lolMiner 1.64: Fastest Kaspa miner in market

[akira128]

running ubuntu 18.04.1 with 13 RX570 (8GB) cards.

There is something seriously wrong with the Equihash 96.5 (Minexcoin) algo on v0.4
If I use the WORKBATCH:  HIGH setting, the hashrate slows down to a crawl, also of note is that the power draw of each GPU is around 40 watts (it's normally 95 watts when mining). Something just isn't working right with the HIGH setting.
If I use WORKBATCH:  MEDIUM, the reported hashrate (on http://eu.minexpool.nl) is around 10-15% higher then with v.034
However, it goes through these long periods where very little crypto is actually paid out from the pool. I don't understand how the listed balance for this rig is consistently really low, but yet the hashrate is high.

Switched back to v.034 for now.
v.034 doesn't have issues with '--set-work-batch HIGH ' , and it gets paid more from the pool than with v.04

the same thing

I tried using v.041 today, but nothing has been fixed. Still having issues.
With 'WORKBATCH: HIGH'

-------------------------------------------------
             Welcome to lolMiner 0.41            

   This software is only meant for pool mining  
    with the Equihash 96.5 or 144.5 algorithm    

          Made by Lolliedieb, July 2018          
-------------------------------------------------
lolMiner is configured to mine MinexCoin(MNX), Equihash 96.5
Setup Miner...
Using device with id 0 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 1 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 2 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 3 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 4 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 5 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 6 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 7 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 8 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 9 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 10 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 11 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Using device with id 12 (Radeon RX 570 Series)
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Work batch: 28
Connecting to pool...
Connected to eu.minexpool.nl:3333
Subscribed to stratum server
New target received: 000028f5c28f5c28f60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
New job received: 1bdc8
Authorized worker: xxx
Start Mining...
Submitting share
Share accepted
Average speed (5s): 11906.4 sol/s | 11865.5 sol/s | 10575.0 sol/s | 10971.8 sol/s | 11924.7 sol/s | 10581.1 sol/s | 9939.8 sol/s | 10534.7 sol/s | 8552.7 sol/s | 9554.2 sol/s | 9892.5 sol/s | 10990.5 sol/s | 10571.5 sol/s Total: 137860.4 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
Submitting share
Share accepted
Submitting share
Share accepted
Average speed (5s): 11904.7 sol/s | 11798.4 sol/s | 11482.3 sol/s | 11838.8 sol/s | 11863.1 sol/s | 11523.7 sol/s | 11147.2 sol/s | 11282.5 sol/s | 11169.1 sol/s | 10562.9 sol/s | 10235.7 sol/s | 11193.2 sol/s | 9182.5 sol/s Total: 145184.3 sol/s

It reports it's mining at 145 Ksols. However, according to the pool, the hashrate is much lower

Worker   Hashrate (Now)   Hashrate (AVG)   Diff.           Shares
rig1           34.36 KSol/s           50.72 KSol/s          -2457600   900           

Please fix this issue! There's nothing in the logs to indicate there's any sort of issue. lolminer continues to report high hash rates.
..and yes, the difficulty value is  -2457600. This number constantly changes to some random off-the-wall number.

Meanwhile the power draw of each of my cards are all over the place:

ROCm output with V0.41 WORKBATCH: HIGH
====================    ROCm System Management Interface    ====================
================================================================================
 GPU  Temp    AvgPwr   SCLK     MCLK     Fan      Perf    SCLK OD
  1   49.0c   74.130W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%
  2   46.0c   71.100W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  3   48.0c   69.43W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  4   56.0c   68.216W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  5   48.0c   63.3W    1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  6   55.0c   68.94W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  7   42.0c   63.159W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  8   46.0c   62.99W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  9   51.0c   79.39W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  10  55.0c   69.3W    1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  11  59.0c   50.68W   1168Mhz  1000Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  12  49.0c   47.175W  1168Mhz  1000Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  13   44.0c   55.197W  1168Mhz  1000Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%
================================================================================

**yes, the SCLK value is a little low, I've stepped in down a notch with:
rocm_smi.py --setsclk 5

However, even if I use '--setclk 6', I see similar disparities between the power draw and hash rates.

Also, the MCLK rates sporadically change between different values {300, 1000, 1750..etc} Mhz for each of the cards. Every time I run this output the MCLK values change.


**********update**********
I've been running V0.41 for the last hour or so with 'WORKBATCH: MEDIUM' And the results are pretty impressive so far. There's a definite 15-20% increase in the average hash rate over v0.34. Everything looks pretty solid so far. Need to run it for a few days to see if this trend continues.

