Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 03:54:16 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: hashkill - testing bitcoin miner plugin  (Read 85433 times)
AngelusWebDesign
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 09:31:42 PM
 #201

Ok -- I cleared my browser cache, downloaded it, and overwrote the old version. I also made sure the executable was dated today -- all checked out. I remembered to run "install.sh".

So it's a pretty safe bet I'm running the new version. We'll see how it goes.

Before:
Poclbm on card 1 (Sapphire 6870 - GPU @ 950 MHz): 276.7 Mh/s
Poclbm on card 2 (XFX 6870 - GPU @ 940 MHz): 273.5 Mh/s
TOTAL: 550.2 Mh/s

Hashkill:
Both cards, 565 - 568 Mh/s

So I'm getting my usual boost from Hashkill -- let's hope it translates into more good shares Smiley

UPDATE 4:40 PM: As of right this instant, it's showing 129 submitted shares, 0 stale.
I also just saw, "Long polling: got new block!" -- that's a welcome sight.

It could be my imagination, but my card started getting a bit hotter -- particularly the weaker of the two (XFX). I had to up the fanspeed to 80% from 75% -- now the temps are stabilizing.

When I first ran it -- it MIGHT have been the old version -- it gave me the same error about long polling. I'm looking to see if it happens again. I am pretty sure I'm running the new version now.

BTW, Gat3way, have you ever heard of upping the version number when you release a new version? Wink

Thanks,

Matthew
1480780456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780456
Reply with quote  #2

1480780456
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480780456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780456
Reply with quote  #2

1480780456
Report to moderator
1480780456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780456
Reply with quote  #2

1480780456
Report to moderator
1480780456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480780456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480780456
Reply with quote  #2

1480780456
Report to moderator
gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 09:41:43 PM
 #202

Well it's not an official uprev yet, I still consider bitcoin code experimental. And I have other work related to hash cracking plugins. If we're good with bitcoin (though I'd still like to add some nice features like a list of pools to jump on network failure) I guess 0.2.5 would officially be out somewhere in July Smiley
AngelusWebDesign
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 09:47:21 PM
 #203

Sounds good -- thanks!

I have some good figures to compare to -- I was running Poclbm for about 5 hours today; My rate stales was almost exactly 0.7% on each of the 2 cards.

I'll look at it around 9:00 tonight and see if I'm getting less stales. That would be great!

Matthew

gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 09:52:52 PM
 #204

Stales would be greatly decreased with that release at the cost of some little performance loss (but your pool should support long polling). You can also check against the speed reported by the pool.

Anyway, hashkill still lacks CPU verification prior to sending. So if you are overclocking your cards too much, it is possible that you are sending invalid shares (false positives) and hashkill would count them as "stale". That's another feature I would like to implement, some miners warn you about your hardware running unstable. Unfortunately, hashkill does not do that at present.
AngelusWebDesign
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 10:02:53 PM
 #205

I created a new worker on deepbit.net, so I can see what they report as far as % stale shares.

What is the "eff" column mean?

Is that how efficiently I'm finding shares? In other words, how lucky I am?

I've seen it above 100% before. Right now it's at 87%.
gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
 #206

Generally it is, but right now it's not a good measure. Any new LP notification would reset current getwork and cause a new one to be issued per thread and by default we use 2 threads/GPU. When using a pool that supports long polling, efficiency is likely getting slowly down with time. I have to take that into account when calculating the "efficiency" percentage. I guess you can ignore that. Just have a look at deepbit's pool reported speed. It should be either somewhat higher or lower than the speed reported by hashkill. If it is constantly below the speed reported by hashkill (as reported before) then we have a problem.

P.S your speed as reported by the pool would likely drop on a new block notification. That's because the current getwork is being reset and you've got to wait until it's fed with a new one. Depending on your network latency (I am using a wireless connection that is not very fast and stable) you may even see some tens of Mhash/s drop. It should quickly compensate for this though.
AngelusWebDesign
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 10:16:28 PM
 #207

Has anything changed with the parameters? You said that multiple GPU setups should use -G 2 -D
But now you're saying that -D has been "de-fanged" and doesn't do much -- is it worth using at all?

