow communication or anything. Everything looks great except there's 14Mh/s leakage to Mtred from both workers.

What gives?? Any ideas?

[-ck]

Leakage question...

I'm mining with cgminer with 2 workers one on ubuntu 12 and the other on windows 7 and I see the same odd behavior on both...

I've got 2 pools configured as failover (I did not choose load balance or rotate or anything like that), and about 80% of the time I see "leakage" over to my secondary pool! Weird.

I'm mining at 4500Mh/s at bitminter (2 workers) with no overt pool switching--either automatically or by my choice. I keep it steadily pointed at bitminter....But most of the time I'm seeing about 14Mh/s coming from my 2 workers to Mtred--my secondary pool!

I see no indication of this in either worker's console--they both look solidly connected to bitminter. I don't have any connection errors or slow communication or anything. Everything looks great except there's 14Mh/s leakage to Mtred from both workers.

What gives?? Any ideas?

Read the readme faq

[jork]

Leakage question...

I'm mining with cgminer with 2 workers one on ubuntu 12 and the other on windows 7 and I see the same odd behavior on both...

I've got 2 pools configured as failover (I did not choose load balance or rotate or anything like that), and about 80% of the time I see "leakage" over to my secondary pool! Weird.

I'm mining at 4500Mh/s at bitminter (2 workers) with no overt pool switching--either automatically or by my choice. I keep it steadily pointed at bitminter....But most of the time I'm seeing about 14Mh/s coming from my 2 workers to Mtred--my secondary pool!

I see no indication of this in either worker's console--they both look solidly connected to bitminter. I don't have any connection errors or slow communication or anything. Everything looks great except there's 14Mh/s leakage to Mtred from both workers.

What gives?? Any ideas?

Read the readme faq

Got it Thanks!

"Q: Work keeps going to my backup pool even though my primary pool hasn't
failed?
A: Cgminer checks for conditions where the primary pool is lagging and will
pass some work to the backup servers under those conditions. The reason for
doing this is to try its absolute best to keep the GPUs working on something
useful and not risk idle periods. You can disable this behaviour with the
option --failover-only."

I've been over that readme.txt many times getting things going and I've really appreciated all your work that went into it--so thanks much for that--it's all working very smoothly.