The big VTC Vertcoin settings thread

[Spoetnik]

i knew you guys would start arguing with me with out even checking the P2Pool source code that i downloaded almost a year ago (hint hint)
what's new lol

read the following at this link for example.. http://treasurequarry.com/

and i quote..

This will get your miner to report when it finds "pseudo-shares" of a particular difficulty appropriate to your hashrate.
Bear in mind that you will still need to find real shares of the "Share difficulty" (shown on the statistics page) to be eligible for payouts.
Once have then started to find real shares you'll get paid when p2pool finds blocks.

PS: i am always right

[wacko]

i knew you guys would start arguing with me with out even checking the P2Pool source code that i downloaded almost a year ago (hint hint)
what's new lol

No one's arguing with you, you're the one who's arguing. All I'm saying is that setting the diff manually might've helped me to get normal hashrates on one of my rigs. I do understand that it's not supposed to do anything with hashrates and I never argued with you that it is. Due to some bug in the miner or p2pool or whatever it did help once though. Since there were no other suggestions on how to fix that user's problem I told him to try this.

PS: i am always right

Sucks to be you then.

[Captainpain]

what are the best settings for 2x R9 290x Tri-x OC? im getting 260kh/s per card?

[Kitaj]

New pool H2O

http://h2o.cryptocoinpool.net

290x seting (380+Khs)

{
"pools" : [
   {
      "url" : "stratum+tcp://h2o.cryptocoinpool.net:3335",
      "user" : "username.x",
      "pass" : "pawsord"
   }
]
,
"intensity" : "19",
"vectors" : "1",
"worksize" : "256",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"thread-concurrency" : "24550",
"shaders" : "0",
"gpu-engine" : "1020",
"gpu-fan" : "50-100",
"gpu-memclock" : "1250",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0",
"gpu-powertune" : "25",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000",
"temp-overheat" : "85",
"temp-target" : "75",
"api-listen" : true,
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "15",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"hotplug" : "5",
"log" : "5",
"no-pool-disable" : true,
"failover-only" : true,
"queue" : "0",
"scan-time" : "1",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"shares" : "0",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin",
"scrypt-vert" : true
}

280X Seting
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 200
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
COLOR 02
vertminer.exe --scrypt-vert -o stratum+tcp://69.126.130.200:3335 -u user.x -p x --thread-concurrency 7800 --remove-disabled --submit-stale --lookup-gap 2 -w 256 -I 13 -g 2 --auto-fan

[Holypriest]

Gigabyte HD 7970 im getting around 360 kh/s with these settings

setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
.\vertminer-0.5.3\vertminer.exe --scrypt-vert -o stratum+tcp://stratum.vtcpool.co.uk:3333 -u XXXXX -p XXXXXX -w 256 -g 2 --auto-fan --temp-cutoff 95 --temp-overheat 85 --temp-target 75 --gpu-engine 1050 --gpu-memclock 1500 --gpu-powertune 20 --thread-concurrency 8193 --intensity 13

The only thing i actually changed from mining other coins with cgminer is the thread concurency up +1 from the old 8192
works fine on both vertminer 5.2 and 5.3

[nastynate]

Does anyone have any insight on why my single R9 290 never seems to submit as many shares as any of my 280x cards (GPU2 vs GPU0 and GPU1 in the screenshots below)?  It runs very stable at 445Kh/s, but has about 20% less shares that the two 280x toxics I have running on the same rig at 387Kh/s.  The 290 is still 10-15% lower in shares than some of my other 280s that run at ~360Kh/s.  These are separate instances of vertminer running on the same machine, since I'm running 1 thread for the 290 and two threads for the 280s.  Also, I'm currently mining EXE, but I use identical settings for VTC and have identical results.

toxics:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 0,1 -g 2 -w 256,256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 8192,8192 --lookup-gap 2,2 --gpu-engine 1080,1080 --temp-target 72,72 --gpu-memclock 1500,1500 --gpu-vddc 1.2,1.2 --auto-fan --gpu-powertune 20,20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq292/swaz_photos/280xb.jpg

290:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 2 -g 1 -w 256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 24550 --gpu-engine 1080,1080,1000 --gpu-memclock=1500  --gpu-powertune 20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq292/swaz_photos/290c.jpg

[phzi]

A few of my R9 290 arrays have been doing a bit of mining for Vertcoin and other nscrypt coins recently.

Edit: found a better TC value for the MSI cards.  Brings yield up to 442KH/s from previous 426KH/s.  Updated details below (but didn't bother taking a new screenshot).

