[JCE]Fast & stable CN/v8/Heavy/Tube/XHV miner, CPU+GPU, Vega56 1800+ RX580 1200+

[vmozara]

Isn't the Watchdog enough? Otherwise no problem to put just a message. GPU Stuck -> Watchdog enabled: Stop, disabled: Message.

The problem is hard crash so the watchdog doesn´t help

[1714941711]

1714941711

[1714941711]

1714941711

[1714941711]

1714941711

[1714941711]

1714941711

[1714941711]

1714941711

[1714941711]

1714941711

[heavyarms1912]

I could reproduce the drop problem on my RX on Heavy, at full speed my miner is clearly above others, but the drop is like -15% and this cancels any gain, as some stated. I've some ideas how to fix, need more time and tests.

the hashrate drop is more imminent when you select only the 8gb cards. It won't even pickup the top hashrate. 
If I select both 4gb and 8gb cards together they would hit up the peak hashrates but would drop back later.

[melloyellow]

JCE, are you planning on implementing parameterless config for your gpu miner?
If so would it be possible to do something like serviceconfig-v8.txt and serviceconfig-heavy.txt and have them called with something like this:

jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe -c serviceconfig-v8.txt or jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe -c serviceconfig-heavy.txt

------

Also could you re-confirm that you are getting these hashrates for a 290x

heavy @ 650+
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 256, "beta" : 8, "index" : ..., "multi_hash":448 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 256, "beta" : 8, "index" : ..., "multi_hash":448 },

v8 @ 850+
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 256, "beta" : 8, "index" : ..., "multi_hash":800 },
{ "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 256, "beta" : 8, "index" : ..., "multi_hash":800 },

I'm not able to get near these speeds with those settings.  Granted the card I'm testing is a non reference 290x; I
think the reference cards behave better.  Could it be because I have used the example config in the download
and kept the other greek parameters in there?

Thanks

[rednoW]

2 melloyellow

in my case srbminer works better with 290x. ~630h/s cn-heavy with clocks 1050/1375

[Lermite]

It looks like the pause function has some bug:

I was mining HXV (CN Heavy) with the 0.33b6, with two RX 570 and a Ryzen 1700.
After several hours of mining with stable hashrates, pausing the CPU made the hashrates of both my RX 570 to drop and they didn't get back to their normal values until I restart the miner:

Code:

13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 0: 57.66 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 1: 4.41 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 2: 4.43 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 3: 55.15 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 4: 3.88 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 5: 4.28 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 6: 57.14 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 7: 4.19 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 8: 4.40 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 9: 56.17 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 10: 4.11 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate CPU Thread 11: 4.39 h/s - Total CPUs: 260.17 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate GPU Thread 12: 476.62 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate GPU Thread 13: 476.70 h/s - Total GPU 0: 953.31 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate GPU Thread 14: 470.81 h/s
13:52:33 | Hashrate GPU Thread 15: 470.81 h/s - Total GPU 1: 941.62 h/s
13:52:34 | Total: 2155.09 h/s - Max: 2235.68 h/s
13:52:36 | GPU 1 Thread 14 Lane 419 finds a Share, value 78000
13:52:36 | Accepted by the pool in 90 ms.
13:53:27 | GPU 0: Temp: 61C - Fan: 17% -- Shares: Good: 176 Bad: 0
13:53:27 | GPU 1: Temp: 56C - Fan: 17% -- Shares: Good: 198 Bad: 0
13:54:23 | Pool sends a new Job.
13:54:43 | GPU 1 Thread 15 Lane 329 finds a Share, value 78000
13:54:43 | Accepted by the pool in 78 ms.
13:55:06 | Pause CPUs
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 0: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 1: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 2: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 3: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 4: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 5: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 6: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 7: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 8: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 9: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 10: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate CPU Thread 11: 0.00 h/s - Total CPUs: 0.00 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate GPU Thread 12: 464.50 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate GPU Thread 13: 464.23 h/s - Total GPU 0: 928.72 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate GPU Thread 14: 452.25 h/s
13:56:07 | Hashrate GPU Thread 15: 452.25 h/s - Total GPU 1: 904.49 h/s
13:56:07 | Total: 1833.21 h/s - Max: 2235.68 h/s

[JCE-Miner]

2 melloyellow

in my case srbminer works better with 290x. ~630h/s cn-heavy with clocks 1050/1375

No problem to compare to SRB or TeamRed, i do it myself often, but on such a precise case, please give both config you use so we can reproduce. And if you used JCE autoconfig, so that's normal, i aim it at safety, not at performance (i don't want to burn your GPU remotely because of an overload).

By the way, i'm getting interresting, yet a bit disapointing, results with the Hybrid miner, I got +3% on my Tahiti on v8. Not the +20% I expected but still welcome. The good news is that it will give a boost to all versions of algos on older cards, the bad is that it doesn't apply to the fast ones, on RX+ it causes a perf regression.

Pausing may cause the hashrate to drop, i know this bug but hadn't had time to fix it yet
workaround: use the watchdog to let the miner restart.

