[ANN] TeamRedMiner v0.10.10 - Ironfish/Kaspa/ZIL/Kawpow/Etchash and More

[GKumaran]

The star mode (*) is not for turtle, use the normal (+/-)

[kibatronic]

With the TRM 4.4 release (cn_config 14*14) and timings set to: --CL 20 --RP 11 --RC 44 --RCDRD 12 --RCDWR 8 --RFC 250 --FAW 20 --RRDS 4 --RRDL 4 --RAS 32 --REF 7800

Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.

This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.

[kerney666]

With the TRM 4.4 release (cn_config 14*14) and timings set to: --CL 20 --RP 11 --RC 44 --RCDRD 12 --RCDWR 8 --RFC 250 --FAW 20 --RRDS 4 --RRDL 4 --RAS 32 --REF 7800

Quad Vega 56 flashed with V64 BIOS 1447/1050MHz (1340MHz actual) at 850mv I am getting 8670H/s on CNR pulling 740W at the wall.

This is actual hashrate that shows up also poolside. I can run much tighter timings at much higher hashrate without any apparant errors, but poolside the hashrate drops because of the errors induced. It would be nice to have a benchmarking tool to see how stable your settings are before you start mining.

I wrote a long recipe-based tutorial included in the release for v0.4.4 (CN_MAX_YOUR_VEGA.txt). The last step in that document describes how to run tests to assess poolside hashrate. There is no simple way to run a quick benchmark test and assess the quality of hashing under a specific set of modded timings/clocks, although having a tool with known result sets would help to estimate the nr of hw errs faster. In the general case, it is way too easy to be fooled by randomness here though. So, my recommendation is to run the recommended test in that document using xmrig-proxy for 50k shares and then check the poolside hashrate reported in TRM. It might very well be that you need to dial down your modded timings to something less aggressive in the end, just like your previous tests indicate, but then I'd know you've ran a sufficient test to zoom in on the true poolside hashrate.

Cheers, K

[joseph32]

I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):

GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.

Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?

[kerney666]

I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):

GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.

Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?

If you only see it now and then and your hashrate is high and nice, it’s doing its job, which is making sure the two threads don’t gravitate too much and coincide. The best way to verify it is to add —no_interleave=X where X is the gpu that you see the log for. Then, check your hashrate for that gpu. If it’s about the same or lower, you’re all good. If it’s clearly higher, continue to run with that argument.

[joseph32]

I get from time to time this in all my miners (CNr algo):

GPU x CN thread 1 interleave adjust xxx.x ms.

Is this good or bad? Need I adjust something or is it just information?

If you only see it now and then and your hashrate is high and nice, it’s doing its job, which is making sure the two threads don’t gravitate too much and coincide. The best way to verify it is to add —no_interleave=X where X is the gpu that you see the log for. Then, check your hashrate for that gpu. If it’s about the same or lower, you’re all good. If it’s clearly higher, continue to run with that argument.

Thank you! Yes, its mostly just at the beginning and only sometimes. But will check the interleave command.

[rambetiko]

why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool

[Mashy81]

why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool

Its only been running 12 minutes. Give it a bit longer

[rednoW]

why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool

you need at least 1 day testing to state this. Or use proxy with static low diff for faster testing

[rambetiko]

thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result

now i try low static diff. thanks

@rednoW @Mashy81

[seefatlow]

thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result

now i try low static diff. thanks

@rednoW @Mashy81

I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side

[kerney666]

thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result

now i try low static diff. thanks

@rednoW @Mashy81

I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side

At stock mem timings it is a little surprising, and of course enough people can testify they are indeed hitting the poolside hash, meaning it’s not a systematic problem.

A few things that are interesting to know: what gpus do you run and what does the miner report for total avg: pool: a: r: hw:?

[GKumaran]

why pool speed low? my hash 76 kh but i see average 65 kh on pool

15 minutes is just tooo low.

thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result

now i try low static diff. thanks

@rednoW @Mashy81

I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side

Well my vega 64 is just perfect. The pool HR in miner matches with the one reported in the pool with a minor difference.
Clocks : 1408/1100/875 in ODT : 1356/1100/850 in hwinfo

[fmz89]

If you guys has lower hashrate on poolside, try set to 890mv (on odnt), and gpu clock at 1050-1070mhz (on odnt) on hwinfo around 863-875mv, 1120mhz core, cn L20+20(vega56@bios64) cn L22+22(vega64)
Remember not every gpu have same setting, look on hwinfo64 for real status then set on overdrivetool depend each gpu
Then test about 7hr-24hr, actual hashrate vs poolside hashrate will be similiar, if you had some gpu running lower, tuning again ....

[mingdao]

Anyone with Vega FE? What mem timings are you using?

[cas333]

Any tests for RX 570/580 with new version? Thanks

[seefatlow]

thank you for answer. but i tried last day with no diff and i have got similar result

now i try low static diff. thanks

@rednoW @Mashy81

I actually have this same problem with TRTL with 1220/940/850mv with stock mem timings. It's consistently 10kh lower at pool side

At stock mem timings it is a little surprising, and of course enough people can testify they are indeed hitting the poolside hash, meaning it’s not a systematic problem.

A few things that are interesting to know: what gpus do you run and what does the miner report for total avg: pool: a: r: hw:?

Yes, I am puzzled as well. I have no problems with CNR and v8 variants. Just TRTL. Miner reports 0 r and 0 hw. A lot of interleave messages though.    Anything to do with running a 12 card rig?

[seefatlow]

FYI, I completed an evaluation between win10 driver 18.6.1 vs 19.4.2. Found no hashrate/power draw difference with TRM 0.4.4 miner. Evaluated on CNR algo only.

[SamAlackass]

FYI, I completed an evaluation between win10 driver 18.6.1 vs 19.4.2. Found no hashrate/power draw difference with TRM 0.4.4 miner. Evaluated on CNR algo only.

Still using ODNT? How do you set your fan speeds? IIRC there is no target temp in the beta version.

I tested a few 19.x drivers recently, on a 3x vega 56 rig, TRM 0.4.2 (also CNR only) and came to the same conclusion. Didn't have enough time to play with ODNT, but it felt weird having to spend time tweaking fan speeds. Target temp has been a set and forget kind of thing for me so...     

[Mashy81]

FYI, I completed an evaluation between win10 driver 18.6.1 vs 19.4.2. Found no hashrate/power draw difference with TRM 0.4.4 miner. Evaluated on CNR algo only.

Did you try with the new mode 16*14 , use * instead of + for the new mode.
I got a 15% hashrate increase for 7% more power.