These are my stable hashrates:



All Rigs
- 4GB of RAM
- Barebones gentoo-based mining OS
- sgminer compiled from source whenever interesting commits appears on github
- General Config:

Code:

"gpu-threads" : "1",
"xintensity" : "160",
"thread-concurrency" : "28672",

"algorithm" : "nscrypt",
"nfactor" : "11",
"kernel" : "zuikkis",

msi5miner
- Running 5x MSI R9 290 Twin Frozr IV.  
- Stable just above 441KH/s with very moderate tuning.
- These cards are running the OEM supplied BIOS.
- Config:

Code:

"thread-concurrency" : "20481",

"gpu-powertune" : "0",
"gpu-engine" : "1000,1000,1000,1000,1000",
"gpu-memclock" : "1250,1250,1250,1250,1250",

trixminer
- Running 4x Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X OC.
- Stable at 470KH/s, 2x 456KH/s, and 452KH/s (~460KH/s average).
- These cards are running The STILT's BIOS.
- Config:

Code:

"gpu-powertune" : "12",
"gpu-memclock" : "1375",
"gpu-engine" : "1040,1020,1020,1000",

windowminer
- Running 5x Sapphire R9 290 BF4 Reference Cards.
- Stable at 3x 455KH/s and 2x 435KH/s (~448KH/s average).
- These cards are running The Stilt's BIOS.
- Config:

Code:

"gpu-powertune" : "16",
"gpu-memclock" : "1375,1375,1375,1375,1375",
"gpu-engine" : "1020,980,1020,1020,980",

[lock09]

getting 212kh/s with my sapphire hd7870 tahiti

tc 8000
-v 1
-g 1
-i 18

card is underclocked to gpu @885 mem unchanged v 1.000 and powertune to -13

use to get 430 with litecoin or dogecoin

[JohnnyDaMitch]

Does anyone have any insight on why my single R9 290 never seems to submit as many shares as any of my 280x cards (GPU2 vs GPU0 and GPU1 in the screenshots below)?  It runs very stable at 445Kh/s, but has about 20% less shares that the two 280x toxics I have running on the same rig at 387Kh/s.  The 290 is still 10-15% lower in shares than some of my other 280s that run at ~360Kh/s.  These are separate instances of vertminer running on the same machine, since I'm running 1 thread for the 290 and two threads for the 280s.  Also, I'm currently mining EXE, but I use identical settings for VTC and have identical results.

toxics:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 0,1 -g 2 -w 256,256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 8192,8192 --lookup-gap 2,2 --gpu-engine 1080,1080 --temp-target 72,72 --gpu-memclock 1500,1500 --gpu-vddc 1.2,1.2 --auto-fan --gpu-powertune 20,20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

290:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 2 -g 1 -w 256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 24550 --gpu-engine 1080,1080,1000 --gpu-memclock=1500  --gpu-powertune 20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

I think it's because of the additional stale shares caused by running the 290 with a high work time (a side effect of high intensity). I'm not sure why that's not showing up in your WU rates here though.

The 290 can be run at a good hash rate with -g2 at low intensity by using sgminer and xintensity (in my experience, --xintensity 4 or 5, depending on make and model; TC will also vary).

[Spoetnik]

Does anyone have any insight on why my single R9 290 never seems to submit as many shares as any of my 280x cards (GPU2 vs GPU0 and GPU1 in the screenshots below)?  It runs very stable at 445Kh/s, but has about 20% less shares that the two 280x toxics I have running on the same rig at 387Kh/s.  The 290 is still 10-15% lower in shares than some of my other 280s that run at ~360Kh/s.  These are separate instances of vertminer running on the same machine, since I'm running 1 thread for the 290 and two threads for the 280s.  Also, I'm currently mining EXE, but I use identical settings for VTC and have identical results.

toxics:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 0,1 -g 2 -w 256,256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 8192,8192 --lookup-gap 2,2 --gpu-engine 1080,1080 --temp-target 72,72 --gpu-memclock 1500,1500 --gpu-vddc 1.2,1.2 --auto-fan --gpu-powertune 20,20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

290:

Code:

 ./vertminer --scrypt-vert -d 2 -g 1 -w 256 -I 13,13,20 --thread-concurrency 24550 --gpu-engine 1080,1080,1000 --gpu-memclock=1500  --gpu-powertune 20 --queue 2 --scan-time 5 

simple.. vardiff.

variable difficulty is most likely used on the pool your connected to it's common these days..
i have an Nvidia 550Ti and an ATI 7950 both mining VTC and the nvidia card Always submits far more shares
and when i look at my workers you can see the difficulty used on the two workers is much lower on the Nvidia card.
SO the pool is letting the slower card do easier work basically and making your more powerful card do harder work (hashing).

edit:
I have experimented for a while using cgwatcher to force a restart of the miner every 10/15 minutes but i am not sure that makes any worthwhile difference.
I am pretty sure it increased my submitted share count because it said so in the stats (you can see it on Monitor tab middle of the page where it says your submitting x per sec.)
what that does is force the pool to start over giving you easy shares at the start and by the time it figures out your card is powerful your miner has rebooted lol
I said earlier cgwatcher has some pretty nice features guys

[djaychela]

Can anyone give me any ideas as to why this is happening?

http://darrenjones.is-a-geek.com//~darren/pics/vertminer.png

Two Sapphire 7850s, which in cgminer and bfgminer mining scrypt give pretty much identical results (been running them since August).

