Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2019, 04:39:27 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 [96] 97 98 99 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] TeamRedMiner 0.6.1 - Ethash/Cryptonight/Chukwa Thread  (Read 92666 times)
Doucesti
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 27, 2019, 11:46:05 PM
 #1901

Hello! Do you update miner for monero fork friday?
Thank you, I've been using your miner for almost a year!

  Grin Wink Shocked
1575693567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575693567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575693567
Reply with quote  #2

1575693567
Report to moderator
1575693567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575693567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575693567
Reply with quote  #2

1575693567
Report to moderator
1575693567
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575693567

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575693567
Reply with quote  #2

1575693567
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
dingdongtobias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 07:14:14 AM
 #1902

advertizing own work by spit on other dev's work is not the way to win!!!!
understand you late in the eth game so want to make atenttion in dirty way
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 08:10:23 AM
 #1903

advertizing own work by spit on other dev's work is not the way to win!!!!
understand you late in the eth game so want to make atenttion in dirty way

Well, you're always a bit of a troll and probably some alias account for someone else, posting obscene posts removed by moderators in this thread, I know that, but I agree with both you and joblo, this can REALLY look that way. It's all about if I'm correct or not, isn't it?


dingdongtobias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 08:18:46 AM
 #1904

no trolling, you have good product no need do this dirty game for get atenttion
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 08:48:20 AM
Merited by frodocooper (5)
 #1905

no trolling, you have good product no need do this dirty game for get atenttion

Fair enough, and I get your perspective 100%. Now, just for a second, assume I'm correct and put yourself in my shoes:

  • I strongly believe closed source miners should present accurate numbers. We've always educated miners on how to use e.g. xmrig-proxy to test our CN kernels to make sure we are indeed producing the poolside results.
  • We have the best ethash kernel as measured by a number of metrics. If you could read GCN assembly, I could e.g. show that we're running X% less valu instructions, chose an original way of structuring and running the kernel to be able to remove other bloat, and more.
  • Currently, it doesn't matter how good we are. The results on Polaris cards are so cutthroat that +1.5% is a huge number (for Vegas we often have a distinct advantage if you take the time to tune properly, but not always beating 1.5%). So, everyone comparing Polaris miners will see that we're "worse". Farm admins testing miners for 30 mins comes back and says "no no, not better". Then they test poolside with a single rig for 24h, still just getting random results because it's far far far from enough shares to prove anything. I have no problem acknowledging solid work and being beaten, but this... No.

So, imho it's all about if I'm correct or not, and I will wrap up our tester tool today. It's a very bad timing I've been swamped for two days when this exploded, not my intent.

Last, If I'm NOT correct about all this, and for some reason I'm a complete fool that has misinterpreted everything and I'm the only one able to generate these results, I will most definitely issue the necessary apologies to all parties involved and go eat my underwear, then look like a fool for the rest of my life. Simple as that.
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 09:10:00 AM
Merited by frodocooper (5)
 #1906

Edit: your post was so long I didn't absorb it all the first read. I've changed my reply.

What you describe is statiscally accurate to a certain level of precision but not exact because luck always plays a part.
The longer the sample period the less the error but it's always non-zero.

With the tool release I will post links to basic work on the Poisson distribution and proven bounds. Like I wrote, after 1M shares it's a proven fact that 99% of the time, your samples hashrate will be +-0.33% from the true value. We have run our tests over and over again and reproduced the same results, and those runs are independent. If people want to believe that the black swan event keeps repeating itself every single time, I can't stop them, I can just point out that it's very very very improbable.

The pool has no direct knowlege of how many nonces the miner is actually hashing, it calculates hash rate from shares / time.

Indeed, and you are making my point: neither can the user based on the displayed hash rate printed by a closed source miner (this miner included). We can print anything. It needs to be probed, just like a pool does. Hence the release of a "pool" than uses much lower diff and calculates your hash rate in a single huge session.

