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

[kano]

After starting up 2.10.2 for the first time, I almost immediately got "Best share: 25", but no accepted shares for a while. Then I finally got an accepted share 4/4. Looks like the Best share display still isn't fixed, unless for some reason my target was above 25 (never been above 8 for me at BitMinter). Also, now Best share is at 207, even though all the accepted shares for this run are still on screen, and the highest is 55/4.

Fix for this is https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/bfab076d

Lulz - replacing my one function I wrote 15 months ago with 5 - and slower

[1714187949]

1714187949

[1714187949]

1714187949

[1714187949]

1714187949

[-ck]

After starting up 2.10.2 for the first time, I almost immediately got "Best share: 25", but no accepted shares for a while. Then I finally got an accepted share 4/4. Looks like the Best share display still isn't fixed, unless for some reason my target was above 25 (never been above 8 for me at BitMinter). Also, now Best share is at 207, even though all the accepted shares for this run are still on screen, and the highest is 55/4.

Fix for this is https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/bfab076d

Lulz - replacing my one function I wrote 15 months ago with 5 - and slower

Does it actually fix anything?

[Askit2]

It fixes the shares looking high because the (I am guessing backup Bitcoin) target is far higher. I would rather see what the highest achieved was not the highest accepted was.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[kano]

After starting up 2.10.2 for the first time, I almost immediately got "Best share: 25", but no accepted shares for a while. Then I finally got an accepted share 4/4. Looks like the Best share display still isn't fixed, unless for some reason my target was above 25 (never been above 8 for me at BitMinter). Also, now Best share is at 207, even though all the accepted shares for this run are still on screen, and the highest is 55/4.

Fix for this is https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/bfab076d

Lulz - replacing my one function I wrote 15 months ago with 5 - and slower

Does it actually fix anything?

No Idea.
There's nothing wrong with the function he replaced.
If I had to guess without looking at the code I'd guess there is a static variable somewhere (or similar).
Working on the BFL->USB today, I'll have a look at this, after the code changes I'm doing are working

That change is: Showing 4 changed files with 72 additions and 83 deletions.
No doubt the fix will be something quite simple, not an attempted rewrite of anything Luke-Jr doesn't understand.

[Luke-Jr]

It fixes the shares looking high because the (I am guessing backup Bitcoin) target is far higher. I would rather see what the highest achieved was not the highest accepted was.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Both before and after intend to show the highest achieved. But the cgminer code calculated the hash twice, in two different ways, and the hash-to-difficulty code assumed it was one of those ways. When the share doesn't meet the pool target, the hash-to-difficulty code was run on it with its hash calculated the opposite way, and as a result gave the wrong result. My rewrite cleans up the code so it's actually readable, and makes the share->hash value always consistent with SHA256 and the share_diff function expectations.

I also wrote a much-less-changed fix for BFGMiner 2.8.x and 2.9.x: https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/006faac
This one doesn't clean up the code to make it more readable, though. But as a diff, it is easier to see what the problem was.

[kano]

It fixes the shares looking high because the (I am guessing backup Bitcoin) target is far higher. I would rather see what the highest achieved was not the highest accepted was.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Both before and after intend to show the highest achieved. But the cgminer code calculated the hash twice, in two different ways, and the hash-to-difficulty code assumed it was one of those ways. When the share doesn't meet the pool target, the hash-to-difficulty code was run on it with its hash calculated the opposite way, and as a result gave the wrong result. My rewrite cleans up the code so it's actually readable, and makes the share->hash value always consistent with SHA256 and the share_diff function expectations.

I also wrote a much-less-changed fix for BFGMiner 2.8.x and 2.9.x: https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/006faac
This one doesn't clean up the code to make it more readable, though. But as a diff, it is easier to see what the problem was.

The function you replaced works fine and does exactly what I wrote it to do 15 months ago.
Check and see if it was a block based on the block header difficulty.
... though as I said, it's way faster that your replacement - which most likely is code you just copied out of elsewhere (and now say it's yours)

Oddly enough that's still required in cgminer - I guess the clone doesn't need that any more
There is nothing to clean up except your retarded brain not being able to understand the simple original code I wrote.

