Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:40:41 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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »
  Print  
Author Topic: (OLD) BFGMiner: modular FPGA/GPU, GBT, Stratum, RPC, Avalon/Lnx/OpnWrt/PPA/W64  (Read 245095 times)
ummas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 09:13:42 AM
 #21

Yesterday i was praing for cgminer supporting Ztex!!
It`s a proof that God exists !!! Smiley buhahah, i`m so happy
today i`m going to check it with 7 GPU rig + Ztex y board Smiley
gimme few hours
1481319641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319641
Reply with quote  #2

1481319641
Report to moderator
1481319641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319641
Reply with quote  #2

1481319641
Report to moderator
1481319641
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319641

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319641
Reply with quote  #2

1481319641
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Nachtwind
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 09:24:48 AM
 #22

Nice project but i cant seem to start my ZTEX with it: "Cant get handle (-12)"

Any ideas?
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 09:35:11 AM
 #23

Nice project but i cant seem to start my ZTEX with it: "Cant get handle (-12)"

Any ideas?

More details needed; what OS, did you build it yourself?

On windows there are a few extra steps that I haven't found the time yet to document, but you'll need to remove the libusb-0.1 driver used on BTCMiner and install the libusb-1.0 (WinUSB) driver instead. I'll try to come up with some draft of the instructions if that is the case.
Nachtwind
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 10:05:49 AM
 #24

i see..
well: Specs:
Windows7 x64
ZTEX 1.15x   (1x)

Used a prebuilt windows binary.
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 10:18:33 AM
 #25

i see..
well: Specs:
Windows7 x64
ZTEX 1.15x   (1x)

Used a prebuilt windows binary.

Ok, so visit http://libusb.org/wiki/windows_backend and grab yourself the zadig utility (just fing zadig on that page).
Using Zadig, find the ztex device (it's either 221A:0100 or "ZTEX Module") on the drop down (You may need to use the "List All Devices" menu option) and install the WinUSB driver. That should be enough to make it work.

If you need to later upgrade firmware or use BTCMiner again you'll need to, using Zadig again, install the libusb-win32 driver on your device and you should be set.

If the device appears as 221A:0100 you must edit the name to "ZTEX Module".

Let me know how that goes.
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 11:51:03 AM
 #26

Is the 1.15y supported by this? If not i could offer u remote access to one (windows, but i can setup linux aswell if u need it).

nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 11:52:43 AM
 #27

Is the 1.15y supported by this? If not i could offer u remote access to one (windows, but i can setup linux aswell if u need it).


It isn't supported yet, no. But I am going to take you up on that offer soon Smiley Chances are I'll be able to provide you with a version to test, and with a little patience from you I won't need remote access at all, but I'll let you know when the time comes.
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
 #28

Ill be waiting Smiley I'm not a linux pro (somehow linux hates me Cheesy) but i can do basic things with it. In case u need to look for yourself i can offer Temvierwer ecess to it (and all the other 1.15x Boards; but i could separate them in a different VM if needed)

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 12:01:54 PM
 #29

Ah well at least I can say I had one thing to do with it ...
I came up with the name Cheesy
(Bitcoin FPGA GPU Miner)
Or the other name for the obvious reason Smiley
(Doom/Quake)
So ... how much do I charge each person who uses the name that I came up with and didn't give permission for Cheesy

It is coincidence.  He named after this:  Grin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRgYtp3HfvY
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 12:32:07 PM
 #30

Nah I was discussing a name in IRC with Sharky (March 1st) back when conman took his long break

Sharky said FGMiner and I immediately thought of BFGMiner and said that's what it should be changed to with 3.0 Smiley
(luke-jr was connected at the time as usual but probably not watching coz he didn't comment)

That's when I thought of it and have mentioned it a few times in IRC since then

I suggested it again on 15-Apr in a discussion with conman and luke-jr (about another name for cgminer that someone else brought up)
luke-jr said cgfminer but I replied with bfgminer (and the BFG Doom name comment also) Smiley
(BFGMiner of course also meaning Bitcoin FPGA GPU Miner)

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
 #31

I am seeing a slight performance increase (over CGMiner 2.3.3....although I haven't tried CGminer 2.3.4 yet).
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this would have to either be variance, or driver-related. The only change I can think of that would have made any difference for GPUs, is dynamically loading the OpenCL.DLL rather than a normal dynamic link (this is why FPGA-only rigs can run the Windows binaries).