But those falacies are beside the point as I accept that your test is statistically accurate enough to prove there is a discrepency,
but not necessarilly a problem.

There is indeed a problem if a miner's displayed hash rate - dev fee never will be representative of what it can generate poolside.

Whether it was your intent or not, your post implies willful intent on the part of the miner developper
when, IMO, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

I disagree. Errors in the range of 0.2-0.5% are fine, that could be an added DAG rebuild as part of a dev fee switch etc. Not more than that.

Publishing your test is also irresponsible. It looks like you've started a conspiracy theory and are trying to spread it.

Ehmm, are you kidding? Right now, what I _have_ been doing can _indeed be called irresponsible_, i.e. _not_ backing up my words with a scientifically proven way for others to reproduce my results. NOT publishing is the irresponsible action.

You've already done all the hard work with the kernel, you can prove it one way or another. You don't have to reveal
any secrets, just the results. It's either including fee time in the hashrate or the miner sofware is inflating the count.
One is a user misunderstanding, the other is unethical.

I don't think people would just buy the results from some logs I'm presenting? Giving everyone the same chance of reproducing the results is key. It's basic peer review. If what I'm claiming can't easily be reproduced by others, how can the community trust my claims in any way? I CLEARLY have a huge incentive of spreading disinformation here.

I think the responsible thing to do is the extra step and either confirm the conspiracy or kill it, after all you
started it. But It's up to you.

I 100% agree, and that has ALWAYS been the intent. Your issue rather seems to be with the approach taken to prove my claims, which I still strongly argue is the best approach: simple open source software used for a long-running statistical test, with proven bounds on the probability for certain results to happen.

Also, please note that I'm _not_ happy about my quote being taken from a Discord and posted in youtube vids, but that was me being naive. Tonight (CET) or tomorrow at the latest, the ethash miner tester tool will be published open source on my github. For people with a grasp if of the statistics involved, they will buy the results (assuming they match our own results, that is).

I'm going with fee time, prove me wrong.

I've spent 100+ hours on this, easily. Fee time was of course the first thing I checked since it's the obvious explanation. No one is _stealing_ anything. No miner is consuming more of your resources than announced. Claymore is bang on target for 1.0%. Phoenix switch time is also 100% correct. The dev fee switch time will be easily identifiable in the the tester tool's logs since we're pushing through shares every second. The dev fee switch means a blackout window of N secs.

I will not be posting anything else here now before releasing the tool mentioned above, it's such a time and focus hog.


UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 252


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 05:08:39 PM
 #1907

kerney666, can you add setting for clocks and voltages via your miner commands? I don't think it's too difficult...
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 06:28:52 PM
Merited by frodocooper (5)
 #1908

I will not be posting anything else here now before releasing the tool mentioned above, it's such a time and focus hog.

You shouldn't have posted here in the first place, You never once mentioned the subject of this thread so it was
all off topic. It's also out of line to hijack a thread to advertise your own software.

It's become clear you're just trying to spread FUD and picked on closed source miners because
they are an easy target. I'm no fan of closed source and a proper objective audit of their performance
would be a good thing. But that's not what you're doing.


OMG, you just won most ignorant post of the day award once again, congrats!

Do you do any research what so ever? You are posting in the thread for TeamRedMiner. I'm one of the two devs behind TeamRedMiner. This IS my thread. It's about the closed source miner I'm one of the devs for. Get it?

The topic we're discussing is EXACTLY on-topic since we're also an ethash miner now. My first post on this topic was in direct response to the following:

Hi,

can someone share hashrate and power consumption comparison for Polaris card (RX 580 8GB) between TRM, PM, Claymore with the same setting (Core Clock, Mem Clock, Other Tweak) ?

Thanks.

In short, my response was "such tests are useless since I claim said miners are boosting their displayed hashrate. I will shortly release testing software for the community to verify these claims for themselves.". How can that not be a very logical way of initiating this discussion? Did you even read back to the start of the thread?