[Luke-Jr]

It fixes the shares looking high because the (I am guessing backup Bitcoin) target is far higher. I would rather see what the highest achieved was not the highest accepted was.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Both before and after intend to show the highest achieved. But the cgminer code calculated the hash twice, in two different ways, and the hash-to-difficulty code assumed it was one of those ways. When the share doesn't meet the pool target, the hash-to-difficulty code was run on it with its hash calculated the opposite way, and as a result gave the wrong result. My rewrite cleans up the code so it's actually readable, and makes the share->hash value always consistent with SHA256 and the share_diff function expectations.

I also wrote a much-less-changed fix for BFGMiner 2.8.x and 2.9.x: https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/commit/006faac
This one doesn't clean up the code to make it more readable, though. But as a diff, it is easier to see what the problem was.

The function you replaced works fine and does exactly what I wrote it to do 15 months ago.

Trolling and lies ignored... the function you wrote (regeneratehash) indeed does work just fine. The problem is in fulltest, as is clear from the much-less-changed patch.

[loshia]

Kano,
There might be version mismatch between core and executable
I will post correct info when it crashes again
I am not quite sure if that info is useful at all
Flowing your advise i got some gdb core info to share. cgminer 2.10.2 coredumps
[91932.126721] cgminer[2138]: segfault at 260 ip 000000000040be10 sp 00007fff4c6b48b0 error 4 in cgminer[400000+57000]

[New LWP 2680]
[New LWP 2731]
[New LWP 2618]

warning: Error reading shared library list entry at 0x780000003c

warning: Corrupted shared library list: 0x0 != 0x4830408b48d00148
Core was generated by `/usr/local/bin/cgminer xxxxxx.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x0000000000410ea1 in stage_thread (userdata=0x1c4a080) at cgminer.c:3576
3576    cgminer.c: No such file or directory.


line 3576   tq_freeze(mythr->q);


10X

[dlasher]

Just upgraded from 2.9.7 to 2.10.2 (pulled from git, compiled myself), and I'm noticing VERY long startup times before mining begins when primary pool is down.. by very long, I'm talking 2-3 minutes. I don't recall it taking that long under previous versions.

Is there some new timeout value I might be missing, or need to set?

[2012-12-20 14:00:19] Started cgminer 2.10.2
 [2012-12-20 14:00:19] Probing for an alive pool
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Unable to get work from pool 0 http://btcguild.com:8332
 [2012-12-20 14:02:50] Switching pool 1 http://de.btcguild.com:8332 to stratum+tcp://176.9.42.247:3333

in this case, the URL changed for btcguild primary connection, once I fixed that, and the pool is 'reachable' it starts up immediately... invalid or down pool as pool #1 still gives almost 3 minutes delay on startup

[-ck]

Just upgraded from 2.9.7 to 2.10.2 (pulled from git, compiled myself), and I'm noticing VERY long startup times before mining begins when primary pool is down.. by very long, I'm talking 2-3 minutes. I don't recall it taking that long under previous versions.

Is there some new timeout value I might be missing, or need to set?

[2012-12-20 14:00:19] Started cgminer 2.10.2
 [2012-12-20 14:00:19] Probing for an alive pool
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Unable to get work from pool 0 http://btcguild.com:8332
 [2012-12-20 14:02:50] Switching pool 1 http://de.btcguild.com:8332 to stratum+tcp://176.9.42.247:3333

in this case, the URL changed for btcguild primary connection, once I fixed that, and the pool is 'reachable' it starts up immediately... invalid or down pool as pool #1 still gives almost 3 minutes delay on startup

That's just the nature of how long the timeout needs to be on a raw socket to reasonably know it's dead with stratum. There is nothing you can manually change to alter that apart from not putting a dead pool first in line. This is not a new issue with 2.10.2, it's just that btcg is suffering a DDoS. If it were a getwork pool it could take up to 60 seconds. With stratum it's over 2 mins.

[sharky112065]

Just upgraded from 2.9.7 to 2.10.2 (pulled from git, compiled myself), and I'm noticing VERY long startup times before mining begins when primary pool is down.. by very long, I'm talking 2-3 minutes. I don't recall it taking that long under previous versions.

Is there some new timeout value I might be missing, or need to set?