The CPU new features will be backported to the GPU one of course.

jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe -c serviceconfig-v8.txt or jce_cn_gpu_miner64.exe -c serviceconfig-heavy.txt

parameterless config with parameters?
to use several configs, put several different copies of JCE+serviceconfig.txt in several directories, and use the directory as selector.

GPU stuck log: ok i'll add it.

Also could you re-confirm that you are getting these hashrates for a 290x

Nope, it has been added to the doc by a user, through a git pull request. I default to believe people so I accepted the pull request but if it's doubtious, so i remove it for now. I admit the value 256 for alpha looked Strange. Please retry with a more normal config (alpha=64, beta=8)

edit: i removed it and put a best config for RX550 instead.

[ddminer]

Hi, JCE. I need some help from you. In my case b4 version seems more stable, however b6 some gpus can give me more hashrate. But some gpu's can't reach max hashrate in b6 and always different. Please help to checkout where my mistake. Thanks a lot.

rx 580 8GBx8(4pcs Gigabyte Aorus, 4pcs Sapphire Nitro+), win10ltsb, adrenalin 18.6.1, virtual memory 90GB
set FORK=12
"gpu_threads_conf" :
[
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 1, "multi_hash":944 },
    { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 2, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 3, "multi_hash":944 },
    { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 4, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 5, "multi_hash":944 },
    { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 6, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 7, "multi_hash":944 },
    { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
     { "mode" : "GPU", "worksize" : 8, "alpha" : 64, "beta" : 8, "gamma" : 4, "delta" : 4, "epsilon" : 4, "zeta":4, "index" : 8, "multi_hash":944 },
],

ver. 033b4
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 560.55 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 560.00 h/s - Total GPU 1: 1120.55 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 565.33 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 565.77 h/s - Total GPU 2: 1131.09 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 553.71 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 549.98 h/s - Total GPU 3: 1103.68 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 6: 580.14 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 7: 578.64 h/s - Total GPU 4: 1158.77 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 8: 561.88 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 9: 564.10 h/s - Total GPU 5: 1125.97 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 10: 555.43 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 11: 555.00 h/s - Total GPU 6: 1110.42 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 12: 574.19 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 13: 574.77 h/s - Total GPU 7: 1148.95 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 14: 568.82 h/s
08:08:14 | Hashrate GPU Thread 15: 567.57 h/s - Total GPU 8: 1136.38 h/s
08:08:14 | Total: 9035.80 h/s - Max: 9060.34 h/s
Max hashrate is reached in ~7 minutes

ver. 033b6
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 0: 578.96 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 1: 577.56 h/s - Total GPU 1: 1156.52 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 2: 484.24 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 3: 485.10 h/s - Total GPU 2: 969.33 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 4: 571.78 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 5: 572.38 h/s - Total GPU 3: 1144.15 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 6: 601.14 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 7: 603.49 h/s - Total GPU 4: 1204.63 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 8: 582.62 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 9: 583.82 h/s - Total GPU 5: 1166.43 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 10: 575.81 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 11: 575.35 h/s - Total GPU 6: 1151.15 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 12: 594.01 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 13: 593.27 h/s - Total GPU 7: 1187.28 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 14: 490.98 h/s
20:13:48 | Hashrate GPU Thread 15: 488.96 h/s - Total GPU 8: 979.94 h/s
20:13:48 | Total: 8959.40 h/s - Max: 9159.15 h/s
Max hashrate isn't reached

[melloyellow]

With the parameterless config I was just really wanting to call different configs for different algos.  I've since tested that and found out it works, which makes my suggestion look ridiculous, haha.  Should've tested that before I posted.

With my test 290x at 1000 core and 1250 mem and worksize 8 ; alpha 64 ; beta 8 ; multi_hash 448 I can only get 530 h/s for heavy.  The bulk of my cards are reference cards and perform better than this one but it's all I can test right now.

[fluxy12]

Hi JCE any news on rx580  8Gb cards bad hashrate problems ?

[sergneo]

JCE, there is a small problem in the statistics of stakjson. When the miner reconnects to the pool, Uptime is reset, but Hashes is not reset to zero. Because of this, an effective hashrate is mistakenly considered. We need to reset the Hashes as well.

[rednoW]

2 melloyellow

in my case srbminer works better with 290x. ~630h/s cn-heavy with clocks 1050/1375

No problem to compare to SRB or TeamRed, i do it myself often, but on such a precise case, please give both config you use so we can reproduce. And if you used JCE autoconfig, so that's normal, i aim it at safety, not at performance (i don't want to burn your GPU remotely because of an overload).

630 h/s, this is the best stable result I was able to get from srb.
I tried many options but max I got from your miner was 610h/s but after some time this speed droped to 560-580h/s.

[JCE-Miner]

Hi all!

Things are going fast this month!

So far the status is:
* I'm done with my hybrid miner, quite disapointed. It works but is barely faster. I'll release it for old GPU, i benched it to be ~3% faster on HD7000, nice to have. But the breaking change i expected won't come and the hybrid version will be just a regular version, yet faster. At least i could make it run with negligible impact on CPU, even non-aes ones.

