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

[os2sam]

Hi there

All went well, but for some reason, it mines at 4MHASH/s on my 5830.

it used to produce 300Ghash/s when overclocked to 975, and it still does it on phoenix.

Wow,
If you can tell me how I can get 300GHash/s out of my 5830 I'll give you all my bitcoins.
Sam

i have 6 of them in 1 machine mining and all producing 296-304 Mh/s
have the core clocked up to 950, on the 304 MH/s ones, 930 for the 296 MHs one
memory clocked at 310

Yep, Mega Hash's not Giga Hash's.  I was just being a smart a--.  Sorry, not really productive.
Sam

[1714821676]

1714821676

[1714821676]

1714821676

[kano]

Hi there

All went well, but for some reason, it mines at 4MHASH/s on my 5830.

it used to produce 300Ghash/s when overclocked to 975, and it still does it on phoenix.

Wow,
If you can tell me how I can get 300GHash/s out of my 5830 I'll give you all my bitcoins.
Sam

i have 6 of them in 1 machine mining and all producing 296-304 Mh/s
have the core clocked up to 950, on the 304 MH/s ones, 930 for the 296 MHs one
memory clocked at 310

You'd need 1,000 to get the amount he accidentally typed
Of course he meant 300Mh/s (not 300Gh/s)

[MadHacker]

Hi there

All went well, but for some reason, it mines at 4MHASH/s on my 5830.

it used to produce 300Ghash/s when overclocked to 975, and it still does it on phoenix.

Wow,
If you can tell me how I can get 300GHash/s out of my 5830 I'll give you all my bitcoins.
Sam

i have 6 of them in 1 machine mining and all producing 296-304 Mh/s
have the core clocked up to 950, on the 304 MH/s ones, 930 for the 296 MHs one
memory clocked at 310

You'd need 1,000 to get the amount he accidentally typed
Of course he meant 300Mh/s (not 300Gh/s)

didn't see the Gh/s  typo although we know that its ment Mh/s and it is just that a typo IMHO

[rcocchiararo]

Can you use something like http://pastebin.com/ to show us the whole output of ./configure from when you built cgminer?  Thanks!

http://pastebin.com/ZwhuEG6r

there goes

OK, that covers the obvious problems (none of which are there).  The next step would be:
./cgminer .. options to connect to a pool ... --verbose --text-only --shares 1 > debug.log 2>&1, pastebin it once it complete and wait for someone with more depth to figure out what's going on..

Ghs / Mhs: yes, my mind was playing tricks with me.

---

Code:

./cgminer -n
1 GPU devices detected

Pastebin of the log:
http://pastebin.com/BDFyPkjk

[kano]

Well something also went badly wrong at 2011-10-30 22:54:42
(repeating the stats over and over again ...)

Is something you linked against no good?
Coz yeah, 4.9Mh/s is something like what a CPU should get

Also ensure you are running everything with default options except maybe add "-I 7"

Are the cards certainly OK and are you sure they are 5830's ?

What does aticonfig tell you?
(sudo aticonfig --lsa)

Mine looks like this:
* 0. 01:00.0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
  1. 02:00.0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series

* - Default adapter

...

The three options I'd guess are:
1) OpenCL/other software issue with that version of Linux
2) Not 5830
3) Faulty card

[DeathAndTaxes]

Is there a way to tell cgminer to stop running after x minutes?

If it can't be done in cgminer is there a method via script in linux to tell cgminer to shutdown and then restart after x minutes.

The reason I ask is sometimes cgminer is unable to restart dead miner.  It happens rarely but with 12 GPU it does happen and when I fail to detect it hours can past and that is wasted time.  What I have found is that when a GPU "dies" stopping cgminer and restarting it from terminal fixes the problem 100% of time.

So if I could have cgminer run for 60 minutes and then quit I could setup a script that simply restarts cgminer everytime it quits which likely would give me nearly 100% uptime with little need for monitoring.

[kano]

Well there is the --sched-stop HH:MM which you could set to 60 minutes in the future every time your script starts cgminer

[rcocchiararo]

Well something also went badly wrong at 2011-10-30 22:54:42
(repeating the stats over and over again ...)

Is something you linked against no good?
Coz yeah, 4.9Mh/s is something like what a CPU should get

Also ensure you are running everything with default options except maybe add "-I 7"

Are the cards certainly OK and are you sure they are 5830's ?

What does aticonfig tell you?
(sudo aticonfig --lsa)

Mine looks like this:
* 0. 01:00.0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
  1. 02:00.0 AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series

* - Default adapter

...

The three options I'd guess are:
1) OpenCL/other software issue with that version of Linux
2) Not 5830
3) Faulty card

Its just one 5830, and it runs fine on phoenix.

