lolMiner 1.64: Fastest Kaspa miner in market

[A-Bolt]

"DEFAULTS" : {
      "DEVICES" : "AUTO",    
      "APIPORT" : 0
   },

   "EXAMPLE_"BTCZ" :
   {
      "COIN" : "BTCZ",
      "POOLS" : [
         {"POOL" : "mine-btcz-na.equipool.1ds.us",
          "PORT" : "50063",
          "USER" : "t1h7WGHNLx8hY97UerETfDPVfVj9QqNM94d.lolMiner",
          "PASS" : "minpayout=1000"}
      ]
   },


update... error says missing a ":" but I can't see where I am missing one.. this config is twin to the one running v42 except for EXAMPLE … thanks

Correct "EXAMPLE_"BTCZ" to "EXAMPLE_BTCZ". Remove unpaired quotation mark.

[1714220160]

1714220160

[1714220160]

1714220160

[1714220160]

1714220160

[1714220160]

1714220160

[1714220160]

1714220160

[BigHarryArmsi]

{
   "DEFAULTS" : {
      "DEVICES" : "AUTO",    
      "APIPORT" : 0
   },

   "EXAMPLE_BTCZ" :
   {
      "COIN" : "BTCZ",
      "POOLS" : [
         {"POOL" : "mine-btcz-na.equipool.1ds.us",
          "PORT" : "50063",
          "USER" : "t1h7WGHNLx8hY97UerETfDPVfVj9QqNM94d.lolMiner",
          "PASS" : "minpayout=1000"}
         
                ]
         },

This is the whole shebang. I deleted everything but for the BTCZ config and expected symbols on the config page file. This is all of it after most recent try. I have tried with and without the comma at the end. It still reads (json parse fails)./user_config.json(17): expected key string


thank you all for helping

[realcryptomines]

{
   "DEFAULTS" : {
      "DEVICES" : "AUTO",   
      "APIPORT" : 0
   },

   "EXAMPLE_BTCZ" :
   {
      "COIN" : "BTCZ",
      "POOLS" : [
         {"POOL" : "mine-btcz-na.equipool.1ds.us",
          "PORT" : "50063",
          "USER" : "t1h7WGHNLx8hY97UerETfDPVfVj9QqNM94d.lolMiner",
          "PASS" : "minpayout=1000"}
         
                ]
         }
}


try this maybe

[BigHarryArmsi]

{
   "DEFAULTS" : {
      "DEVICES" : "AUTO",   
      "APIPORT" : 0
   },

   "EXAMPLE_BTCZ" :
   {
      "COIN" : "BTCZ",
      "POOLS" : [
         {"POOL" : "mine-btcz-na.equipool.1ds.us",
          "PORT" : "50063",
          "USER" : "t1h7WGHNLx8hY97UerETfDPVfVj9QqNM94d.lolMiner",
          "PASS" : "minpayout=1000"}
         
                ]
         }
}


try this maybe

thanks but that made a big change that still didn't mine.

[realcryptomines]

what's your run_miner.bat look like?

[BigHarryArmsi]

what's your run_miner.bat look like?

uhh… my what?  I just click on it? dunno how to "open" it and look at it? sorry for my ignorance, but thank you for your help..

[realcryptomines]

right click on  run_miner.bat and select edit.  it should open in notepad.

does it say this?

set "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ"

[BigHarryArmsi]

right click on  run_miner.bat and select edit.  it should open in notepad.

does it say this?

set "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ"

hey thanks! I did as you said and no, the profile example on "run miner with restart" was ZERO and the other was BTG. I changed both to BTCZ but no help as yet. "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ" what's next?

update: the run.bat says config file name and now it reads "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ" but my config file only says "EXAMPLE_BTCZ".... delete the "PROFILE"? <<<< that didn't work either.

[notsure85]

from the announce front page, wth is "zero classic"
Did someone really fork zero?

[Lolliedieb]

from the announce front page, wth is "zero classic"
Did someone really fork zero?