* I expected TeamRed to release a fast CN-Heavy version, but that's SRB who came, and it's pretty solid. I benched it to be slightly slower than mine, but with more stable hashrate. So on cards with the hashrate bug, it provides higher yield, otherwise i keep the lead on extreme cases: well tuned vegas like vmozara's ones, or very old cards, but the bug is very frequent on hi-mem RX, the most common cards.

* I'm still working on the CPU version to add a better MoneroOcean support, and add CN-Fest

* Otherwise the next GPU will get bakports of CPU, the Hybrid for HD7000 and, if i success, the stabilized hashrate.

I still keep an eye on TeamRed, if they release a CN-Heavy as good as their CN-v8, they will take the lead once for all. Really those guys did a geat job.

Abort was called at 318 line in file

What are the log lines logged before the crash?
Do you have an IGP in your computer (AMD or Intel) ?

JCE, there is a small problem in the statistics of stakjson. When the miner reconnects to the pool, Uptime is reset, but Hashes is not reset to zero. Because of this, an effective hashrate is mistakenly considered. We need to reset the Hashes as well.

I'll take a look, probably a case i didn't think about. It's a cosmetical bug, but needs to be fixed of course.

[Mugtaiya]

I could reproduce the drop problem on my RX on Heavy, at full speed my miner is clearly above others, but the drop is like -15% and this cancels any gain, as some stated. I've some ideas how to fix, need more time and tests.

the hashrate drop is more imminent when you select only the 8gb cards. It won't even pickup the top hashrate. 
If I select both 4gb and 8gb cards together they would hit up the peak hashrates but would drop back later.

Hi JCE any news on rx580  8Gb cards bad hashrate problems ?

So does this mine any better with the rx580 8gb cards than xmr-stak?

[fluxy12]

I could reproduce the drop problem on my RX on Heavy, at full speed my miner is clearly above others, but the drop is like -15% and this cancels any gain, as some stated. I've some ideas how to fix, need more time and tests.

the hashrate drop is more imminent when you select only the 8gb cards. It won't even pickup the top hashrate. 
If I select both 4gb and 8gb cards together they would hit up the peak hashrates but would drop back later.

Hi JCE any news on rx580  8Gb cards bad hashrate problems ?

So does this mine any better with the rx580 8gb cards than xmr-stak?

Absolutely,

But not with the latest version because the hashrate is very unstable and the fee more than 2 times higher.

I still mine with v.033b2.

[UnclWish]

I could reproduce the drop problem on my RX on Heavy, at full speed my miner is clearly above others, but the drop is like -15% and this cancels any gain, as some stated. I've some ideas how to fix, need more time and tests.

the hashrate drop is more imminent when you select only the 8gb cards. It won't even pickup the top hashrate. 
If I select both 4gb and 8gb cards together they would hit up the peak hashrates but would drop back later.

Hi JCE any news on rx580  8Gb cards bad hashrate problems ?

So does this mine any better with the rx580 8gb cards than xmr-stak?

Absolutely,

But not with the latest version because the hashrate is very unstable and the fee more than 2 times higher.

I still mine with v.033b2.

Why not 33b4?

[lstrike]

After trying all versions, I think 032q is the best for RX 8GB - speed & stability.

[UnclWish]

After trying all versions, I think 032q is the best for RX 8GB - speed & stability.

It's strange... All new versions was better than previous, except b5 and b6. On my RX 580 8Gb b4 is better than all others...

On b6 - if mining goes long time - 20+ hours than speed can became max and didn't drop. But not always...

[fluxy12]

Ok guys i have a solution to make it clear, let's talk about hashrates and power consumption.

My testing Rigs (2 rigs with exactly same config) :

• 6*Rx580 Msi Armor 8Gb (Samsung memory) with celeron and other low pow shits.
  

With 33b2 here are my rates on heavy algos :

• 6960 Kh/s for 750W at wall

Very stable, it can run days without crash or fluctuating hashrate. On pool side

What about you ?

I tried again and again with b5 and b6. Never got same exact hashrate for hours and thebest i obtained was 7200hs, so with the higher fee it is better to get the stable 6960hs. I hate those versions (too long time testing for nothing )

[mowangluo]

Abort was called at 304 line in file:
d:\qb\workspace\19045\src\vpg-compute-neo\runtime\os_interface\windows\wddm\wddm.cpp


How to solve this problem？

GPU:8X470 4G  18.6.1

windows10 2019ltsc

[Lermite]

A tiny bug: the miner keeps getting new jobs from the pool while everything is paused:

Code:

13:54:49 | CPU Thread 3 finds a Share, value 25000
13:54:49 | Accepted by the pool in 42 ms.
13:55:02 | Pause All
13:55:23 | Pool sends a new Job.
13:57:23 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:00:42 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:01:01 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:04:52 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:07:24 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:08:52 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:10:22 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:12:00 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:12:07 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:15:13 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:16:24 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:17:59 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:18:06 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:18:43 | Pool sends a new Job.
14:19:19 | Unpause All
14:19:19 | CPU Thread 5 finds a Share, value 25000
14:19:19 | Accepted by the pool in 41 ms.