Running vertminer with the settings below, one card gives about 6Kh/sec, the other gives 170 or so.  From what I've read, 170 is about what I should expect... so why is the other card doing almost nothing?

I'm using the .conf file, and here are the relevant settings:

Code:

"lookup-gap" : "2",
"expiry" : "30",
"scan-time" : "5",
"shares" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-engine" : "1050",
"gpu-fan" : "0-85",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-memclock" : "0",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000",
"intensity" : "12",
"temp-target" : "75",
"temp-overheat" : "85",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"vectors" : "1",
"worksize" : "64",
"thread-concurrency" : "6400",

All suggestions appreciated.

[Spoetnik]

you don't have values for two cards in that conf you posted..
are you running both on one miner or are they using two miners or separate machines ?
see what i am saying ? look at what some of the other guys posted last few pages running multiple cards..
their conf's show two values with a comma delimiter added..
with values like this for example..
"intensity" : "12","13",
not just
"intensity" : "12",

[JohnnyDaMitch]

Without the comma it just uses the given values for all cards.

I've seen this before, where one card reports % fan speed and the other one RPMs. It's some kind of Catalyst problem that you need to sort out. Or possibly riser related. Probably you can swap the cards and see no change.

[Aurum]

Code:

[quote author=djaychela link=topic=416572.msg6020496#msg6020496 date=1396375542]
Can anyone give me any ideas as to why this is happening?
Two Sapphire 7850s, which in cgminer and bfgminer mining scrypt give pretty much identical results (been running them since August).
Running vertminer with the settings below, one card gives about 6Kh/sec, the other gives 170 or so.  From what I've read, 170 is about what I should expect... so why is the other card doing almost nothing?
I'm using the .conf file, and here are the relevant settings:
[code]"lookup-gap" : "2",
"expiry" : "30",
"scan-time" : "5",
"shares" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-engine" : "1050",
"gpu-fan" : "0-85",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-memclock" : "0",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000",
"intensity" : "12",
"temp-target" : "75",
"temp-overheat" : "85",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"vectors" : "1",
"worksize" : "64",
"thread-concurrency" : "6400",

All suggestions appreciated.
[/quote]
You're specifying a lot of stuff you do not need to, the card defaults are best, e.g. worksize. I don't have any 7850s but I'll bet the default is 256.  I'd simplify first. Here's my conf adjusted to your parameters. I think your problem is "gpu-memclock" : "0". If your PC drops to a slower state for one of your cards then cgminer will just leave it there. You need to specify a frequency or it can slow way down.

Code:

{
"scrypt-vert" : true,
"intensity" : "12,13",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"gpu-threads" : "1",
"thread-concurrency" : "4096,5120",
"gpu-engine" : "860",
"gpu-memclock" : "1200",
"gpu-fan" : "0-100",
"auto-fan" : true,
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"temp-overheat" : "88",
"temp-target" : "75",
"temp-hysteresis" : "6",
"hotplug" : "0",
"log" : "5",
"shares" : "0",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/local/bin"
}

I use a utility called GPU-Z (http://www.techpowerup.com) that tells me the current clock frequencies and the card's defaults. I start by using the card defaults. TC should be either 4 or 5 times 1024 for a 7850. For lookup-gap and gpu-threads some cards like different combinations, try: 2 & 1, 2 & 2, and 3 & 1. Look here for some other ideas: https://litecoin.info/Mining_hardware_comparison[/code]

[nIcKeLbAcK]

djaychela....
I am having the same problem with dual Sapphire HD 6970 cards. The vertminer applications shows that my memclock and engine are set correctly, yet one card only runs at approximately 6k while the other is running much higher, at it's expected rate. I have searched but been unable to locate a resolution. Have you come across anything? BTW I am using the exact same config file used for other coins with no issue. Vertminer is the only one with this problem. Even keccak runs fine with dual cards.

Appreciate help from anyone who may have suggestions.

[djaychela]

Hey Folks:

Spoetnik:  The same values are used for both cards - certainly that's the case with cgminer (which I believe vertminer is a fork of), and bfg; both cards I have have run happily using one set of values applied to both.  From the cgminer 3.7.2 readme: "The setting passed to cgminer is used by all GPUs unless separate values are specified".

