Wolf's XMR/BCN/DSH CPUMiner - 2x speed compared to LucasJones' - NEW 06/20/2014

[c18machine]

Wolf u must be getting paid by xmr team, why dont you just release an wild keccak miner?

yes, cryptonight is not only XMR/MRO as your topic title suggests

I'm not getting paid by the XMR team, and I'm not really interested in optimizing BBR's butchered version of keccak. Besides, it's written in C++; I hate it and it hates me.

ofc you rather get a cheap imitation get known.

[c18machine]

Just wait for the news.

and maybe thats why BBR has the same algo   

[c18machine]

Just wait for the news.

and maybe thats why BBR has the same algo   

BBR uses wild keccak - BCN and XMR use CryptoNight.

oh wait, u didnt even notice i was being sarcastic.

[marada]

I am attempting to compile this miner at two linux distros and have no luck. Need an advice.
Mint 13 + gcc 4.8 + libboost 1.55 and Mint 17

At Mint 13 I had to install additionaly autoconf 2.69 (stock is 2.68).

I changed also the line #3308 of configure file by removing -V and -qversion and leaving just --version as gcc didn't support it.

The miner seems to compile but doesn't work at all.
Even the benchmark needs URL and the miner is just quiet if I try to use at the pool. CPU is half-loaded.

Code:

./minerd -a cryptonight --benchmark
[2014-06-11 05:10:37] I go faster as root.
[2014-06-11 05:10:37] Using JSON-RPC 2.0
[2014-06-11 05:10:37] 5 miner threads started, using 'cryptonight' algorithm.
[2014-06-11 05:10:37] HTTP request failed: No URL set!
[2014-06-11 05:10:37] ...retry after 10 seconds

I have found numerous errors in config.log

At Mint 17 the resoult is very similar.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5870shk2xaeglr/config.log

[marada]

The CPU is not really loaded, quite unusual.

After a time and vm.nr_hugepages I realized it is working. May I need to work out a better CPU utilization.

[xxnirvana69xx]

Well I was just curious in an actual speed difference. I don't want to install Ubuntu tonight for a 50h/s increase.

We're talking up to 40% - 50%.

Spent forever trying to get gcc sorted out and it looks like i was doing better in windows...

[2014-06-11 01:11:52] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 283.70 H/s at diff 25000.1 (yay!!!)

[xxnirvana69xx]

Well I was just curious in an actual speed difference. I don't want to install Ubuntu tonight for a 50h/s increase.

We're talking up to 40% - 50%.

Spent forever trying to get gcc sorted out and it looks like i was doing better in windows...

[2014-06-11 01:11:52] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 283.70 H/s at diff 25000.1 (yay!!!)

CPU? Did you use CFLAGS="-march=native" ./configure and then make? Also, did you configure the hugepages as detailed in the OP?

cd ~/ && rm -rf cpuminer && mkdir cpuminer && cd cpuminer && git clone http://github.com/wolf9466/cpuminer-multi.git && pushd cpuminer-multi && cd ~/cpuminer/cpuminer-multi && ./autogen.sh && export CFLAGS="-march=native"  && ./configure && make && unset CLFAGS && popd

and just now enabled huge pages @ 21.

[xxnirvana69xx]

[2014-06-11 02:02:50] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 421.09 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 02:02:54] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 420.73 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)

Looking better...

[xxnirvana69xx]

[2014-06-11 02:25:08] submit_upstream_work stratum_send_line failed
[2014-06-11 02:25:08] ...retry after 10 seconds
[2014-06-11 02:26:14] stratum_recv_line timed out

Getting a lot of these now...

[pattanan]

Can this miner run merge mining without using the crappy minergate.com?
If it can, how do I run it?
Thk

[xxnirvana69xx]

This was while @ 4.4ghz and -t 7 but i noticed that my cpu temp was getting up to 61c so i had to clock it back down
[2014-06-11 02:02:50] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 421.09 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 02:02:54] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 420.73 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)

This was while @ 4.0ghz and -t 7 and temp stays about 54
[2014-06-11 11:11:53] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 390.98 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 11:12:01] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 390.74 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)

So yes linux does give a decent speed boost but since it's also running everything faster it raises the temps up. I have a Hyper 212 Evo and 3 120mm case fans and it doesn't seem to be enough to keep the temps down far enough. Could be the paste not doing it's job but I'm seeing the temps with this cooler are about 8c lower than i was with stock.

