miniZv2.4d Equihash144,5 125,4 210,9 150,5 192,7 Beam ProgPoW Ethash CFX KLS PYI

[miniZ]

Good miner with good speeds, but why so overloaded and difficult to read console output?

Hi somaton,
thanks. Glad you like it!

It seems you are not using Win10 console.
Run miniZ with --nocolor

We also suggest other options here https://miniz.ch/usage/#console-output
Check the end of the page:
"If you are not using Windows 10, the console may not show the colors properly. However, you can use another console.
We tried ConEmu terminal emulator and it worked fine. There are others available, which should also work OK."

Cheers

[twente-mining]

We need a .zip http file for OS Simplemining.net

Can you add one ?

[somaton]

now looks much better with --nocolor switch, thanks but still it can be better with colors... Using windows 8.1, miniz.exe 1.2m crashed once: Faulting module path: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ucrtbase.dll

[miniZ]

We need a .zip http file for OS Simplemining.net

Can you add one ?

Hi twente-mining,
we'll have a look.
Cheers

[miniZ]

now looks much better with --nocolor switch, thanks but still it can be better with colors... Using windows 8.1, miniz.exe 1.2m crashed once: Faulting module path: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ucrtbase.dll

Hi somaton,
sorry for the crash. Could you show us miniZ output (or log) just before the crash?
Thanks
Cheers

[miniZ]

We need a .zip http file for OS Simplemining.net

Can you add one ?

Hi twente-mining,
we'll have a look.
Cheers

Hi twente-mining,

Add the following when setting miniZ as custom miner
https://miniz.ch/smos/miniZ-v1.2m.zip
Let us know if it works.

It would be nicer if simpleminer adds miniZ to their system.

Cheers

[Ziv1]

Good day.
Check with 4.04 on 2 farms version 1.2m W10 cuda8.
Only 6 failures ntdll-failed module.
There are no errors in the log.
I asked to divide the count of my Shares and yours, and you hid yours.
I would like more production (85 \ 15) acceptable (90 \ 10).
Thanks for your work.

[BigHarryArmsi]

Nice 7% upgrade, miniZ! vM running fast straight and true. Thank you so much and keep up the good work. A couple more upgrades like this one on 144_5 and I won't need to be buying any more GPUs!
By the by... seems there is no fan speed control on MSI Afterburner for the new Turing cards. (1660 and 1660Ti) Anyone have an idea because they are running hot even at low power. Thanks.

[HonestAbeX1]

Hi, starting with the latest version m, it seems the argument --cuda-devices # # is no longer recognized because the miner seems to ignore it and just mines with all gpus.  It worked with all prior versions up to version l correctly.  Could you investigate and resolve please?  Thanks.

[borox]

Hi, starting with the latest version m, it seems the argument --cuda-devices # # is no longer recognized because the miner seems to ignore it and just mines with all gpus.  It worked with all prior versions up to version l correctly.  Could you investigate and resolve please?  Thanks.

I can confirm this.

[miniZ]

Good day.
Check with 4.04 on 2 farms version 1.2m W10 cuda8.
Only 6 failures ntdll-failed module.
There are no errors in the log.
I asked to divide the count of my Shares and yours, and you hid yours.
I would like more production (85 \ 15) acceptable (90 \ 10).
Thanks for your work.

Hi Ziv1,
An ntdll error is not very specific, so hard to understand, but we will keep digging your problem.
It still can be usefull to get an excerpt of the log just before the crash.
Can you explain what you mean with
"I would like more production (85 \ 15) acceptable (90 \ 10)." ?
Thanks!
Cheers

[miniZ]

Nice 7% upgrade, miniZ! vM running fast straight and true. Thank you so much and keep up the good work. A couple more upgrades like this one on 144_5 and I won't need to be buying any more GPUs!
By the by... seems there is no fan speed control on MSI Afterburner for the new Turing cards. (1660 and 1660Ti) Anyone have an idea because they are running hot even at low power. Thanks.

Hi BigHarryArmsi,
Thank you.
We did not test this but an upgrade Afterburner to the latest version 4.6.0 beta 9 may be usefull.
Cheers

[miniZ]

Hi, starting with the latest version m, it seems the argument --cuda-devices # # is no longer recognized because the miner seems to ignore it and just mines with all gpus.  It worked with all prior versions up to version l correctly.  Could you investigate and resolve please?  Thanks.

I can confirm this.

Hi HonestAbeX1, borox,
sorry about this.
We will fix this in the next version.
Please use the alternative syntax -cd argument that is working.
Thanks!
Cheers

[johnstewart]

Hello so the 1.2m version works fine with rtx 2080 over 100 sols with oc2
Just this versions seeems to don't support two instances in the same time. One instance just closes by itself

[miniZ]

Hello so the 1.2m version works fine with rtx 2080 over 100 sols with oc2
Just this versions seeems to don't support two instances in the same time. One instance just closes by itself

Hi johnstewart,
Which OS are you using?
Could this be related with insuficient memory? If so try to increase the page file, by a generous amount.
If this is not the case, please give us some other details: nvidia driver, excerpt of the log right before the exit.
Thanks

[johnstewart]

Hello so the 1.2m version works fine with rtx 2080 over 100 sols with oc2
Just this versions seeems to don't support two instances in the same time. One instance just closes by itself

Hi johnstewart,
Which OS are you using?
Could this be related with insuficient memory? If so try to increase the page file, by a generous amount.
If this is not the case, please give us some other details: nvidia driver, excerpt of the log right before the exit.
Thanks

Windows 10 pro i9 9900k 16g xpm rtx 2080 duke oc driver up to date .. i don't know how to in reader the page file ?