Yes. Zero did a fork to change some stuff, e.g. devs now get a small share of coin to push the development and for promoting it. Also it now has halving and thus a limited supply what was different before. Afaik one pool decided to stay on the old chain and thus created a new coin.

hey thanks! I did as you said and no, the profile example on "run miner with restart" was ZERO and the other was BTG. I changed both to BTCZ but no help as yet. "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ" what's next?

I just tested a bit around a with your settings.
So, this should be the content of your user_config.json:

Code:

{
   "DEFAULTS" : {
      "DEVICES" : "AUTO",   
      "APIPORT" : 0
   },

   "EXAMPLE_BTCZ" :
   {
      "COIN" : "BTCZ",
      "POOLS" : [
         {"POOL" : "mine-btcz-na.equipool.1ds.us",
          "PORT" : "50063",
          "USER" : "t1h7WGHNLx8hY97UerETfDPVfVj9QqNM94d.lolMiner",
          "PASS" : "minpayout=1000"}]
         }
}

And this should be the content of your run_miner.bat:

Code:

@echo off

setlocal enableDelayedExpansion

set "PROFILE=EXAMPLE_BTCZ"										
set "PARAMS=--profile %PROFILE%"

setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 1
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100

lolMiner.exe !PARAMS! 
timeout 10

Put both in the directory where the lolMiner.exe is places.
Then just double click on the run_miner.bat and you should mine fine

looks like when setting "--pass c=LTC" with zegpool, it still is sending "x" as password (according to zergpool display)

I will check this, usually it should work but will check and fix if not.

Hi there, I checked and found indeed that there was a small bug!
I just updated the Linux download links to fix this. For Windows it will take approx 5-6 hours, because I am currently on the round with a Ubuntu Laptop only where I can not compile for Windows. I will give a notice when windows links are updated as well.

Thanks for reporting!


Ps:

For those who are interested in having their miner in their favorite Mining OS:
1) PIMP OS is currently testing their integration.
2) I had contact with SMOS. They will check if the miner is stable enough to include it
3) For Hive I am currently playing around with the custom miner integration. Looking good that this will work, so hope to present you the package here soon.

[Lolliedieb]

I just updated the links in the front page.

The updated version resolved the password bug in command line

[abudfv2008]

What is good hashrate for vega56 in 144_5?

I've got strange result where old Furi equals Vega at about 34sol/s

[BigHarryArmsi]

WooHooo, thank you Lolliedieb for the config correction. The change in bracketing the config was the answer and now I'm hashing away on v5 at a 10% higher rate than with v42 and now I have pretty colors too!    

Thanks again for your efforts and everyone else who lent a hand.

[thereal35]

Further Review on 6 card AMD rig (3x570, 3x580)
Windows 10 v1709, crimson drivers

At first the rig kept crashing as soon as the miner would spool up.
I had my settings the same as when i mine ETH.  approximately 1050 core voltage, -20% power, 1200 core, 2150 memory.
I thought for sure it was something with windows or the miner..hours of testing and finally had it hashing
around 125 sols for 6 cards.  Pretty low but using 950 watts.
After half a day of hashing that way i rebooted and then the miner would crash again upon each spool up.

**Solution Found.
Because i use afterburner and had windows check box checked, My settings were pulling on reboot.  For some reason my ETH settings wont run on LOL.  The Core Voltage and Core Clock have a lot more affect on 144,5 via LOLminer
Whereas my ETH based algos rely much more on memory clock, LOL is definitely using more Core than i am used to.

for me to get optimal Hashing from my 6 AMD rig:  (About 144 sols or 24 sols/card avg on 1160 watts at wall)

-Core voltage - 1150
-power -10%
-core clock -1350
-memory clock -2200

*can probably be pushed higher, but i am not comfortable pushing the core voltage or clock any higher.
Hope this helps someone
James

[CygnusMinor]

What is good hashrate for vega56 in 144_5?

