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

[Diapolo]

I'm currently playing around with p2pool, too ... so ne need to add --submit-stale as this is forced, if needed via SUBMITOLD, right?
The LPs occur quite often for p2pool, so what would you suggest as a good intensity, perhaps in relation to MH/s ... could that be an idea to let CGMINER compute the best value for -I with p2pool (and I'm not talking about the normal -I d switch).

Yes to the first question, README to the second.

You Con rock !

[1714024282]

1714024282

[1714024282]

1714024282

[stevegee58]

I'm currently playing around with p2pool, too ... so ne need to add --submit-stale as this is forced, if needed via SUBMITOLD, right?
The LPs occur quite often for p2pool, so what would you suggest as a good intensity, perhaps in relation to MH/s ... could that be an idea to let CGMINER compute the best value for -I with p2pool (and I'm not talking about the normal -I d switch).

Dia

I'm with p2pool and I've simply left the -I switch off entirely to allow dynamic intensity.  With dynamic intensities running from 4-6, I've found almost no performance benefit to manually setting it higher than that (at least in my setup).

[DeathAndTaxes]

New release: Version 2.2.7 - February 20, 2012
......

reject ratio higher for me, about 3% instead 0,5% at 2.1.2

my conf.
p2pool 462b252 multi merged mining
bitcoind 0.6
atiumdag 8.920.0.0 (Catalyst 11.12) / Win7 64
OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1)

Version 2.3.1 - February 24, 2012
2.3.1-2

reject ratio still about 3% for me...

cgminer supports the SUBMITOLD extension now and p2pool is telling cgminer to submit the stale shares. So yep, it's working.

I'm currently playing around with p2pool, too ... so ne need to add --submit-stale as this is forced, if needed via SUBMITOLD, right?
The LPs occur quite often for p2pool, so what would you suggest as a good intensity, perhaps in relation to MH/s ... could that be an idea to let CGMINER compute the best value for -I with p2pool (and I'm not talking about the normal -I d switch).

I found 1 intensity lower than normal works well.  I run 5970s @ Intensity 9.  I use Intensity 8 for p2pool.
Also make sure queue and threads per GPU are 1.  With LP time of 10 sec unless your per thread hashrate is > 430MH/s using multiple threads and a deep queue is essentially useless.

[Diapolo]

I currently use -I 8, too looks good so far.

[spiccioli]

Hi,

I don't know if this is the correct forum where ask my question, but since it is cgminer related I start from here

I've got a five 5870 rig I've just set up, it runs xubuntu 11.10 with catalyst 11.8 (the one that installs using xubuntu proprietary drivers applet) and I've installed AMD SDK 2.4.

If I don't use GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS=1  CPU usage goes to 90%, If I use it, on the other hand, cgminer uses from 20 to 35% of CPU and CPU is a sempron 2.8 Ghz

This is with intensity 5 and standard 2 threads per GPU (a single thread per GPU makes little difference).

My question is: how much CPU should cgminer use? How much uses it on your multi-gpu rigs?

TIA.

spiccioli.

ps. my other two rigs have 2 GPUs  each and with sync objects use very little cpu (less than 5%).

This is cgminer -ndevs output, note it says AMD SDK 2.5 but I've installed 2.4 following kanoi  recipe
https://github.com/kanoi/linux-usb-cgminer/blob/master/linux-usb-cgminer

Code:

$ cgminer/cgminer -ndevs
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] CL Platform 0 vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] CL Platform 0 name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] CL Platform 0 version: OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1)
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Platform 0 devices: 5
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] GPU 0 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 0 engine clock to 830
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 0 memory clock to 160
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 0 voltage to 1.050
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] GPU 1 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 1 engine clock to 830
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 1 memory clock to 160
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 1 voltage to 1.050
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] GPU 2 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 2 engine clock to 830
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 2 memory clock to 160
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 2 voltage to 1.050
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] GPU 3 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 3 engine clock to 830
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 3 memory clock to 160
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 3 voltage to 1.050
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] GPU 4 ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 4 engine clock to 830
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 4 memory clock to 160
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] Setting GPU 4 voltage to 1.050
[2012-02-25 19:38:05] 5 GPU devices max detected

[-ck]

Hi,

I don't know if this is the correct forum where ask my question, but since it is cgminer related I start from here

I've got a five 5870 rig I've just set up, it runs xubuntu 11.10 with catalyst 11.8 (the one that installs using xubuntu proprietary drivers applet) and I've installed AMD SDK 2.4.