Its just that i like cgminer more

My entire gui crashed when i tried to end cgminer, weird stuff, the log looked fine until that point.

rcocchiararo@omega:~$ sudo aticonfig --lsa
[sudo] password for rcocchiararo:
* 0. 02:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 

* - Default adapter

[rcocchiararo]

i compiled it again, and now it works

300Gigowatts!

[P4man]

Is there a way to tell cgminer to stop running after x minutes?

If it can't be done in cgminer is there a method via script in linux to tell cgminer to shutdown and then restart after x minutes.

The reason I ask is sometimes cgminer is unable to restart dead miner.  It happens rarely but with 12 GPU it does happen and when I fail to detect it hours can past and that is wasted time.  What I have found is that when a GPU "dies" stopping cgminer and restarting it from terminal fixes the problem 100% of time.

So if I could have cgminer run for 60 minutes and then quit I could setup a script that simply restarts cgminer everytime it quits which likely would give me nearly 100% uptime with little need for monitoring.

You could use a simple cron script to kill the process and restart it every hour.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Is there a way to tell cgminer to stop running after x minutes?

If it can't be done in cgminer is there a method via script in linux to tell cgminer to shutdown and then restart after x minutes.

The reason I ask is sometimes cgminer is unable to restart dead miner.  It happens rarely but with 12 GPU it does happen and when I fail to detect it hours can past and that is wasted time.  What I have found is that when a GPU "dies" stopping cgminer and restarting it from terminal fixes the problem 100% of time.

So if I could have cgminer run for 60 minutes and then quit I could setup a script that simply restarts cgminer everytime it quits which likely would give me nearly 100% uptime with little need for monitoring.

You could use a simple cron script to kill the process and restart it every hour.

I may do that as short term solution.  I think long term I may want to look at forking cgminer to provide quit on dead GPU support, RPC calls to control it remotely and web interface.  I am not a big fan of JSON-RPC but since most other Bitcoin tools & utilities seem to use it I guess I would go that route.  Since cgminer is already complex enough a branch/fork dedicated to remote operation might make more sense (while getting rid of CPU support, and command line options).

While my "farm" is configurable using startup scripts, and monitoring is possible via ssh sessions it is "clunky" with just 5 rigs (30 GPUs). If I ever expanded I think management will just become more of a pain in the ass.  I have to think there is a better way.  I am thinking single webpage interface on a host that has current status of each rig, plus options to restart, and modify settings.  akak BAMT but based on debian lxde and using the vastly superior cgminer. 

[P4man]

While my "farm" is configurable using startup scripts, and monitoring is possible via ssh sessions it is "clunky" with just 5 rigs (30 GPUs). If I ever expanded I think management will just become more of a pain in the ass.  I have to think there is a better way.  I am thinking single webpage interface on a host that has current status of each rig, plus options to restart, and modify settings.  akak BAMT but based on debian lxde and using the vastly superior cgminer. 

Sounds like a plan. Now make it happen
FWIW, I was in fact already looking for a way to remote manage cgminer without needing SSH. I wanted to make a simple android  app to monitor and control my rigs. Web based might be good enough tho.

[DeathAndTaxes]

While my "farm" is configurable using startup scripts, and monitoring is possible via ssh sessions it is "clunky" with just 5 rigs (30 GPUs). If I ever expanded I think management will just become more of a pain in the ass.  I have to think there is a better way.  I am thinking single webpage interface on a host that has current status of each rig, plus options to restart, and modify settings.  akak BAMT but based on debian lxde and using the vastly superior cgminer. 

Sounds like a plan. Now make it happen
FWIW, I was in fact already looking for a way to remote manage cgminer without needing SSH. I wanted to make a simple android  app to monitor and control my rigs. Web based might be good enough tho.

Well if I (or someone smarter than me) ever got JSON-RPC calls working, making those calls from an Anroid app wouldn't be too tough.  Pretty sure there are JSON libraries for Android.  It is pretty much make call A (w/ values x,y,z), wait for response. Then do something based on response.  An Android app would be pretty cool for multi-rig monitoring & control.

[-ck]

2^20 iterations is 1048576 hashes right?  If we consider the upper and lower bound of modern GPU to be 100MH/s to 500MH/s that is 0.002s to 0.01s.

Not sure how a GPU can take full seconds to finish.  Wouldn't that cause system instabilities?  I mean the GPU is unusable for other tasks while OpenCL kernel is running.

2^20/2^32 = 0.024%  Thus each interrupted "cycle" reduces EV (expected value) by 0.00024 shares.*
*Granted each individual iteration will either be 1 share lost or 0 shares lost but the EV is still a fractional share.  