Since you clearly don't know who I am, allow me to introduce myself. I'm one of the best AMD GCN devs in the mining scene, and have been for the last two years. Ask anyone who actually knows something about the topic. I've been writing GCN asm kernels from scratch 100 times more complex than a simple ethash kernel. We have probed the memory controller on Polaris and Vegas for our CN work until there's nothing left to know. For many of our algos, there is no other miner even close to our performance. For the bulk of the remaining, we're just the best (although shout-out to Lollie who might have snatched a c31 spot now, not sure). When I say that something is off on an AMD gpu, I usually know wtf I'm talking about, and I'm putting my good name and reputation behind it.

My intentions have been very clear, and I've repeated myself multiple times now. Let me repeat it for you one more time. This is the roadmap:
  • Release Ethash miner tester tool incl documentation.
  • Let the community test for themselves.

This IS THE WAY you do black box testing on closed source miners. I have been educating our CN user base on how to use xmrig-proxy and to what extent they must push the share count in their tests to get statistically significant results for ages. Go ahead, go join the Conceal (CCX) discord and check their mining thread and read my post from Oct 5, to take one example, that's where I remember discussing the topic last. Or download our miner and read step 8 in our included HOWTO for tuning Vegas.
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 06:39:45 PM
 #1909

kerney666, can you add setting for clocks and voltages via your miner commands? I don't think it's too difficult...

Gaaah, it's actually messier than you'd think, especially since we're a cross platform miner. Need to do both the full OverdriveN API on windows, then messing around with sysfs on linux. Not impossible, but it's one of those things you just love to rely on e.g. mining OSs for, handle all linux quirks etc.

If things quiet down somewhat I'll take a more proper look though.
UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 252


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 07:43:21 PM
 #1910

kerney666, can you add setting for clocks and voltages via your miner commands? I don't think it's too difficult...

Gaaah, it's actually messier than you'd think, especially since we're a cross platform miner. Need to do both the full OverdriveN API on windows, then messing around with sysfs on linux. Not impossible, but it's one of those things you just love to rely on e.g. mining OSs for, handle all linux quirks etc.

If things quiet down somewhat I'll take a more proper look though.
I'm Windows user, so linux things difficult for me ))) You can make 1st windows controls, if it more simple. Linux support can be added later.
Just thinking... You're miner good! Very good!
Thanks for your work!
I'm testing eth right now... Looks fast... Will see on accepted speed at pool side...
keksik
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 144
Merit: 1


View Profile
November 28, 2019, 08:39:22 PM
 #1911

im using Claymore 15 and mining eth. reported hash is 825.9 and average 6hours is only 727,6mhs.

going to try TRM 0.6.0, curious about results.
laik2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 612
Merit: 264



View Profile WWW
November 28, 2019, 10:29:21 PM
Merited by frodocooper (3)
 #1912

OMG, you just won most ignorant post of the day award once again, congrats!

Touche!

Well, I'm pleased to meet you and a little humbled.

You didn't start the thread and I don't know anything about TeamRed, or any other closed source
miner for that matter. But that's no excuse. I apologize.

I still have my original question. How does black box testing identify if a discrepency is due to
boosting the hashrate or has a simple explanation? Doesn't that require looking inside the box?


Difference is that on a blackbox you are in control of the so called "luck", so if you by any chance are trying to cheat you won't get away with an excuse like "It's all based on pool's luck".

Miners Mining Platform [ MMP OS ] - https://app.mmpos.eu/
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 12:33:48 AM
Merited by frodocooper (5), pbfarmer (2)
 #1913

To anyone interested in sorting out our claims around the displayed hash rates by closed source AMD ethash miners

As planned, we have now released our Ethash miner testing tool publicly. Since we have made claims around the validity of certain miners' displayed hashrates, the goal was always to produce an open source miner testing tool that the community can run themselves to verify these claims. That tool has now been released. I am publishing it here and in the TRM discord for the time being. The next step is to gather results from external parties outside of my and todxx's control to verify that our results are indeed reproducible.

