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

[dikidera]

Honestly luke, that looks like the exact ripoff of my suggestion for splitting a single work across multiple threads on a CPU miner with a given noncerange. So the 2^32 range is divided by the number of threads.

[Luke-Jr]

Honestly luke, that looks like the exact ripoff of my suggestion for splitting a single work across multiple threads on a CPU miner with a given noncerange. So the 2^32 range is divided by the number of threads.

No number of threads on a single cost-effective machine (CPU or GPU) will ever max out 4 GH/s. Putting this in the protocol (though it could be done in the miner additionally) allows the work to be split among multiple unrelated miners. Anyhow, I don't see your "suggestion" anywhere, much less before I wrote up mine. "Ripoff" doesn't apply to independent research.

[dikidera]

Honestly luke, that looks like the exact ripoff of my suggestion for splitting a single work across multiple threads on a CPU miner with a given noncerange. So the 2^32 range is divided by the number of threads.

No number of threads on a single cost-effective machine (CPU or GPU) will ever max out 4 GH/s. Putting this in the protocol (though it could be done in the miner additionally) allows the work to be split among multiple unrelated miners. Anyhow, I don't see your "suggestion" anywhere, much less before I wrote up mine. "Ripoff" doesn't apply to independent research.

Not that i understand where these 4 gigahashes of yours come from, but this is my suggestion. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21275.msg350512#msg350512

[Luke-Jr]

Honestly luke, that looks like the exact ripoff of my suggestion for splitting a single work across multiple threads on a CPU miner with a given noncerange. So the 2^32 range is divided by the number of threads.

No number of threads on a single cost-effective machine (CPU or GPU) will ever max out 4 GH/s. Putting this in the protocol (though it could be done in the miner additionally) allows the work to be split among multiple unrelated miners. Anyhow, I don't see your "suggestion" anywhere, much less before I wrote up mine. "Ripoff" doesn't apply to independent research.

Not that i understand where these 4 gigahashes of yours come from, but this is my suggestion. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21275.msg350512#msg350512

Each work can sustain up to 4.294967295 GH/s before you need more. Your suggestion was on July 11th, whereas I originally suggested this June 29th. :p

[dikidera]

Just to say, that's not gigahashes. It's called nonces really or whatever, but i am pretty much sure it's not GH/s. It's just numbers which the GPU can go over very quickly, where the CPU(my phenom 955) can do around 3 million hashes per second, or 3 million nonces per second.

[Luke-Jr]

Just to say, that's not gigahashes. It's called nonces really or whatever, but i am pretty much sure it's not GH/s. It's just numbers which the GPU can go over very quickly, where the CPU(my phenom 955) can do around 3 million hashes per second, or 3 million nonces per second.

Each nonce gives a hash/second. You can start over the nonce range every second with new hashes. So your 3 MH/s only covers less than 0.1% of the nonce range before it can start over from the beginning.

[Paul4games]

After i installed the ati amd sdk i get another error:
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6715/screenshot0ga.png

[dikidera]

Just to say, that's not gigahashes. It's called nonces really or whatever, but i am pretty much sure it's not GH/s. It's just numbers which the GPU can go over very quickly, where the CPU(my phenom 955) can do around 3 million hashes per second, or 3 million nonces per second.

Each nonce gives a hash/second. You can start over the nonce range every second with new hashes. So your 3 MH/s only covers less than 0.1% of the nonce range before it can start over from the beginning.

As far as i know, per each getwork you have to try 2^32 nonces, if you dont find any hashes that match the diff, you request new work, and the process repeats itself.

[Luke-Jr]

Just to say, that's not gigahashes. It's called nonces really or whatever, but i am pretty much sure it's not GH/s. It's just numbers which the GPU can go over very quickly, where the CPU(my phenom 955) can do around 3 million hashes per second, or 3 million nonces per second.

Each nonce gives a hash/second. You can start over the nonce range every second with new hashes. So your 3 MH/s only covers less than 0.1% of the nonce range before it can start over from the beginning.

As far as i know, per each getwork you have to try 2^32 nonces, if you dont find any hashes that match the diff, you request new work, and the process repeats itself.

Then you don't know. You can do up to 2^32 nonces per second (with X-Roll-Ntime), which is 4 GH/s. You only need to get new work when longpoll returns it, or the pool sets a time limit on the work it gives you (2 minutes with pushpool).

[dikidera]

conman, a small reminder for the fixme in the fulltest function in util.c

[OtaconEmmerich]

New release version.