JohnnyDaMitch:  Thanks - I know what you mean about % / RPM, but given that the cards work OK in other miners, I had largely ignored the differing reporting of the same setting (although I do acknowledge that I could represent a deeper problem).

Aurum:  A worksize of 256 works well with cgminer, but 64 gives better results in my testing than 256 for vertminer - with 256, I get around 100Kh/s, but with 64 (which I saw someone else had used on a 7850) then I get around 160Kh/s; that's why I put it in there.  I've re-tested at 256 this morning, and got the same results as yesterday.  Thanks for the link to GPU-Z; I wasn't aware of it, but it has confirmed that my cards are running at the speed I anticipated (1050/1250) - I get this whether I specify it explicitly in the .conf file, or I use "0" (which I believe uses the system-set parameter) - either way, I get the settings I would expect (and that have proven very reliable long-term with cgminer and indeed bfgminer).

I tried the settings you gave, and got some interesting results - the hashrate for GPU1 (which is the good one) was around 110k (similar to the settings I've seen with worksize of 256, so I assume it's down to that), but GPU0 (which usually gives 6k) rose to 11k.  Using your original intensity of 13 leads to HW errors on GPU1 (as I found in all the testing I've done so far), so I put it back down, but at lest it shows that vertminer responds to individual settings.  A bit more testing showed that the 11k on GPU0 came from setting gpu-threads to 1; this slows down GPU1.  Setting gpu-threads to 2 gives a faster rate on GPU1, but slows GPU0 to 6k. 

nIcKeLbAcK: Looks like we're in the same boat then - again, I have GPU0 running at 6k, and GPU1 running as expected.  And as you say, this is the only miner I've experienced this with; I've run lots of versions of cgminer without issue, and usually use bfgminer now (as it works with MultiMiner), and neither has this issue.  

[coin-table]

Hi,

I'm running the site http://www.crypto-coins-table.com.

I have listed your coin already. To provide the full information
for all users, everybody can update the information here:

http://www.crypto-coins-table.com/index.php?var_action=coin_details&coin_id=VTC

thanks
---
Affiliates: http://www.crypto-coins-table.com/p_affiliates.php

[nIcKeLbAcK]

djaychela...

Thanks for the response. I attempted to run vertminer with GPU0 and various other scrypt miners simultaneously on GPU1, to no avail. I did receive an error that lead me down the path of using different api ports (GPU0-API 4028 and GPU1-API 5000) which didn't really work. Even with differing API ports the cards behaved weird, most notably with the fans competing for attention. It was as if the cards intermittently reported temps, the fans would alternate between running high then low, sporadically.  Unfortunately I will not be able to mine VertCoin as a result, unless I want to forego the use of one card for a measly 350Kh/s solely for VertCoin. sigh...
Guess I will dabble in CryptoMeth for a while

[JohnnyDaMitch]

nIcKeLbAcK and djaychela,

If your motherboard lets you restrict the PCI-e slots to Gen 2 maybe give that a shot. It's weird that you only see it in vertminer though. You could try the recent sgminer with nfactor support. Also, I seem to remember something about people seeing different behavior with vertminer 0.5.2 vs 0.5.3.

[djaychela]

nIcKeLbAcK: I have made some progress - thought I'd share it with you, see if it's any use to you. It's a bit clunky (but TBH I'm pretty busy with actual work in the real world, so made a kludge to get it working), but it works.

I'm now running 2 instances of vertminer.exe, one uses GPU0, and one uses GPU1.  What's weird is I did a bit more testing after yesterday, and found that on either GPU if I turned the other off, then it performed better, and that my GPU0 prefers threads set to 1, and GPU1 to 2.  So, rather than spending forever sorting out why (if that's even possible, I suspect there may be something that's beyond a settings issue), I did the following:

a) Copied Vertminer folder and renamed it (I now have vertminer-GPU0 and vertminer-GPU1).
b) Inserted the following line into vertminer.conf:
"device" : "0" (into the one for GPU0)
"device" : "1" (into the one for GPU1)
c) ran each instance individually (with a different miner username/login for each setup).

Both run OK, on one GPU only.  I now get ~160k out of GPU1, and ~120k out of GPU0.  No idea why, technically, but as I said, there are pragmatic limits, I'd rather be mining and doing stuff in the real world than spending 7 hours testing settings that will maybe net me £0.50 a day...

JohnnyDaMitch: When I get some time I will have a look at that; I definitely saw different behaviour with 0.5.2 in terms of quitting; 0.5.2 hung on exit almost every time I used it.  As you say, it's weird that I only see it in vertminer, but one thing I've learned is that software can do unforeseen things, and unless I want to spend days testing it, I guess I have to leave it at that.