[PeaMine]

This was while @ 4.4ghz and -t 7 but i noticed that my cpu temp was getting up to 61c so i had to clock it back down
[2014-06-11 02:02:50] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 421.09 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 02:02:54] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 420.73 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)

This was while @ 4.0ghz and -t 7 and temp stays about 54
[2014-06-11 11:11:53] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 390.98 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 11:12:01] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 390.74 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)

So yes linux does give a decent speed boost but since it's also running everything faster it raises the temps up. I have a Hyper 212 Evo and 3 120mm case fans and it doesn't seem to be enough to keep the temps down far enough. Could be the paste not doing it's job but I'm seeing the temps with this cooler are about 8c lower than i was with stock.

62C and you're worried?

I've ran them above 70c for weeks with no issue.  Cooler is better of course, but I don't think 60s C for your CPU is bad.

[xxnirvana69xx]

This was while @ 4.4ghz and -t 7 but i noticed that my cpu temp was getting up to 61c so i had to clock it back down
[2014-06-11 02:02:50] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 421.09 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 02:02:54] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 420.73 H/s at diff 5000 (yay!!!)

This was while @ 4.0ghz and -t 7 and temp stays about 54
[2014-06-11 11:11:53] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 390.98 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)
[2014-06-11 11:12:01] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 390.74 H/s at diff 10000 (yay!!!)

So yes linux does give a decent speed boost but since it's also running everything faster it raises the temps up. I have a Hyper 212 Evo and 3 120mm case fans and it doesn't seem to be enough to keep the temps down far enough. Could be the paste not doing it's job but I'm seeing the temps with this cooler are about 8c lower than i was with stock.

62C and you're worried?

I've ran them above 70c for weeks with no issue.  Cooler is better of course, but I don't think 60s C for your CPU is bad.

Well it seems the IC7 diamond paste had dried up in 2 weeks, pretty crap. I added the crap coolermaster paste and its holding at 56 @ 4.4ghz. I read multiple places that 61 or higher on the amd fx isn't good.

[c18machine]

configure: error: could not find crypto

how do you solve this?

[nrg_wolf]

is this faster then claymores cpu miner?? wolf you should try and make a gpu miner thats faster and more stable.    😃

[Agamemnus]

Well it seems the IC7 diamond paste had dried up in 2 weeks, pretty crap. I added the crap coolermaster paste and its holding at 56 @ 4.4ghz. I read multiple places that 61 or higher on the amd fx isn't good.

Ditch that EVO cooler and grab yourself a Silverstone TD03 or the nearest water cooler that you can fit in your case (they are all different, make sure it fits before you do it). Once you have that, your temps will be so much lower for everything you do. 60c isn't bad on those but 65c is shortening the life span. You should be able to keep it lower than 60 almost indefinitely, especially with this miner which doesn't even pass 45c on my 4930k.

[nrg_wolf]

is this faster then claymores cpu miner?? wolf you should try and make a gpu miner thats faster and more stable.    😃

Claymore has a CPU miner? Link me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=647251.0

[smooth]

is this faster then claymores cpu miner?? wolf you should try and make a gpu miner thats faster and more stable.    😃

Claymore has a CPU miner? Link me.

I don't see why it would be since it claims 270 H/s on a 4770 and this one claims 300+, and on top of that Claymore takes 5% of your hash rate. I guess Claymore has a fan base though, so perhaps people use it.

His low CPU mode looks interesting though, I wonder what that is doing.

[ozzy1926]

is this faster then claymores cpu miner?? wolf you should try and make a gpu miner thats faster and more stable.    😃

Claymore has a CPU miner? Link me.

I don't see why it would be since it claims 270 H/s on a 4770 and this one claims 300+, and on top of that Claymore takes 5% of your hash rate. I guess Claymore has a fan base though, so perhaps people use it.

His low CPU mode looks interesting though, I wonder what that is doing.

i tried both and for me claymores is giving more stable hashrates win 7 x64

[nrg_wolf]

is this faster then claymores cpu miner?? wolf you should try and make a gpu miner thats faster and more stable.    😃

Claymore has a CPU miner? Link me.

I don't see why it would be since it claims 270 H/s on a 4770 and this one claims 300+, and on top of that Claymore takes 5% of your hash rate. I guess Claymore has a fan base though, so perhaps people use it.

His low CPU mode looks interesting though, I wonder what that is doing.

i tried both and for me claymores is giving more stable hashrates win 7 x64

i can vouch for its speed as well and the stability of the cpu miner, gpu miner is a complete differnt kettle of fish, somewhat unstable as it stands.

4770k at stock clocks 250h/s at T-4
2600 non K at stock clocks 234 h/s at t-4

its nothing to do with a fan base, its at current the more powerful miner that supplys the highest output. and yes 5% for cpu and 5% for gpu miner plus pool fee's thats quite a loss on the pocket for smaller miners like myself.....