The issue for a miner is of course that the tool is not built as a proxy to a real pool, you will be mining air for 18-35h depending on your rig size and miner being tested. That said, if you're interested in helping out with this little issue and have a stable rig to spare for a few days, then read the (long) README for the tool and break a leg. We will be available in the TRM discord to sort out any issues you might have getting things running. All results and contributions are greatly appreciated!

And, Happy Thanksgiving to all you guys in the US!

https://github.com/Kerney666/trm-ethash-miner-tester

lebuawu2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 2


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 02:05:10 AM
 #1914

Hi,

can someone share hashrate and power consumption comparison for Polaris card (RX 580 8GB) between TRM, PM, Claymore with the same setting (Core Clock, Mem Clock, Other Tweak) ?

Thanks.

We will shortly release a Ethash miner testing tool, it's just a simple open source node.js project. You will be able to run controlled long-running tests on all miners. The reason this is important is that the displayed hashrates of Claymore and Phoenix are just bullshit. They both add +1.5% or more of fake hashrate. I don't ask anyone to buy these claims without being able to verify it themselves though, which is why we'll release the tool (which acts as a low diff fake pool with a static epoch and controlled job update mechanism) and everyone can see for themselves if they are willing to mine air for ~24h. To verify that we're not insane, we've also reverse engineered both miners, analysed their kernels, traced their OpenCL enqueue calls, and the evidence is clear.

Plenty of people have already pointed this out just by logging all shares over time, but it's really hard to prove anything. You need controlled runs of (preferably) 1 million shares, which is more or less impossible without controlling the environment properly. Another simple way is just to find a big farm from e.g. the frontpage of ethermine.org (found blocks) and check the difference between their reported and accepted hashrate.

Here is one example: https://ethermine.org/miners/6F714AaAAF72977267601cC1cADC49fb3966Ff89/dashboard

Reported: 3.206 TH/s, Accepted: 3.111 TH/s, difference -2.97%. I'm fairly certain this is Phoenix miner. Why do we have a diff of -3%? The dev fee is 0.65%, and there are 1% stale shares, and this is a HUGE sample set that should converge nicely. Contrary to what people seem to believe, the additional -1.35% just should _not_ disappear. For comparison, here is a run using our soon-to-be-released testing tool for 247k shares on Phoenix 4.7c:

Code:
Hashrates for 1 active connections:
    Global hashrate: 228.51 MH/s vs 235.43 MH/s avg reported [diff -2.94%] (A247366:S1575:R0 shares, 93582 secs)
    Global stats: 99.37% acc, 0.63% stale, 0% rej.
    [1] hashrate:  228.51 MH/s vs 235.43 MH/s avg reported [diff -2.94%] (A247366:S1575:R0 shares, 93582 secs)

Look at that, a diff of -2.94% between the reported and accepted hashrate, what a coincidence? To be fair though, 247k shares is only good for a +-0.5% estimate at 99% confidence, so we must treat the value accordingly. The point is that neither CM nor PM can never ever produce a poolside hashrate over time that matches their displayed hashrates.

Sorry for a long rant to your simple question, the bigger point I'm trying to make is this: unless miners start accepting that CM and PM are bullshitting their displayed hashrates, "comparing" CM/PM/TRM/Ethminer is pointless, you'll just be stating that CM and PM are much better than what they really are.


Hi Kerney,

I agree with you, hash rate displayed in the miner is just number, we need to verify in the pool side. I just want to get rough estimation base on hashrate in the miner, because it will be easy rather than wait 24h in pool side.