I've got strange result where old Furi equals Vega at about 34sol/s

On Ubuntu 18.04.1 running AMD 18.30 drivers, I'm getting the following hashrate for two vega 64s (first two) and two vega 56s on 144_5 (ZEL):
Average speed (300s): 36.4 sol/s | 38.0 sol/s | 34.8 sol/s | 33.2 sol/s Total: 142.4 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 37.7 sol/s | 37.5 sol/s | 34.6 sol/s | 32.8 sol/s Total: 142.6 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 36.6 sol/s | 38.3 sol/s | 34.3 sol/s | 33.0 sol/s Total: 142.3 sol/s

Undervolted the 64s to 130w, and the 56s to 110w and changed them to compute - no other changes (not quite convinced other changes have any effect in this driver).

--- edit: add 192_7 numbers ---
Same undervolting 56:110, 64:130 (with an additional vega56) for 192_7 (GENX). First two 64s, last 3 56s:
Average speed (300s): 23.5 sol/s | 24.1 sol/s | 20.7 sol/s | 19.8 sol/s | 20.4 sol/s Total: 108.4 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 23.9 sol/s | 24.1 sol/s | 20.8 sol/s | 19.6 sol/s | 20.1 sol/s Total: 108.7 sol/s

[abudfv2008]

What is good hashrate for vega56 in 144_5?

I've got strange result where old Furi equals Vega at about 34sol/s

On Ubuntu 18.04.1 running AMD 18.30 drivers, I'm getting the following hashrate for two vega 64s (first two) and two vega 56s on 144_5 (ZEL):
Average speed (300s): 36.4 sol/s | 38.0 sol/s | 34.8 sol/s | 33.2 sol/s Total: 142.4 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 37.7 sol/s | 37.5 sol/s | 34.6 sol/s | 32.8 sol/s Total: 142.6 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 36.6 sol/s | 38.3 sol/s | 34.3 sol/s | 33.0 sol/s Total: 142.3 sol/s

Undervolted the 64s to 130w, and the 56s to 110w and changed them to compute - no other changes (not quite convinced other changes have any effect in this driver).

--- edit: add 192_7 numbers ---
Same undervolting 56:110, 64:130 (with an additional vega56) for 192_7 (GENX). First two 64s, last 3 56s:
Average speed (300s): 23.5 sol/s | 24.1 sol/s | 20.7 sol/s | 19.8 sol/s | 20.4 sol/s Total: 108.4 sol/s
Average speed (300s): 23.9 sol/s | 24.1 sol/s | 20.8 sol/s | 19.6 sol/s | 20.1 sol/s Total: 108.7 sol/s

Thanks. Obviously there is some space for improvement for VEGA. It's ok for 4years old furi to do 34sol/s but not for vega.

[CygnusMinor]

Thanks. Obviously there is some space for improvement for VEGA. It's ok for 4years old furi to do 34sol/s but not for vega.

Version .41 was getting 18-19 sol/s on Vega 56's (144_5).

Also, I undervolted. Fully powered Vega 56's are getting:
Average speed (300s): 32.7 sol/s | 32.9 sol/s | 38.6 sol/s | 36.9 sol/s | 38.7 sol/s Total: 179.8 sol/s

Ignore the first two numbers - I had to undervolt my 64's as full watts swamped my ps. The last three are 56's, so it's averaging around 37-39 sol/s fully powered. Just don't want to spend an additional 60w per card to get another 3-5 sol/s

The fully powered (240w) Vega 64's (first two numbers) are giving me 41-43 sol/s:
Average speed (300s): 41.8 sol/s | 42.5 sol/s | 31.2 sol/s | 29.1 sol/s | 31.0 sol/s Total: 175.5 sol/s

Decent progress so far...

[BigHarryArmsi]

so... can I add 2x6gb 1060s to my 4x8gb 580 rig now? will it run red and green at the same time? not concerned about big hashing, just don't like the 1060s sitting idle. thanks for responding.

[Lolliedieb]

Because i use afterburner and had windows check box checked, My settings were pulling on reboot.  For some reason my ETH settings wont run on LOL.  The Core Voltage and Core Clock have a lot more affect on 144,5 via LOLminer
Whereas my ETH based algos rely much more on memory clock, LOL is definitely using more Core than i am used to.

...