Goddamnit I was still thinking from when cgminer would support intensities up to 14 which would put out a 5770 for 5 seconds at a time. Of course it only supports up to intensity 10 now because it proved to be a waste of time, not improving throughput and did cause nice stalls at 14 - plus people tend to just set something to the top value thinking it will definitely be better. So yes you're right at intensity 10 it's not much time/lost work. I had forgotten exactly how much it was, but intensity 10 is 2^25 just for the record.

[c_k]

I saw your latest commit, awesome work ckolivas! cgminer reigns supreme again

[kano]

Pity coz in my opinion nmc is a virus

All it does is devalue BTC by taking some BTC value for itself.
It's a crap DNS idea that still hasn't been implemented and doesn't work and was dying.
Most people didn't want it - if they did want it, it wouldn't have been dying.

Pity it's not already dead.
Now it will linger on and do nothing but take value from BTC.

The shares are free yet have some trade-able value ... where does that value come from? BTC of course.

Hmm bitcoind needs to restrict the size of coinbase and thus stop all merged mining in it's tracks ...

I think IXCoin is going to be the next merged mining coin if the alt threads are true.

Great, IXCoin will be doing it soon too ........

[-ck]

They drove a dumptruck full of money and unloaded it on my front lawn. I'm not made of stone. It's not quite true, but some people are still donating (thanks!!), and the alleged other uses for longpoll on the same block were valid.

Actually I agree with you Kano, NMC only eventually takes value from BTC. It has to come from somewhere. It was not the argument for merged mining that made me -indirectly- add support for it.

Plus, basically, there is only so much I can influence how people mine bitcoin from within my software.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hmm bitcoind needs to restrict the size of coinbase and thus stop all merged mining in it's tracks ...

I believe coinbase size is already restricted.  Of course you do realize that coinbase field is simply the "nice" way to do merged mining.  It doesn't interfere or clutter the transaction list.  If there was no coinbase field merged mining could still be done by creating a bogus transaction which contains a hash of the prior NMC block.

I think IXCoin is going to be the next merged mining coin if the alt threads are true.

The alt-coin users think a lot of things most which never come true.  I don't see any major pool making the back end changes necessary to add IXCoin which has no market depth or value.

[bitlane]

Goddamnit I was still thinking from when cgminer would support intensities up to 14 which would put out a 5770 for 5 seconds at a time. Of course it only supports up to intensity 10 now because it proved to be a waste of time, not improving throughput and did cause nice stalls at 14 - plus people tend to just set something to the top value thinking it will definitely be better. So yes you're right at intensity 10 it's not much time/lost work. I had forgotten exactly how much it was, but intensity 10 is 2^25 just for the record.

I still recall reading recommendations for cards and CGMiner's intensity value a while back.....

It was suggested that I=8 be used for 5xxx series ATI cards, while I=9 be used for the 69xx series cards.

I did some playing around after a few stalls here and there and actually found that for my quad 6950 rig, I actually get a higher share/min rate ("U" value) when I use I=8 rather than I=9, as suggested.....and no GPU stalling or driver crashing with a much higher overclock.

I am currently still using 2.0.6 and love it......insane performance. I pretty much use I=8 for everything, except for working-workstations, where I use Dynamic Intensity and it all works great.

Is I=9 still suggested for 69xx cards ?

<EDIT>
* I should also add that I am using Windows 7 on all rigs (currently a mixture of 32 & 64bit machines).

[freakfantom]

Goddamnit I was still thinking from when cgminer would support intensities up to 14 which would put out a 5770 for 5 seconds at a time. Of course it only supports up to intensity 10 now because it proved to be a waste of time, not improving throughput and did cause nice stalls at 14 - plus people tend to just set something to the top value thinking it will definitely be better. So yes you're right at intensity 10 it's not much time/lost work. I had forgotten exactly how much it was, but intensity 10 is 2^25 just for the record.

I still recall reading recommendations for cards and CGMiner's intensity value a while back.....

It was suggested that I=8 be used for 5xxx series ATI cards, while I=9 be used for the 69xx series cards.

I did some playing around after a few stalls here and there and actually found that for my quad 6950 rig, I actually get a higher share/min rate ("U" value) when I use I=8 rather than I=9, as suggested.....and no GPU stalling or driver crashing with a much higher overclock.

I am currently still using 2.0.6 and love it......insane performance. I pretty much use I=8 for everything, except for working-workstations, where I use Dynamic Intensity and it all works great.

Is I=9 still suggested for 69xx cards ?

Absolutely the same here I get more using crossfired 6990s at I=8... thinking about I=7 Besides, I=8 gives me less heat and noise.