Thanks.
lebuawu2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 2


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 02:10:14 AM
 #1915

advertizing own work by spit on other dev's work is not the way to win!!!!
understand you late in the eth game so want to make atenttion in dirty way
Well, you're always a bit of a troll and probably some alias account for someone else, posting obscene posts removed by moderators in this thread, I know that, but I agree with both you and joblo, this can REALLY look that way. It's all about if I'm correct or not, isn't it?

lol advertizing and pointing the fact (we need to check of course) in his own thread should be ok, dingdongtobias is just die hard SRB which don't like with your miner because someone advertise TRM miner in SRB thread.
lebuawu2
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 2


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 02:15:18 AM
 #1916

im using Claymore 15 and mining eth. reported hash is 825.9 and average 6hours is only 727,6mhs.

going to try TRM 0.6.0, curious about results.

I also feel the same with you, I tried both Claymore and PM both of them showing pool side (ethermine) more lower than in the miner(after deducted fee from miner and pool side).

will wait for your review after you try TRM.
joblo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1096


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 03:23:21 AM
Merited by frodocooper (3), pbfarmer (1)
 #1917

To anyone interested in sorting out our claims around the displayed hash rates by closed source AMD ethash miners


OK  I'm truly impressed.

We both feel passionately about the issue of hashrate accuracy and I had also recently taken
steps to improve transparency.

My initial misunderstanding of who you were closed my mind to the fact you knew exactly what
you were doing all along, and in the end I agree with your approach 100%. You've factored in the
fee, you have control of the pool side, you have a high share rate to reduce variability (as well as
a form of stress test on the miner, nice touch), everything is covered except the math in the miner.

Your tool indeed isolates the problem as I was hoping it would.

I'm sorry for crapping in your thread, I'll be cleaning up my mess now.

cpuminer-opt developer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1326803.0
BTC: 12tdvfF7KmAsihBXQXynT6E6th2c2pByTT,
kerney666
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 84


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 08:03:46 AM
 #1918

To anyone interested in sorting out our claims around the displayed hash rates by closed source AMD ethash miners


OK  I'm truly impressed.

We both feel passionately about the issue of hashrate accuracy and I had also recently taken
steps to improve transparency.

My initial misunderstanding of who you were closed my mind to the fact you knew exactly what
you were doing all along, and in the end I agree with your approach 100%. You've factored in the
fee, you have control of the pool side, you have a high share rate to reduce variability (as well as
a form of stress test on the miner, nice touch), everything is covered except the math in the miner.

Your tool indeed isolates the problem as I was hoping it would.

I'm sorry for crapping in your thread, I'll be cleaning up my mess now.

Hey man, I'm always happy to reboot a relationship that started off on the wrong foot Smiley. At the end of the day, glad to have you here!

And yes, I do feel passionately about this, not just b/c I obviously have a vested interest in this particular case. I've always been pushing to educate miners on this topic, neither miner devs nor miners draw any benefit from the semi-random "I did a 24h test" results, but it quickly gets too complicated for the casual miner Undecided .
UnclWish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 252


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 03:19:05 PM
 #1919

kerney666, Today my rig, connected to nicehash with TRM eth start to recieve connections errors from pool and reconnect again and again but always connection refused by pool. I noticed this only after more than an hour of this errors while I had my way home...
I thought that my connection is dead, or pool on service... But closing miner and restart him solves the problem.
What it was?
todxx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 163
Merit: 65


View Profile
November 29, 2019, 03:35:06 PM
 #1920

kerney666, Today my rig, connected to nicehash with TRM eth start to recieve connections errors from pool and reconnect again and again but always connection refused by pool. I noticed this only after more than an hour of this errors while I had my way home...
I thought that my connection is dead, or pool on service... But closing miner and restart him solves the problem.
What it was?

Hi UnclWish,

We've seen things like this happen in the past when a pool has banned an IP, but that usually only happens if the miner does something like submit a lot of invalid shares.
Do you have a log of when this happened?
I'd be interested to see the part of the log when it stopped mining and started having this problem.
Pages: « 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 [96] 97 98 99 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!