If I don't use GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS=1  CPU usage goes to 90%, If I use it, on the other hand, cgminer uses from 20 to 35% of CPU and CPU is a sempron 2.8 Ghz

Dud catalyst driver. Use 11.6 or 11.11+ on linux.

[Arnold2222]

I would like to ask about mining on windows 8 ? any experience ?
I tryed and all i got was restarts of pc

[Vbs]

min(x,y) http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.2/docs/man/xhtml/commonMin.html
gets implemented low-level as

Code:

w: MIN_UINT    R0.w,  R0.x,  PV1350.y

, which *should*  (I know, AMD... ) be rather stable. The big problem with the alternative (&) is the huge number of false positives, since it's bitwise, like 01010011 & 10101100 = 00000000, which is bad for the branch predictor. I'm testing now with a conservative approach (just this one change from default),

Code:

#elif defined VECTORS2
	bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
	if (!result) {
		if (!W[117].x)
			output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
		if (!W[117].y)
			output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
	}

and got a slight (3~4MH/s) increase (5850, SDK 2.5 from Cat 11.11).

You can do the maths on false positives. You're greatly exaggerating the "HUGE NUMBER". It's about 1 share for 1 false positive. More so on 4 vectors (but no one uses them). That is not remotely common...

Increase eh?

Call me sceptical to the core.

EDIT: I will look into it, but I'm so terrified of unintentionally breaking shit like I did last time. It was in this code specifically where the slowdown was, so you can imagine why I'm so resistant.

Did some more testing:

Code:

bool result = W[117].x & W[117].y;    //around 2400 false positives/second @400MH/s             | GPU ISA: w: AND_INT    R0.w, R0.x,     PV1350.y
bool result = W[117].x * W[117].y;    //around 2 false positives/second (yes, only 2!) @400MH/s | GPU ISA: t: MULLO_INT  R0.w, R0.x,     PV1350.y 
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y); //no false                                                | GPU ISA: w: MIN_UINT   R0.w, PV1350.y, PV1350.x

Food for thought!  

[-ck]

Did some more testing:

Code:

bool result = W[117].x & W[117].y;    //around 2400 false positives/second @400MH/s             | GPU ISA: w: AND_INT    R0.w, R0.x,     PV1350.y
bool result = W[117].x * W[117].y;    //around 2 false positives/second (yes, only 2!) @400MH/s | GPU ISA: t: MULLO_INT  R0.w, R0.x,     PV1350.y 
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y); //no false                                                | GPU ISA: w: MIN_UINT   R0.w, PV1350.y, PV1350.x

Food for thought!  

Nice. Might be good for the older SDK suited kernels that suck with any().

[cuz0882]

I've been trying to get auto-gpu set in the config file with no luck. Can it even be turned on that way?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I've been trying to get auto-gpu set in the config file with now luck. Can it even be turned on that way?

Code:

"auto-gpu" : true

[sveetsnelda]

Heya ckolivas,

I upgraded my rigs to 2.3.1 today and everything was fine on my single GPU rigs.  On my 5970 rigs though, fan control isn't behaving.  I've got one rig that is doing exactly what it should.  I've 2 other rigs that are adjusting one card but ignoring the 2nd card (it's either at the max fanspeed I specify, or 1-2% underneath it).  All 3 machines are running identical flash drive images, were started with identical commands, and have the same inlet air temperatures (they're all stacked on each other in the same room).  I believe I was using 2.1.1 before, but I'm not completely sure.  It was controlling the fans properly though.

In the settings for each GPU, cgminer "knows" that fan autotune is enabled and it "knows" what the correct target temperature is.  It's like it's shooting for a much lower temperature though...

Code:

cgminer version 2.3.1 - Started: [2012-02-25 16:24:29]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):1523.1 (avg):1303.5 Mh/s | Q:347  A:284  R:0  HW:0  E:82%  U:18.14/m
 TQ: 2  ST: 6  SS: 3  DW: 10  NB: 5  LW: 0  GF: 5  RF: 4
 Connected to http://btcguild.com:8332 with LP as user blah
 Block: 000003b6184ffd99b28ebe6d5d0c7f0a...  Started: [16:38:36]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  69.0C 2496RPM | 370.0/328.3Mh/s | A:64 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.09/m I: 8
 GPU 1:  69.5C 2496RPM | 366.5/328.2Mh/s | A:81 R:0 HW:0 U:  5.17/m I: 8
 GPU 2:  42.5C 4274RPM | 369.8/323.5Mh/s | A:68 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.34/m I: 8
 GPU 3:  47.5C 4274RPM | 359.2/327.7Mh/s | A:72 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.60/m I: 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[-ck]

Yes I've audited the code a million times and can't find the bug. For some reason some dual GPU cards the auto-fan control isn't doing anything and it's sitting at 85% at all times.