[miniZ]

Hello so the 1.2m version works fine with rtx 2080 over 100 sols with oc2
Just this versions seeems to don't support two instances in the same time. One instance just closes by itself

Hi johnstewart,
Which OS are you using?
Could this be related with insuficient memory? If so try to increase the page file, by a generous amount.
If this is not the case, please give us some other details: nvidia driver, excerpt of the log right before the exit.
Thanks

Windows 10 pro i9 9900k 16g xpm rtx 2080 duke oc driver up to date .. i don't know how to in reader the page file ?

Hi johnstewart,
You can see here how to check the pagefile size and how to manage it.
The required pagefile size depends on the type and number of GPUs. For example for 2x2080 (8GB) an ideal number would be 2x8GB=16GB.
Let us know if it worked.
Cheers

[Ziv1]

Good day.
In the log file when calculating valid shares confusion.
When shown in the log file fee.server shares are added.
[ 0d 0h 2m49s] S:  2/0 145(145.2)Sol/s 342(349.2)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 74ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.83 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  83( 86.7)W clk=1746MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.10 I/s 36.3(36.3)Sol/s  87( 87.7)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.15 I/s 37.0(37.0)Sol/s  83( 87.6)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  90( 87.2)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 2m59s] S:  3/0 145(144.8)Sol/s 350(350.1)W [fee.server]- 76ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.83 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  87( 87.3)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%]*18.10 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  88( 87.9)W clk=1809MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.15 I/s 36.9(36.9)Sol/s  86( 87.8)W clk=1809MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  88( 87.2)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m09s] S:  5/0!!!??? 144(144.3)Sol/s 355(351.1)W [fee.server]- 78ms (94.7%) (5.3%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  90( 87.9)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.5(36.4)Sol/s  88( 87.8)W clk=1847MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/45%] 18.14 I/s 36.6(36.6)Sol/s  87( 87.8)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 35.8(35.8)Sol/s  90( 87.6)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m19s] S:  5/0 145(144.6)Sol/s 361(352.6)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 74ms (92.3%) (7.7%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  89( 87.8)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.4(36.4)Sol/s  91( 88.5)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.14 I/s 37.1(37.1)Sol/s  90( 88.3)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 35.9(35.9)Sol/s  91( 88.0)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m29s] S:  7/0 146(145.5)Sol/s 357(352.6)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 78ms (92.7%) (7.3%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%]*17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  90( 88.2)W clk=1733MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.5(36.5)Sol/s  87( 88.0)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.14 I/s 37.2(37.2)Sol/s  89( 88.3)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%]*17.82 I/s 35.7(35.7)Sol/s  90( 88.1)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40


Thanks for your work.

[miniZ]

Good day.
In the log file when calculating valid shares confusion.
When shown in the log file fee.server shares are added.
[ 0d 0h 2m49s] S:  2/0 145(145.2)Sol/s 342(349.2)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 74ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.83 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  83( 86.7)W clk=1746MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.10 I/s 36.3(36.3)Sol/s  87( 87.7)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.15 I/s 37.0(37.0)Sol/s  83( 87.6)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  90( 87.2)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 2m59s] S:  3/0 145(144.8)Sol/s 350(350.1)W [fee.server]- 76ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.83 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  87( 87.3)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%]*18.10 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  88( 87.9)W clk=1809MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.15 I/s 36.9(36.9)Sol/s  86( 87.8)W clk=1809MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 36.0(36.0)Sol/s  88( 87.2)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m09s] S:  5/0!!!??? 144(144.3)Sol/s 355(351.1)W [fee.server]- 78ms (94.7%) (5.3%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  90( 87.9)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.5(36.4)Sol/s  88( 87.8)W clk=1847MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/45%] 18.14 I/s 36.6(36.6)Sol/s  87( 87.8)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 35.8(35.8)Sol/s  90( 87.6)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m19s] S:  5/0 145(144.6)Sol/s 361(352.6)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 74ms (92.3%) (7.7%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%] 17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  89( 87.8)W clk=1771MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.4(36.4)Sol/s  91( 88.5)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.14 I/s 37.1(37.1)Sol/s  90( 88.3)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 17.82 I/s 35.9(35.9)Sol/s  91( 88.0)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
[ 0d 0h 3m29s] S:  7/0 146(145.5)Sol/s 357(352.6)W [btcz.2miners.com]- 78ms (92.7%) (7.3%)
 0>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [54шC/45%]*17.82 I/s 35.5(35.5)Sol/s  90( 88.2)W clk=1733MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40
 1>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.09 I/s 36.5(36.5)Sol/s  87( 88.0)W clk=1784MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.41
 2>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%] 18.14 I/s 37.2(37.2)Sol/s  89( 88.3)W clk=1797MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.42
 3>GTX 1060 3GB ` 100% [55шC/48%]*17.82 I/s 35.7(35.7)Sol/s  90( 88.1)W clk=1759MHz mclk=4404MHz Sol/W=0.40


Thanks for your work.

Hi Ziv1,

you are right, it is confusing. We will exclude from Total as well, in the next version.
The fee share is adding to the Total share (the sum of each GPU share). The fee share is not being added to the individual GPU count.
You can see this if running with --share-detail.

The number of shares cannot be directly compared because the difficulty of fee shares can be very different.
You can submit less shares when compared to the number fee share but this doesn't mean that you are earning less.
Low difficulty share is worth less than a high difficulty share. What you earn depends on the number of shares weighted on the share difficulty. 

Cheers

[johnstewart]

Hello i tried with only one instance and it closed by itself ... i Think it could be something with cgminer et bfgminer who are running at the same time for my moonlanders and my newpack