**for comparison
ROCm output with V0.41 WORKBATCH: MEDIUM
====================    ROCm System Management Interface    ====================
================================================================================
 GPU  Temp    AvgPwr   SCLK     MCLK     Fan      Perf    SCLK OD
  1   59.0c   91.180W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  2   55.0c   92.161W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  3   57.0c   89.70W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  4   67.0c   94.119W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  5   57.0c   88.94W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  6   65.0c   91.209W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  7   53.0c   90.72W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  8   56.0c   94.34W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  9   62.0c   97.141W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  10  70.0c   96.27W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  11  73.0c   97.100W  1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  12  61.0c   94.14W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
  13  54.0c   91.69W   1168Mhz  1750Mhz  16.86%   manual    0%      
================================================================================


****************update 2*******************
After mining for a few hours, the balance that each rig below was contributing to the next 0.1MNX payout was roughly equal.
However, 6 hours later the hashrate on the lolminer rig was still high but is producing significantly less crypto.
The balance listed below between the two rigs should be roughly equal, but it's not even close.

Worker   Hashrate (Now)   Hashrate (AVG)           Diff.           Shares     Balance
nvidia   167.23 KSol/s           167.67 KSol/s           1495173   547.55   0.04332093  (EWBF Cuda Equihash miner)
amd     157.71 KSol/s           147.99 KSol/s           1462857   714.29   0.01504778  (lolminer v0.41)


Why is this happening? V0.34 had a lower hashrate but was producing more crypto in the long term.
This is the exact same behavior I saw with version v0.40

**lolminer v0.41 did fail twice during the time I was mining. Both failures were due to: 'Floating point exception(core dumped)'
**I have a script that restarts the miner in the event that it fails. So these failures resulted in only a minute or two of downtime.

switching back to v0.34...

[1713940955]

1713940955

[1713940955]

1713940955

[1713940955]

1713940955

[Lolliedieb]

at 2g amd does not work?

Depends - for mnx it works, for 144.5 not (on APUs it can work but is horribly slow)
This may change in the future, bit squeezing 144.5 in 2G is not so easy.


The minus diff issue indicates that some faulty shares are computed, whyever. Dies this also happen on MEDIUM? Seems highh us no good idea at the moment.

[Racko]

Tried 0.41 today, with error:

--algo 144_5

GeForce GTX TITAN X :

Using device with id 0 (AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series)
Using device with id 1 (AMD Radeon R9 200 / HD 7900 Series)
Using device with id 2 (GeForce GTX TITAN X)
Warning: Your device with id 2 is currently not supported by lolMiner or by the specific algorithm you selected.

-

GeForce GTX 1080 Ti :

Using device with id 0 (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)
Warning: Your device with id 0 is currently not supported by lolMiner or by the specific algorithm you selected.

Worked with 0.40.

Ewbf is still better atm

What sols u are getting on 7970/R9 280x?

[zombezi]

I have Windows 10, GPU RX 470 and RX 580 (4 Gb)

Version 0.4 did not work, version 0.41 earned immediately and without problems. The show on BTG showed an average of 12 sol / s at 470's and 14 sol at 580.
It works stably and without failures, DDR memory does not load, unlike MNX on version 0.38, when DDR memory in 4 Gb was not enough !!

Waiting for a powerful upsurge of the hash (like on MNX). Thank you for your work

[prichina]

no, no, to me the most important is mnx coin and it does not work, the miner crashes....i dont care about other coins.
- the best miner for now is lolminer v034

[zombezi]

no, no, to me the most important is mnx coin and it does not work, the miner crashes....i dont care about other coins.
- the best miner for now is lolminer v034

For AMD - MNX is not relevant now, too little course and high complexity

[joeykolb]

for LTZ working this lolminer 0.41?

[r12x2]

It reports it's mining at 145 Ksols. However, according to the pool, the hashrate is much lower

same problem

[HeptacoinDEV]

Hi there,

I just updated the miner to version 0.41

Here are the download links:

[Lin 64] Click me (0.41 for Linux)
[Win 64]  Click me (0.41 for Windows)


And here are the changes (hope I get all):

Windows Version:
- Switched from a mingW64 to a visual studio based build. This should remove the majority of the Windows bugs / random crashed

Coins:
- Added support for HeptaCoin (HEPTA)

Api:
- Added some new fields (total sol/s and pool information where the RIG is connected)
- Fixed the Windows API stability bug

Features:
- The miner now supports automatic user names. The parameter "RIGNAME" (in config file) or -rigname= (in command line) set a name for the Rig. When now for any pool connection data at the "USER" field no "." is found the RIGNAME will be appended to the user name automatically. Instead when a "." is found, RIGNAME will be ignored.

- Extended the "DEVICES" parameter and also enables control of devices in command line. Now the miner is fully functional to be controled over cmd. Especially the user now can select "DEVICES":"AMD" or "DEVICES" : "NVIDIA" to restrict to GPUs for one vendor (see manual for more details).

- Added the options "TIMEPRINT" and "SHORTACCEPT" to modify the console output. (See manual in section "Modify the Statistics Output")

- Added the options "CONNECTION_ATTEMPTS" and "RECONNECTION_TIMER" to modify the behavior of the failover support (See manual in section "Adjusting the Failover Pool Function")

- lolMiner can now change the kernel file search directory ("KERNELSDIR") and for the user_config.json (-usercfg= in command line). The paths can be absolute or relative to the current work directory. This allows to install the executable in some system search path and the other required stuff in a complete different location.