Do you implement the current git for reducing network load from cgminer?
No, this release is based on CGMiner 2.3.4. I plan to merge Con's latest improvements into our git tree soon.

When I want to do this I get the error no OPENCl is installed?
You should be able to ignore it unless you want GPUs mining.

Epoch
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 917



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 03:05:31 PM
 #32

In all honesty I'm sorry to see this, and long term I envision these projects will diverge too much for there to be code going to and from each of them. It may well be that cgminer becomes the dead project and I'll stop maintaining it. Good luck.
I, too, am saddened to see this break develop. The community does not need 2 flavors of what has been (and is) a very robust, highly capable and compatible, and flexible miner. This split will weaken both in the long run.

I've evaluated both cgminer and bfgminer on my systems; for all intents and purposes they are identical. For my present and anticipated future needs, either one is already more than adequate. I do not look forward to having to follow both, just to see them leapfrog each other version after version. It is a pointless competition with little to no tangible benefit to the community.

There is great benefit in having a common pool of clever ideas and clever developers collaborating on a focused goal. It has resulted in cgminer. Breaking that team and pool apart is not in the best interests of cgminer users. I, too, believe that if this split is allowed to continue, long term it will result in too much divergence for the code to be easily shared. This will result in a dilution of programming talent, and a reduction in coding efficiency. Both of which are a disservice to the very people that are the end-customers: miners.

Certainly the more people you are trying to cater to, the more of them you cannot please. Forks do allow potentially better support for a smaller targeted subset of people. But there is a point at which the benefits of maintaining cohesion outweigh the benefits of breaking off a marginally refocused fork.

I believe in this specific situation the benefits of splitting are insufficient to justify doing/continuing it. cgminer is already doing a great job, and with developers' help it will continue to improve its gpu and fpga support as new firmware and devices show up. Do we really need a 2nd miner with equally great support?

From what I've seen Kano, Luke-jr, and the other developers are very clever and passionate people who are quick to add support for new devices/firmware and to act on user's requests. And ckolivas is well-grounded, level-headed, and careful about committing changes, all attributes making him an ideal resource to be 'piloting' the project.

Just give the situation some thought, and try to envision what we may have a year from now, before throwing your support towards (1) cgminer-only; (2) both cgminer and bfgminer; or (3) bfgminer only.

BTC: 1DJVUnLuPA2bERTkyeir8bKn1eSoRCrYvx
NMC: NFcfHSBBnq622pAr1Xoh9KtnBPA5CUn6id
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
 #33

I do not look forward to having to follow both, just to see them leapfrog each other version after version.
If CGMiner "leapfrogs" by including all the fixups and enhancements in BFGMiner, then there'd be no reason to continue BFGMiner. The main reason BFGMiner exists is because CGMiner is not willing to include many necessary changes.

There is great benefit in having a common pool of clever ideas and clever developers collaborating on a focused goal. It has resulted in cgminer. Breaking that team and pool apart is not in the best interests of cgminer users. I, too, believe that if this split is allowed to continue, long term it will result in too much divergence for the code to be easily shared. This will result in a dilution of programming talent, and a reduction in coding efficiency. Both of which are a disservice to the very people that are the end-customers: miners.
CGMiner has for the most part been a one-man show up until very recently. Kano added his API, but intentionally maintains it independently from CGMiner. I hopped on to refactor CGMiner for modular driver and FPGA support because I didn't want to be stuck using Ufasoft with my BitForce Single. I was also given an Icarus for the purpose of improving support for it. However, as of recently, Kano insists on continually breaking and undoing fixes I've made to the Icarus driver and refuses to learn how to develop as a team (eg, merging instead of overwriting others' changes), and Con seems content with him doing so. Therefore, forking in this scenario is better for miners who need reliable Icarus (and who knows what else in the future) support. If the scenario changes significantly, the conclusion may change too.

