Bitcoin Forum
April 21, 2019, 01:25:25 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: (OLD) BFGMiner: modular FPGA/GPU, GBT, Stratum, RPC, Avalon/Lnx/OpnWrt/PPA/W64  (Read 259094 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1012



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:08:01 AM
 #421

I'm thinking that the dynamic clocking of 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 (using the older bitstream doesn't help, still getting SICK and DEAD later on) is probably more aggressive compared to 2.9.0 and 2.9.1.
I don't think SICK/DEAD can be caused by the bitstream or dynclock code. This is something around the FT232R chip; unfortunately, the only change in this that I recall between 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 was a memory corruption bug. There were no changes to the dynamic clocking besides the default frequency.

1555853125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555853125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555853125
Reply with quote  #2

1555853125
Report to moderator
1555853125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555853125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555853125
Reply with quote  #2

1555853125
Report to moderator
100% New Software
PC, Mac, Android, & HTML5 Clients
Krill Rakeback
Low Rake
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
Bad Beat Jackpot
SwC Poker Relaunch
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1555853125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555853125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555853125
Reply with quote  #2

1555853125
Report to moderator
1555853125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555853125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555853125
Reply with quote  #2

1555853125
Report to moderator
1555853125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555853125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555853125
Reply with quote  #2

1555853125
Report to moderator
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 861
Merit: 331



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
 #422

Stats with --scrypt param still wrong for me in  2.9.3.
Is there an issue for this open on GitHub?

I download Windows version already comipiled, so nothing to try or check until next w32 binary release.

Regards
purelithium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
 #423

vitruvio, if you have a problem, you need to open an issue in github so the devs can troubleshoot it, as that is most likely where they look for the active issues when they are coding, rather than scouring forum threads.

Like my post? 1H7bfRYh7F89mfmFgsRCdn4awDaUHQmYqY
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 861
Merit: 331



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:57:15 PM
 #424

vitruvio, if you have a problem, you need to open an issue in github so the devs can troubleshoot it, as that is most likely where they look for the active issues when they are coding, rather than scouring forum threads.

I will.

Regards
JakeTri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:40:25 PM
 #425

Using latest win32 builds for bfgminer I start seeing virus warnings:

Here is the warning for 2.8.6 build:


and here is the one for 2.9.3:


I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.

Thanks,
Jake

BTC donations always welcome: 1JakeTriwbahMYp1rSfJbTn7Afd1w62p2q
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
 #426

Using latest win32 builds for bfgminer I start seeing virus warnings:

Here is the warning for 2.8.6 build:


and here is the one for 2.9.3:


I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.

Thanks,
Jake
pls just stfu... we dont need AV spam here seriously!

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
JakeTri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:59:31 PM
 #427

Using latest win32 builds for bfgminer I start seeing virus warnings:

Here is the warning for 2.8.6 build:
...
and here is the one for 2.9.3:
...

I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.

Thanks,
Jake
pls just stfu... we dont need AV spam here seriously!

I see this as a possible major issue if the AV warning prove to be valid ... Seriously!

If you do not see it this way then please just ignore it.

BTC donations always welcome: 1JakeTriwbahMYp1rSfJbTn7Afd1w62p2q
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1012



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
 #428

Using latest win32 builds for bfgminer I start seeing virus warnings:

Here is the warning for 2.8.6 build:
Please read the warning; I agree with it: "This is a potentially unwanted application. These are programs that computer users wish to be made aware of."
It's not saying BFGMiner is a virus, merely that users should be aware it's installed. Since some viruses tend to bundle miner programs, this seems quite reasonable.

I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.
Can you check again? If 2.8.5 really doesn't trigger this and 2.8.6 does, I imagine it should be easy to workaround.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1012



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
 #429

It's not saying BFGMiner is a virus, merely that users should be aware it's installed. Since some viruses tend to bundle miner programs, this seems quite reasonable.
What exactly you and ckolivas are using which causes AV software to trigger alarms? Miners can't work without those components, or it's just .exe and .dll packing method?
AV software looks for miners specifically.

JakeTri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
 #430

I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.
Can you check again? If 2.8.5 really doesn't trigger this and 2.8.6 does, I imagine it should be easy to workaround.

Sorry I think I was just lucky and as you said ... I do not use much the windows version but today I was trying to check something (the stats issue with --scrypt) and I jumped from 2.6.6 to 2.9.3 / 2.8.6 and I notice the warnings.

As you suggested I retested all versions from 2.8.0 to 2.8.6 and 2.9.0 to 2.9.3. See table below for the results ...