Known issues:
- Windows defender sometimes recognizes lolMiner.exe as virus. This is a false positive and Windows defender is the only search engine that I am aware of that does so (only one out of 67 virus search engines tested)

- Windows version may crash when hitting

• - better stop the miner by task manager or ctrl + c.

- The current mining code for Nvidia & MNX seems only to work well (fast) on GTX1080 cards. Unfortunately the older one does not work directly in miner framework. I will now be on vacation for a week but will try to fix this ASAP.

- The API can not be displayed in Chrome. No idea why, but Firefox and Internet Explorer did well, on Windows, Linux and Android mobile.

Awesome news, Thanks for add Heptacoin 

[JeffVader]

The latest version doesn't seem to work for mining SAFE. I get this message - "Error: No coin profile find for coin SAFE".

v0.38 still works fine, so I can use that for now. Would be grateful for a fix

[joeykolb]

here its working fine (MNX) with V0.41 WORKBATCH at  HIGH ,i have rx480/580

[akira128]

> here its working fine (MNX) with V0.41 WORKBATCH at  HIGH ,i have rx480/580

Are you using Windows or Linux? How many cards are in your rig? Are your RX480 cards 4GB or 8GB? Which pool are you connected to? It would help if you provided a bit more information so that we can start to narrow down where the issue lies.  

[akira128]

On Linux systems, is it possible to to view how much GPU memory is being used for RX5xx or RX4xx cards? It would be nice if there were debug options included so we could verify how much GPU memory is actually being used. It would also be helpful to view how many instances of an algorithm are concurrently running.

[joeykolb]

its on windows 10/ 8gb cards. 2rx s with 13***sols each

[andrewpuzoff]

After mining for a few hours, the balance that each rig below was contributing to the next 0.1MNX payout was roughly equal.
However, 6 hours later the hashrate on the lolminer rig was still high but is producing significantly less crypto.
The balance listed below between the two rigs should be roughly equal, but it's not even close.

Worker   Hashrate (Now)   Hashrate (AVG)           Diff.           Shares     Balance
nvidia   167.23 KSol/s           167.67 KSol/s           1495173   547.55   0.04332093  (EWBF Cuda Equihash miner)
amd     157.71 KSol/s           147.99 KSol/s           1462857   714.29   0.01504778  (lolminer v0.41)


Why is this happening? V0.34 had a lower hashrate but was producing more crypto in the long term.
This is the exact same behavior I saw with version v0.40

**lolminer v0.41 did fail twice during the time I was mining. Both failures were due to: 'Floating point exception(core dumped)'
**I have a script that restarts the miner in the event that it fails. So these failures resulted in only a minute or two of downtime.

switching back to v0.34...

with lolminer 0.41 on AMD 79x0 http://eu.minexpool.nl takes a NEGATIVE difficulty time by time ! (yes, with minus sign!)
and real AVERAGE hashrates lower than 0.33 version values

https://hostingkartinok.com/show-image.php?id=c3f9ccdc03878cb750e43eeffdd3fca4

but lolminer 0.41 interface shows a higher hashrates

[Lolliedieb]

I just want you to know I just arrived back from vacation and will start later today to catch comments up here and start working on the next code iteration. Hope to get rid of the minus sign bug and low hashrate on some GPUs asap.

[bomjskill]

I just want you to know I just arrived back from vacation and will start later today to catch comments up here and start working on the next code iteration. Hope to get rid of the minus sign bug and low hashrate on some GPUs asap.

for 2GB amd is planned to be updated?

[CygnusMinor]

I just want you to know I just arrived back from vacation and will start later today to catch comments up here and start working on the next code iteration. Hope to get rid of the minus sign bug and low hashrate on some GPUs asap.

Welcome back Lolliedieb, hope your vacation was both fun and restful.

Your version 0.41 has been running on my Ubuntu 18 rig (HEPTA) without fail for days, now. Undervolted two Vega 54's (to 90w) and two RX 570's (to 80w)

Average speed (5s): 15.4 sol/s | 21.2 sol/s | 9.6 sol/s | 10.0 sol/s Total: 56.2 sol/s
Average speed (5s): 22.2 sol/s | 18.8 sol/s | 10.2 sol/s | 11.4 sol/s Total: 62.6 sol/s
Average speed (5s): 16.6 sol/s | 19.6 sol/s | 9.2 sol/s | 11.6 sol/s Total: 57.0 sol/s
Average speed (5s): 17.0 sol/s | 19.4 sol/s | 10.2 sol/s | 9.6 sol/s Total: 56.2 sol/s
Average speed (5s): 16.2 sol/s | 18.2 sol/s | 12.2 sol/s | 9.6 sol/s Total: 56.2 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
Average speed (60s): 17.5 sol/s | 18.5 sol/s | 10.0 sol/s | 10.7 sol/s Total: 56.8 sol/s
---------------------------------------------

I'm looking forward to any performance improvements you can make, though. Good luck!

[fluxy12]

Hello, when do you plan to improve AMD cards ?

[toptek12]

Hello, when do you plan to improve AMD cards ?

That's what i'm waiting for then ill push it more for awesome miner support .