[sveetsnelda]

Interesting...   The odd part is that it works perfectly on another rig with identical components.  :-/

Code:

cgminer version 2.3.1 - Started: [2012-02-25 14:55:46]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):1489.6 (avg):1409.0 Mh/s | Q:2678  A:2381  R:6  HW:0  E:89%  U:20.00/m
 TQ: 4  ST: 5  SS: 20  DW: 156  NB: 18  LW: 0  GF: 34  RF: 28
 Connected to http://btcguild.com:8332 with LP as user bleh
 Block: 000003b6184ffd99b28ebe6d5d0c7f0a...  Started: [16:38:37]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  75.5C 3252RPM | 369.2/352.7Mh/s | A:589 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.95/m I: 8
 GPU 1:  73.5C 3252RPM | 369.5/352.8Mh/s | A:624 R:2 HW:0 U:  5.24/m I: 8
 GPU 2:  75.5C 2912RPM | 369.0/352.1Mh/s | A:589 R:2 HW:0 U:  4.95/m I: 8
 GPU 3:  75.5C 2912RPM | 369.1/351.5Mh/s | A:579 R:2 HW:0 U:  4.86/m I: 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cuz0882]

I've been trying to get auto-gpu set in the config file with now luck. Can it even be turned on that way?

Code:

"auto-gpu" : true

Is it possible to turn it on for a specific gpu?
I've been running one with autogpu because it has a non reference fan. The rest I just use fan auto

[jake262144]

Is it possible to turn it on for a specific gpu?
I've been running one with autogpu because it has a non reference fan. The rest I just use fan auto

This parameter is global and enables ADL-related routines in cgminer, it is not enabled on a by-card basis as you'd surely know had you RTFM'd first.
Normally, since auto-gpu is a prerequisite for card speed throttling in case of fan failure⁽¹⁾ you want it enabled anyway.

Notes:
(1) or the house catching fire - "Whew! Suddenly getting hot in here, better drop those clocks"    (I really couldn't abstain from making a bad joke, sorry)

[sveetsnelda]

Yes I've audited the code a million times and can't find the bug. For some reason some dual GPU cards the auto-fan control isn't doing anything and it's sitting at 85% at all times.

I think I figured it out:

ga->lasttemp seems to always contain the value for the temperature of the first GPU on the twin GPU card.  "temp" always contains the temperature of the GPU that is highest between the two.  Therefore, if the 2nd GPU on the card is hotter (and it almost always is on 5970s), it's never going to adjust.  ga->lasttemp needs to be modified to contain the value of the highest temp GPU between the two so that they're comparing "apples to apples".

The only reason my one rig is working and the other two aren't is because the 2nd GPU happens to stay a little cooler than the first.  The other two have hotter 2nd GPUs (as they should, since the hot air from the first GPU blows across it).

I'd make the change myself, but you really don't want to see my coding "skills".  I'm a good reverse-engineer, but I'm a shit coder (as far as keeping things clean goes).

[-ck]

Yes I've audited the code a million times and can't find the bug. For some reason some dual GPU cards the auto-fan control isn't doing anything and it's sitting at 85% at all times.

I think I figured it out:

ga->lasttemp seems to always contain the value for the temperature of the first GPU on the twin GPU card.  "temp" always contains the temperature of the GPU that is highest between the two.  Therefore, if the 2nd GPU on the card is hotter (and it almost always is on 5970s), it's never going to adjust.  ga->lasttemp needs to be modified to contain the value of the highest temp GPU between the two so that they're comparing "apples to apples".

The only reason my one rig is working and the other two aren't is because the 2nd GPU happens to stay a little cooler than the first.  The other two have hotter 2nd GPUs (as they should, since the hot air from the first GPU blows across it).

I'd make the change myself, but you really don't want to see my coding "skills".  I'm a good reverse-engineer, but I'm a shit coder (as far as keeping things clean goes).

Well spotted, thanks.

I'll be taking an extended break from coding on cgminer shortly since most things are stable at the moment for my sanity.

[sveetsnelda]

Well spotted, thanks.

I'll be taking an extended break from coding on cgminer shortly since most things are stable at the moment for my sanity.

np.  Understood.  You've been working a *lot* on it lately.     A break is certainly in order...

[sveetsnelda]

(and thanks for all of the hard work lately!)