Edit: In short, I would prefer NOT maintaining a fork, but it sure beats spending hours arguing with Kano and eventually ending up with an unreliable miner due to my fixes being rejected.

Turbor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


BitMinter


View Profile WWW
April 27, 2012, 04:30:29 PM
 #34

If CGMiner "leapfrogs" by including all the fixups and enhancements in BFGMiner, then there'd be no reason to continue BFGMiner. The main reason BFGMiner exists is because CGMiner is not willing to include many necessary changes.

 Roll Eyes who decides what is necessary ? That's what i hate about over religious people. They think only their point of view matters.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
 #35

If CGMiner "leapfrogs" by including all the fixups and enhancements in BFGMiner, then there'd be no reason to continue BFGMiner. The main reason BFGMiner exists is because CGMiner is not willing to include many necessary changes.

 Roll Eyes who decides what is necessary ? That's what i hate about over religious people. They think only their point of view matters.
You do, when you choose what miner you use. Since CGMiner doesn't include the changes I consider necessary as a miner, my choices are to stick with what I get, or fork and make it work myself. As a programmer, I chose the latter.

Epoch
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 917



View Profile
April 27, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
 #36

Edit: In short, I would prefer NOT maintaining a fork, but it sure beats spending hours arguing with Kano and eventually ending up with an unreliable miner due to my fixes being rejected.
Luke, I think we are on the same page here. I would also NOT like to see a fork. If the key developers cannot reach concensus then a fork may be unavoidable. Constructive arguments are one thing, but continual pointless bickering is just that.

Watching to see how this develops. Good luck regardless of your decision!

BTC: 1DJVUnLuPA2bERTkyeir8bKn1eSoRCrYvx
NMC: NFcfHSBBnq622pAr1Xoh9KtnBPA5CUn6id
kentrolla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 06:59:33 PM
 #37

In all honesty I'm sorry to see this, and long term I envision these projects will diverge too much for there to be code going to and from each of them. It may well be that cgminer becomes the dead project and I'll stop maintaining it. Good luck.
plz don't stop maintaining cgminer. i love it. the only thing i would change about it is to add the option to mine with cpu.

iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
April 27, 2012, 09:12:54 PM
 #38

In all honesty I'm sorry to see this, and long term I envision these projects will diverge too much for there to be code going to and from each of them. It may well be that cgminer becomes the dead project and I'll stop maintaining it. Good luck.
plz don't stop maintaining cgminer. i love it. the only thing i would change about it is to add the option to mine with cpu.
you can, but you shouldn't

ummas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274


View Profile
April 28, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
 #39

After 4h of sleeping i finally got somme time to sit with my brand new ztex "Y" Smiley
For last rew months here i was using cgminer 2.0.6 with 2x5870 (prebuilt) and now, i cant remeber haw to buit bfgminer on my own. I`m following README guide, but just like before - linux hates me too :/

Code:
arek@arek-GNG:~/bfgminer-2.3.4$ ./autogen.sh
./autogen.sh: 8: aclocal: not found
i downloaded .zip, so ok, it`s not git.... ok... but:
Code:
arek@arek-GNG:~/bfgminer-2.3.4$ sudo CFLAGS="-O2 -Wall -march=native" ./configure
configure: error: cannot find install-sh, install.sh, or shtool in "." "./.." "./../.."
arek@arek-GNG:~/bfgminer-2.3.4$

any help here ??
ubuntu  11.04 10.10, sdk 11.6, sdk 2.4 - working perfectly with phoenix and cgminer 2.0.6 Smiley
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
April 28, 2012, 01:20:55 AM
 #40

aclocal is part of automake. Looks like autogen.sh somehow made the source tarball invalid. I'll be sure to check into it for next time :/

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »
  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!