*can probably be pushed higher, but i am not comfortable pushing the core voltage or clock any higher.
Hope this helps someone
James

Glad to hear its working now

To add some points to the current technical discussion:
Yes, Equihash profits more from higher core clock then Ethash does. The reason is Ethash almost only does memory operations - loading stuff from memory, do small stuff and store back. So here memory bandwidth is crucial only. For Equihash this is different. The first phase of the algorithm is Blake2B, which is very compute heavy - this is approx 1/5th of the computation time (For 144/5 and 192/7 - for 210/9 it is a little less then this). Also my implementation uses in the later phases the shared memory a lot which works at core clock. So here the bandwidth also scales often with the clock.

So a general tuning advice of me would be to use clock near stock and memory can be upped a bit (lolMiner profits from fast memory, but not so much as Ethereum mining). Instead one can safely lower  the power target, because most rounds either use high clock or fast mem, but often not at the same time. Also what helps a lot to optimize performance over watts is undervolting. This helps in two ways: undervolted core use less energy. But this also means if you set a lower power target this means that its less likely the undervolted core has to throttle clock to stay within power target. Overall I would go for 1200 - 1350 clock + undervolt.

Thanks. Obviously there is some space for improvement for VEGA. It's ok for 4years old furi to do 34sol/s but not for vega.

Without a question: Vega cards could do better. I will continue working on this!
But I think you underestimate here what monsters this Fury cards were Just to put some numbers:

Vega 64:
#Cores: 4096
Core Clock: 1247 / 1548
Memory: 8GB HBM 2, 483 GB/s

Fury X:
#Cores: 4096
Core Clock: ? / 1050
Memory: 4GB HBM, 512 GB/s

So you see ... the Vega clocks higher, but Fury even has more bandwidth. Vega had a lot of improvements regarding power management and so on and also some new compute features. But Equihash just do not need this. The operations done are almost all (64 bit) integer magic, memory operations, atomic operations and vector xor of integers. All the improvements in new features are almost unused. This is why lolMiner uses in fact OpenCL 1.2 and would still run on an ages old HD 5xxx series if it has enough memory. What makes Nvidia strong on Equihash is their cache line size, so some small detail in memory controller that is unchanged within AMD GCN series. By the way you see it here at the 96/5 and 144/5 algorithms. On Equi 144/5 it is hard for me to get an 580 close to a 1060. We are still approx 10 to 15% off. Here the Pascal architecture helps much.
On 96/5 instead this cards are on par. Why? Because 96/5's problem sizes allow to sort memory access better and so the disadvantage of cache line size vanishes.

So the only advantage of Vega over Fury is its higher clock (which is only useful in about 1/5 to 1/4th of the algorithm) and Vega does better sols/w. But overall it does not surprise me that Fury X can get close to Vega 56 at least.   

so... can I add 2x6gb 1060s to my 4x8gb 580 rig now? will it run red and green at the same time? not concerned about big hashing, just don't like the 1060s sitting idle. thanks for responding.

If your operation system allows using Nvidia and AMD mixed it will work. So you will need Windows or a custom Linux (most standard Linux do not allow AMD and NV drivers at the same time). But I will not guaranty for stability and speed. But - just to point an option - you can run the AMDs in lolMiner with --devices AMD (so only this cards are used) and open a 2nd command line with EWBF on the Nvidia cards. This constellation will give you most likely best performance.

[BigHarryArmsi]

   

so... can I add 2x6gb 1060s to my 4x8gb 580 rig now? will it run red and green at the same time? not concerned about big hashing, just don't like the 1060s sitting idle. thanks for responding.

If your operation system allows using Nvidia and AMD mixed it will work. So you will need Windows or a custom Linux (most standard Linux do not allow AMD and NV drivers at the same time). But I will not guaranty for stability and speed. But - just to point an option - you can run the AMDs in lolMiner with --devices AMD (so only this cards are used) and open a 2nd command line with EWBF on the Nvidia cards. This constellation will give you most likely best performance.
[/quote]


So, for enquiring minds that want to know, I tried running the 2 6gb 1060s with the 4 8gb 580s on the same LolMiner v5. The miner will only read one of the 1060s and all 4 of the 580s. hashing ~125 for the 5 cards. I have restarted several times to see if there is a change but nothing. 1060 just 1 or 2 hashes slower than the 580s