What speed are your getting CPU mining TENEBRIX?

[tacotime]

model name   : AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor
cpu MHz      : 3600.000

gcc -v
gcc version 4.6.1 (Debian 4.6.1-13)

uname -a
Linux buildhost 3.0.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Sep 20 07:03:13 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Code:

./configure
make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:48:59] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:49:03] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:49:22] thread 0: 63077 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:23] PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!)
[2011-10-05 20:49:24] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:25] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:26] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 2.66 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:49:27] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 2.67 khash/sec

Code:

CFLAGS="-O3" ./configure
make clean; make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:50:11] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:50:16] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:50:32] thread 0: 65535 hashes, 3.21 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:33] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 3.23 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:33] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 3.24 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:34] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 3.24 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:50:36] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 3.22 khash/sec

Code:

CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
make clean; make
./minerd --userpass artforz.1:1 --url http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/ --threads 5
[2011-10-05 20:51:22] Long-polling activated for http://pool.simplecoin.us:8337/LP
[2011-10-05 20:51:26] 5 miner threads started, using SHA256 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2011-10-05 20:51:42] thread 0: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:42] thread 1: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:43] thread 2: 65535 hashes, 3.27 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:44] thread 3: 65535 hashes, 3.28 khash/sec
[2011-10-05 20:51:45] thread 4: 65535 hashes, 3.29 khash/sec

Hey, got a problem, just got a proof of result true but I didn't get the block in tenebrix, what's going on???

my configuration file is this:

Code:

{
	"_comment1" : "Any long-format command line argument ",
	"_comment2" : "may be used in this JSON configuration file",

	"url" : "http://127.0.0.1:8697",
	"user" : "1",
	"pass" : "1",

	"algo" : "scrypt",
	"threads" : "6",

	"quiet" : "off"
}

Where is my block?

edit: Nevermind, linux is just slow, I got it!

also:

Code:

gcc -v
gcc version 4.5.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 
uname -a
Linux user 2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:24 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[1714981787]

1714981787

[tacotime]

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

[bulanula]

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

Man you guys are just murdering my stupid 2600K crappy Intel silicon. I want some of the love please !

Poster a few posts back : how did you get 1.66 khash/s per thread on the 2600K !? I only get around 1.15 khash/s per thread on my crappy chip.

[Lolcust]

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

Man you guys are just murdering my stupid 2600K crappy Intel silicon. I want some of the love please !

Poster a few posts back : how did you get 1.66 khash/s per thread on the 2600K !? I only get around 1.15 khash/s per thread on my crappy chip.

Bulanula, are you on win or on Linux ? I'm about to pull an experimental Tenebrix Minerd optimization by ArtForz that is tailored to 64 bit linuxes (completely untested on win)
Can squeeze out up to 30% more.

[bulanula]

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

Man you guys are just murdering my stupid 2600K crappy Intel silicon. I want some of the love please !

Poster a few posts back : how did you get 1.66 khash/s per thread on the 2600K !? I only get around 1.15 khash/s per thread on my crappy chip.

Bulanula, are you on win or on Linux ? I'm about to pull an experimental Tenebrix Minerd optimization by ArtForz that is tailored to 64 bit linuxes (completely untested on win)
Can squeeze out up to 30% more.

Dude this is what I am waiting for LOL. This crappy 2600K is wayyy too slow for this high difficulty. I'm on Windows now but I also do Linux etc.

[Lolcust]

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

Man you guys are just murdering my stupid 2600K crappy Intel silicon. I want some of the love please !

Poster a few posts back : how did you get 1.66 khash/s per thread on the 2600K !? I only get around 1.15 khash/s per thread on my crappy chip.

Bulanula, are you on win or on Linux ? I'm about to pull an experimental Tenebrix Minerd optimization by ArtForz that is tailored to 64 bit linuxes (completely untested on win)
Can squeeze out up to 30% more.

Dude this is what I am waiting for LOL. This crappy 2600K is wayyy too slow for this high difficulty. I'm on Windows now but I also do Linux etc.

Well, I will do a branch from main Tenebrix-minerd tomorrow (the optimization is too experimental to throw it into the main, IMHO). I'll PM you when it's done.

General advice is to build it on Lin64 since that's where Art was getting good results, it's currently verily experimental so take care.

[tacotime]

I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.

[Lolcust]

I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.

Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux box to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ?

Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions....

[bulanula]

I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.

Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux block to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ?

Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions....

OK thank you !

At least I can mine this now but SC2 is not available but he keeps saying soon for like weeks etc. Who knows etc.

[Lolcust]

I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.

Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux block to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ?

Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions....

Hmmm... yous got me curious about max coin....  wonder what happens when that gets reached.  Alright lolcust, here might be a fun testnet test for you, start up a testnet with just a smidge less than the max pre-mined and let us know what happens :-D

I think I will, when I sort out a few things with updating TBX and GG with a bunch of Good Things and fixes, and some other things.