[2012-12-20 14:00:19] Started cgminer 2.10.2
 [2012-12-20 14:00:19] Probing for an alive pool
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid
 [2012-12-20 14:02:49] Unable to get work from pool 0 http://btcguild.com:8332
 [2012-12-20 14:02:50] Switching pool 1 http://de.btcguild.com:8332 to stratum+tcp://176.9.42.247:3333

in this case, the URL changed for btcguild primary connection, once I fixed that, and the pool is 'reachable' it starts up immediately... invalid or down pool as pool #1 still gives almost 3 minutes delay on startup

I think they were under DDOS. Maybe that has something to do with it, as in btcguild was not completely down.

[dlasher]

...... If it were a getwork pool it could take up to 60 seconds. With stratum it's over 2 mins.

Perfect, that's what I'm seeing. Appreciate the response.

[kano]

Kano,
There might be version mismatch between core and executable
I will post correct info when it crashes again
I am not quite sure if that info is useful at all
Flowing your advise i got some gdb core info to share. cgminer 2.10.2 coredumps
[91932.126721] cgminer[2138]: segfault at 260 ip 000000000040be10 sp 00007fff4c6b48b0 error 4 in cgminer[400000+57000]

[New LWP 2680]
[New LWP 2731]
[New LWP 2618]

warning: Error reading shared library list entry at 0x780000003c

warning: Corrupted shared library list: 0x0 != 0x4830408b48d00148
Core was generated by `/usr/local/bin/cgminer xxxxxx.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x0000000000410ea1 in stage_thread (userdata=0x1c4a080) at cgminer.c:3576
3576    cgminer.c: No such file or directory.


line 3576   tq_freeze(mythr->q);


10X

At a guess, a corrupted shared library list is corrupted RAM.
So either a runaway pointer, or you need to run a memory check.
Although it's not impossible, it doesn't seem likely that the actual transfer address to the library function was corrupted.
Also note that when you run memtest86+ you should actually let it complete the full test (which takes quite a while) even it the first 4 tests return OK.
I've had one case in the past of RAM that only failed much later, I think it was test #7, but succeeded on all the tests before it.
If it's not RAM then it's gonna need a lot of info to work out what corrupted the library transfer address.

[loshia]

Kano,

It might be memory. But my pc is running fine almost 5 mounts without a hang. If it is a memory i shall expect some random PC freezes also. Any way, as i told you i am not sure if core dump was generated from same version of cgminer. I am upgrading it frequently I shall wait for another crash and i will send the proper debug info

thank you very much!

[mining4fun11]

Is there anywhere in cgminer where I can see if I solved a block other then having to quit to see it in the stats. 

[kano]

Is there anywhere in cgminer where I can see if I solved a block other then having to quit to see it in the stats. 

API-README

java API summary
  Found Blocks

[-ck]

Is there anywhere in cgminer where I can see if I solved a block other then having to quit to see it in the stats. 

From the [p]ools menu, if you select one pool, it will show up if a block was found for that pool, otherwise it will say nothing about blocks if you found none.

[loshia]

Hi Kano,

Here is what happens

[New LWP 2833]
[New LWP 2832]
[New LWP 2831]

warning: Can't read pathname for load map: Input/output error.
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Core was generated by `/usr/local/bin/cgminer '.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x000000000040be10 in __clone_available () at cgminer.c:3011
3011    cgminer.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0  0x000000000040be10 in __clone_available () at cgminer.c:3011
#1  0x000000000041e1b3 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffececa7b8) at cgminer.c:6859

(gdb) bt full
#0  0x000000000040be10 in __clone_available () at cgminer.c:3011
        work = 0x2424f70
        tmp = 0x40688f
        cloned = false
#1  0x000000000041e1b3 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffececa7b8) at cgminer.c:6859
        pool = 0x12b9290
        lagging = false
        ce = 0x1630e90
        ts = 1
        max_staged = 1
        cp = 0x12b9290
        work = 0x2420ed0
        pools_active = true
        handler = {__sigaction_handler = {sa_handler = 0x40b72a <sighandler>,
            sa_sigaction = 0x40b72a <sighandler>}, sa_mask = {__val = {
              0 <repeats 16 times>}}, sa_flags = 0, sa_restorer = 0x1}
        thr = 0x16325a8
        block = 0x12b7e30
        k = 31
        i = 1
        j = 1
        s = 0x12b7e10 "8332"

[57817.341874] cgminer[2450]: segfault at 260 ip 000000000040be10 sp 00007fffecec84c0 error 4 in cgminer[400000+57000]
[83170.561524] cgminer[32284]: segfault at 260 ip 000000000040be10 sp 00007fff6fb85250 error 4 in cgminer[400000+57000]
I hacked
static bool __clone_available(void)
{
        struct work *work, *tmp;
        bool cloned = false;

        mutex_lock(stgd_lock);
        if (!staged_rollable) {
                mutex_unlock(stgd_lock);
                goto out;
        }
        mutex_unlock(stgd_lock);
I do not know if it is OK but from what i can see there is race condition accessing staged_rollable or at least i think so
I will let you know if it crashesh again


You can see that bug happens at exact same location cgminer[400000+57000]  which makes me think that PC memory is OK.