Matthew
gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 10:21:00 PM
 #208

Well, it's still worth using -D. Default speeds (without -D) should not change and using -D with the latest version tends to be slower than before...but still faster than without -D. -G2 is the default one on AMD cards. I guess -G3 or -G4 would not bring you much (but your CPU usage and power consumption would be up using them)
Disposition
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 12:04:22 AM
 #209

@gat3way

when you get a chance check out the error with btcguild's long polling?
hchc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 127


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 04:18:10 AM
 #210

how does this compare with the phatk kernel?
I'm currently getting 302mh/s with 5830 976/300 on Win7

Would hashkill be able to beat that...I guess i could setup a linux machine to find out
Would it + stream sdk work thru a VM? (vmware etc...)
supa
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 05:01:41 AM
 #211

Random question -

The last time I tried this, it kept complaining about long polling failure while using eligius.st

Update -
I just tried it again and it constantly complains of long polling on eligius.

I'm also getting nearly 20% stale/invalid... Huh

gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 08:01:16 AM
 #212

If you have downloaded prior versions, please make sure you are using the new version. Do:

Quote
md5sum /usr/bin/hashkill-gpu

For the 32-bit one it should return:
cda0feb360a2e81c5c93fbcfac86c6e6

And for the 64-bit one it should be:
855ec7e26d10b12845820dfbed1d9175

If those checksums don't match, please make sure:

* You don't have a browser caching issue with the download. Or if you have used wget, make sure you don't have it downloaded already so that the new download would be renamed to hashkill-....tgz.1
* You run the install.sh script with root privileges so that it is able to overwrite the old binary
supa
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 08:05:48 AM
 #213


I have the newest version.

Can someone quickly test against mining.eligius.st port 8337 or 80 ?

The beginning output says Long Polling was detected, but I get the warning about long polling failing every 20 seconds.

gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 08:10:46 AM
 #214

Ah, just tried. Dammit, they use relative URLs for that. OK, gotta fix that sorry.
supa
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 06:24:21 PM
 #215


.... did you fix it?  I'm not sure if I should be waiting for you to post a new download link or try the old download link and hope it's the new version? Smiley

RedLine888
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
 #216

Hi!

Will there be a version for WINDOWS users?

If I helped and You do wanna thank:
1FoiQYVPtUwWWnrYe1oYV3GCtJP8YBe1fv
Feel free to PM if you're in a need of any help
-------------------------------------------------------------------
dishwara
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


Truth may get delay, but NEVER fails


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 07:23:18 PM
 #217

Hi!

Will there be a version for WINDOWS users?

Seems No & can't

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12053
RedLine888
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163



View Profile
June 05, 2011, 07:34:22 PM
 #218

Thanx.

that is sad(

If I helped and You do wanna thank:
1FoiQYVPtUwWWnrYe1oYV3GCtJP8YBe1fv
Feel free to PM if you're in a need of any help
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AngelusWebDesign
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 08:16:18 PM
 #219

The error is happening again, Gat3way.

I just got 1% stales I noticed, and I looked at my terminal output and it's giving the "error" Long polling failure, will retry in 20s!

The error happened here: _bitcoin.c:232


hashkill-gpu -G 2 -D -p bitcoin XXXX:XXXX:deepbit.net:8332

I checked the MD5, and it checked out to be the latest version.

Hopefully you can fix it -- thanks!

Matthew
gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 07:46:45 AM
 #220

Will have a look. It may also be a problem on the deepbit.net's side. Did it continue to throw that error or it stopped? Did restarting the miner fix that?

I am going to commit some fixes to the LP code today, fixing the eligius LP issue. Will have a look again at that.

BTW did you have a look at the speed as reported by deepbit?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  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!