I think clients will just crash

Also, is the limiting factor something like max integer size?  If so the problem should be resolved as computers move from 32 to 64 then to 128 bit word sizes etc.

Yes, exactly, though I'm being told that the problem could be solved even before we move to 128 bit processors, just currently there exists no urgent need for a blockchain with 200+ billion coins in it.

It's not like anyone is starting DollarCoins, with guaranteed USD equivalence ~__^

[tacotime]

I just got like 10 proofs of work (including one for 10 trillion TBX) trying to port this directly to another linux box... beeeee careful when you make the binaries lolcust.

Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux box to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ?

Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions....

I copypasted the binaries from a machine with gcc4.6.1 to a machine with gcc4.5.4...  No idea what the wacky results were about, but they seem normal now that I recompiled it.  But, yeah, the high performance binary seems to require the gcc4.6.1 libraries.  you should get roughly 200% performance though if you compile them correctly.

Now I'm getting 34 kh/s on 10 AMD K10.5 cores.

I would post binaries but like I said, they don't translate well across variable gcc versions... You are best off compiling your own with gcc4.6.1.

Also, by the rate the hash rate seems to be increasing from block speeds I think we're into the hundreds of kh/s.  I don't think there'll be a chance to 51% this if the adoption keep rising exponentially like it has been for the last week.

[worldinacoin]

Can I test it on Windows?  If possible can I have the link too?

So, I remade with gcc-4.6.1 and there is no actual performance increase... not sure what is going on exactly.

edit: never mind, had to recompile with CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -O3" ./configure
and then with gcc-4.6.1

Now I'm at 3.40kh/s!!  thanks!!

Man you guys are just murdering my stupid 2600K crappy Intel silicon. I want some of the love please !

Poster a few posts back : how did you get 1.66 khash/s per thread on the 2600K !? I only get around 1.15 khash/s per thread on my crappy chip.

Bulanula, are you on win or on Linux ? I'm about to pull an experimental Tenebrix Minerd optimization by ArtForz that is tailored to 64 bit linuxes (completely untested on win)
Can squeeze out up to 30% more.

[ArtForz]

Just pushed some more scrypt manglery, 3.62kH/s/core with -march=amdfam10 -O3

[tacotime]

Just pushed some more scrypt manglery, 3.62kH/s/core with -march=amdfam10 -O3

did you upload the source code already?

edit: okay, yeah I see you have... I will rebuild tomorrow and give it a go

[Bobnova]

I tried out the earlier one, it added 100hash/s to each 2600k thread on average, maybe 150.
I'll try out the new version now.
This makes me wish I had a CPU with real L2 cache like the PhIIs.  I do love seeing a PhII CPU actually perform better at something though, it's refreshing.


As a sidenote:  Ubuntu 11.04 doesn't seem to locate the libcurl.so file correctly, or at least doesn't set the @LIBCURL@  variable correctly.  Editing the ./config file to remove the libcurl check and editing the makefile it generates to have the specific path works though.

EDIT:
How do you pass the -O3 and such flags to make?  It doesn't like me.

2.EDIT:
Think I found it.  2600k@4.2ghz now running 2xPhoenix+pandora+desktopstuff+6 threads averaging 2kh/s/thread.
Nice work Art

[ArtForz]

I tried out the earlier one, it added 100hash/s to each 2600k thread on average, maybe 150.
I'll try out the new version now.
This makes me wish I had a CPU with real L2 cache like the PhIIs.  I do love seeing a PhII CPU actually perform better at something though, it's refreshing.


As a sidenote:  Ubuntu 11.04 doesn't seem to locate the libcurl.so file correctly, or at least doesn't set the @LIBCURL@  variable correctly.  Editing the ./config file to remove the libcurl check and editing the makefile it generates to have the specific path works though.

EDIT:
How do you pass the -O3 and such flags to make?  It doesn't like me.

CFLAGS="-whatever -somethingelse" ./configure
make clean; make

or just edit the CFLAGS= line in makefile after configuring

I like to always make clean so there's no objs from previous compilations with different flags hanging around

[Bobnova]

Aha, make clean, that's one thing I was missing.

Any flags I should pass on for intel?



Looks like 4 threads is faster than 6, I suspect the 256kb/core of L2 isn't enough to keep two threads worth hanging around and data gets exiled to L3 land.
PhII CPUs of course have 512k/core, and don't try to do the hyperthreading routine.
BD and it's 1mb/core should be nice.


EDIT:
So far looks like -O3 -Wall -msse2   is best.

[TiagoTiago]

i'm getting around between 0.9 and 1.2 per thread, x 8 cores (quadcore with hyperthreading)

[Moray]

1.38/1.4 to core (E2160@3000) 

[bulanula]

Guys what about AVX and AES-NI instructions in Sandy 2600K !? How far can I push my 2600K !?