I can send you core and cgminer binary if you need them.  Do you have any idea what might be wrong?

Thanks

PS this time we went little more further


[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Core was generated by `/usr/local/bin/cgminer.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x0000000000410ef4 in stage_work (work=0x326fc10) at cgminer.c:3584
3584            applog(LOG_DEBUG, "Pushing work from pool %d to hash queue", work->pool->pool_no);
(gdb) EBUG, "Pushing work from pool %d to hashEBUG, "Pushing work from pool %d to

Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x0000000000410ef4 in stage_work (work=0x326fc10) at cgminer.c:3584
3584            applog(LOG_DEBUG, "Pushing work from pool %d to hash queue", work->pool->pool_no);
(gdb) bt full
#0  0x0000000000410ef4 in stage_work (work=0x326fc10) at cgminer.c:3584
No locals.
#1  0x000000000040bebd in __clone_available () at cgminer.c:3021
        work_clone = 0x326fc10
        work = 0x32ad230
        tmp = 0x0
        cloned = false
#2  0x000000000041e1f3 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fff030ba5c8) at cgminer.c:6869
        pool = 0x1f0a270
        lagging = false
        ce = 0x7fe030531120
        ts = 1
        max_staged = 1
        cp = 0x1f0a270
        work = 0x328f2e0
        pools_active = true
        handler = {__sigaction_handler = {sa_handler = 0x40b72a <sighandler>,
            sa_sigaction = 0x40b72a <sighandler>}, sa_mask = {__val = {
              0 <repeats 16 times>}}, sa_flags = 0, sa_restorer = 0x1}
        thr = 0x26fc698
        block = 0x1f08e10
        k = 31
        i = 1
        j = 1
        s = 0x1f08df0 "8332"
(gdb)
For me it seems that stage_work called from  __clone_available crashed
From the other hand

static void stage_work(struct work *work)
{
   applog(LOG_DEBUG, "Pushing work from pool %d to hash queue", work->pool->pool_no);
   work->work_block = work_block;

static unsigned int work_block; is a global and it has been never locked, so maybe a instance of test_work_current was trying to change it
work->work_block = ++work_block; and race conditions occurred?

I am not both c and threads expert, but as long as i know each global var shall be locked when changed. Maybe when read also but it depends on gcc os and whatever. Is that true? If yes we have a potential code that can cause core dumps because of it

I do not how to lock work->work_block = ++work_block; so i am running same version with staged_rollable locked and i do expect within a day or two same crash to appear
10X

[Miner99er]

Can't run CG miner...

"Too many values passed to set temp cutoff"

This is in 2.8.7

Just tried 2.10.2... same thing... window just closes. Help?

Also, Diablominer runs just fine on this box... I just would rather run CGminer.

[jjiimm_64]

Is there anywhere in cgminer where I can see if I solved a block other then having to quit to see it in the stats.  

From the [p]ools menu, if you select one pool, it will show up if a block was found for that pool, otherwise it will say nothing about blocks if you found none.

You can also get it from the api

Code:

 [SUMMARY] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [Elapsed] => 145712
                    [MHS av] => 2682.86
                    [Found Blocks] => 0
                    [Getworks] => 12894
                    [Accepted] => 33838
                    [Rejected] => 370
                    [Hardware Errors] => 780
                    [Utility] => 13.93
                    [Discarded] => 10252
                    [Stale] => 0
                    [Get Failures] => 1
                    [Local Work] => 131292
                    [Remote Failures] => 0
                    [Network Blocks] => 232
                    [Total MH] => 390923779.3094
                    [Work Utility] => 37.24
                    [Difficulty Accepted] => 89064.42331579
                    [Difficulty Rejected] => 921.00453193
                    [Difficulty Stale] => 0
                    [Best Share] => 2550226
                )