Source only at the moment:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer-1.2.5.tar.bz2

New features:
- I removed the -n option being no dynamic and left it how it was as number of devices
- Setting an intensity now of any value automatically disables the dynamic feature. It was basically completely overrided if dynamic was enabled, so these are now mutually exclusive features.
- I've added signal handling to try and clean up at the end and return the shell/console neatly if you press ctrl-c. I believe you need to use ctrl-break on windows still (when the binary comes out).
- There is a new option:
 --text-only|-T      Disable ncurses formatted screen output
- I've made it so that the watchdog thread only restarts threads if they're inactive in the setting of normal network conditions and will not try to restart them if the network connectivity is down.
- cgminer now tests on startup that it can connect at least once with the url and credentials to not try and reconnect indefinitely.
- There is no "fake work" at startup now with one hard lot of work handed to the gpu mining thread which should prevent the false positive hardware errors reported.
- CPU mining has been fixed, it was not resetting back properly on getting a new work item.
- The status window in curses mode will update more reliably and do less work now.
- Modifications to build on mingw32 for windows and now to build on osx courtesy of Ycros
- A status summary is now printed on exiting cgminer. It looks like this:

---
Summary of runtime statistics:

Started at [2011-07-15 01:05:28]
Runtime: 0 hrs : 12 mins : 13 secs
Average hashrate: 178.4 Megahash/s
Queued work requests: 33
Share submissions: 28
Accepted shares: 24
Rejected shares: 4
Reject ratio: 14.3
Hardware errors: 0
Efficiency (accepted / queued): 73%
Utility (accepted shares / min): 1.97/min

Discarded work due to new blocks: 4
Stale submissions discarded due to new blocks: 0
Unable to get work from server occasions: 0
Work items generated locally: 0
Submitting work remotely delay occasions: 0
New blocks detected on network: 2

Summary of per device statistics:

 GPU 0: [178.4 Mh/s] [Q:33  A:24  R:4  HW:0  E:73%  U:2.04/m]


... I think I need a little break now

Stupid question time, How do I exit a cmd window in Windows 7? the only way I know how is by closing said window.

[bitclown]

Stupid question time, How do I exit a cmd window in Windows 7? the only way I know how is by closing said window.

Ctrl + C

[Shevek]

As far as i know, per each getwork you have to try 2^32 nonces, if you dont find any hashes that match the diff, you request new work, and the process repeats itself.

Then you don't know. You can do up to 2^32 nonces per second (with X-Roll-Ntime), which is 4 GH/s. You only need to get new work when longpoll returns it, or the pool sets a time limit on the work it gives you (2 minutes with pushpool).

Luke... why do you fix the time to blown up the full nonce in ONE second?  400 MH/s miner does the work in about 10 seconds, which is not bad... isn't it? So, It seems to me, that your goal is to tune the nonce length to be submitted, accordingly to miner power, in such way that miner finish its part of the nonce in only 1 second, then ask for new one piece... perhaps too much traffic overload.

Well, you are entangled in pools, so perhaps you can clarify the question.

[Luke-Jr]

Luke... why do you fix the time to blown up the full nonce in ONE second?  400 MH/s miner does the work in about 10 seconds, which is not bad... isn't it? So, It seems to me, that your goal is to tune the nonce length to be submitted, accordingly to miner power, in such way that miner finish its part of the nonce in only 1 second, then ask for new one piece... perhaps too much traffic overload.

Because you start over every second. You don't need to ask for a new piece, the same one is still valid for up to (on Eligius) 2 minutes. The miner just changes the ntime header (+1 every second), and then it scans its nonce range until the next second.

[ffwd]

Stupid question time, How do I exit a cmd window in Windows 7? the only way I know how is by closing said window.

Ctrl + C

actually it currently isn't working. Use Ctrl+Break

[nmat]

Is there any documentation on how to run this in OS X? I might try it later on

[CCCMikey]

What does "Share rejected from GPU 0 Thread 0" mean?

Started mining for fun for the first time today, but not understanding the output. Only one Google match, and it's a Pastebin.

Code:

cgminer version 1.2.6 - Started: [2011-07-16 14:34:58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[(5s):262.6  (avg):262.3 Mh/s] [Q:47  A:0  R:46  HW:0  E:0%  U:0.00/m]

TQ: 1  ST: 1  LS: 0  SS: 0  DW: 0  LW: 0  LO: 0  RF: 0  I: 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPU 0: [263.3 Mh/s] [Q:46  A:0  R:48  HW:0  E:0%  U:0.00/m]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2011-07-16 14:44:21] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:44:53] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 0
2011-07-16 14:45:28] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:45:33] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:45:36] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:45:42] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:46:12] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 0
2011-07-16 14:46:17] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1
2011-07-16 14:46:22] Share rejected from GPU 0 thread 1

This is on an MSI 6870, on a Pentium IV mainboard, with a 500W psu

The Power Consumption according to my meter is only 100 watts, although the unpleasant hot plastic smell seems to disagree so I'm not sure what to believe at the moment.

Edit: Shut it down for now. The "Brytek" PSU appears to be the source of the smell - it might think it's 500 watts, but that might not be distributed over the rails correctly for this type of usage since it does not have any PCI-E connectors - have ordered an Antec 650W instead.

[hi]

Hi

I thought this cgminer had low CPU usage when GPU mining?  I have a quadcore cpu and 2 6870's on one rig and when I gpu mine, the cpu is pegged at 50%...am I missing a switch or something?

Hi

[dikidera]

And why did you even think that? Currently, no miner under Windows offers no cpu usage at all due to the unconfirmed bug in the drivers.

[CCCMikey]

I saw almost no CPU usage on my rig for the 10 minutes it lived...