VersionTest result
2.6.6No Warnings
2.8.0Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.1Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.2Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.3New warning: "This is a known Trojan/Backdoor. It is recommended that you quarantine this threat."
2.8.4Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.5Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.6Warning with full description
2.9.0Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.1Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.2Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.3Same warning as 2.9.3

AV software looks for miners specifically.

I think this fully explain the warnings...

Sorry for the false alarm!

Jake

BTC donations always welcome: 1JakeTriwbahMYp1rSfJbTn7Afd1w62p2q
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1012



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 08:35:07 PM
 #431

I do not see any virus warning with previous versions. Last warning that I remember was long time ago and it was about the pdcurses.dll.
Can you check again? If 2.8.5 really doesn't trigger this and 2.8.6 does, I imagine it should be easy to workaround.

Sorry I think I was just lucky and as you said ... I do not use much the windows version but today I was trying to check something (the stats issue with --scrypt) and I jumped from 2.6.6 to 2.9.3 / 2.8.6 and I notice the warnings.

As you suggested I retested all versions from 2.8.0 to 2.8.6 and 2.9.0 to 2.9.3. See table below for the results ...

VersionTest result
2.6.6No Warnings
2.8.0Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.1Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.2Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.3New warning: "This is a known Trojan/Backdoor. It is recommended that you quarantine this threat."
2.8.4Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.5Same warning as 2.9.3
2.8.6Warning with full description
2.9.0Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.1Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.2Same warning as 2.9.3
2.9.3Same warning as 2.9.3
Can you elaborate on the 3(?) different warnings more? Maybe also figure out which was the last/first version to raise the warnings?

JakeTri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 19, 2012, 12:56:11 AM
 #432

Can you elaborate on the 3(?) different warnings more? Maybe also figure out which was the last/first version to raise the warnings?

Luke, here is the full screenshot with the error on 2.8.3:



I'll try to find some time tomorrow and check the last good / first bad version.

BTC donations always welcome: 1JakeTriwbahMYp1rSfJbTn7Afd1w62p2q
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 20, 2012, 06:58:29 PM
 #433

can one run bfgminer in windows 8 using a *.bat file?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 20, 2012, 08:17:15 PM
 #434

can one run bfgminer in windows 8 using a *.bat file?

nvm, i guess you can.
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 1045


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2012, 04:41:24 AM
 #435

start "BFG Miner BFL" bfgminer.exe -c cgminer.conf -S bitforce:\\.\COM3 -S bitforce:\\.\COM4

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2012, 10:43:24 AM
 #436

Abstract: getblocktemplate more wasteful than getwork

As a solo miner, I switched one of my FPGA hosts to bfgminer 2.9.3 in order to mine with getblocktemplate against bitcoind 0.7.1. This particular host has 37 FPGA devices (mixture of bfl singles, cm1's, icarus's) and I notice that bfgminer is sub-optimal: every 2-3 minutes, it does about 20-40 getblocktemplate calls in a row (1 for each FPGA device?). These 20-40 getblocktemplate calls amount to about 3-4MB total. So on average, getblocktemplate generates about 1-2 MB of network traffic per minute.

On the other hand, when mining with getwork, these 37 FPGA devices amount to about 15 Ghash/sec, so it generates about 4 getwork calls per second, or about 600 kB/minute as measured by a packet sniffer.

Bottom line, getblocktemplate as it is implemented in bfgminer causes my host to generate more network traffic than getwork (but fewer RPC calls). I haven't taken the time to read the code yet, but, Luke, isn't there something trivial to optimize to reduce the number of getblocktemplate calls?
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2786
Merit: 1151


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 21, 2012, 10:50:25 AM
 #437

mrb, seriously ... read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=14085.msg1349123#msg1349123

... and of course it is also way less traffic.

I dunno what bugs Luke-Jr was talking about he has in bfgminer, that he was mentioning in the cgminer thread, but try it all with stratum and cgminer and see for yourself.

Luke's already been told what the problems are with GBT and how to fix it but his response was along the lines of ... that's just an implementation issue ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1012



View Profile
November 21, 2012, 01:00:46 PM
 #438

Abstract: getblocktemplate more wasteful than getwork

As a solo miner, I switched one of my FPGA hosts to bfgminer 2.9.3 in order to mine with getblocktemplate against bitcoind 0.7.1. This particular host has 37 FPGA devices (mixture of bfl singles, cm1's, icarus's) and I notice that bfgminer is sub-optimal: every 2-3 minutes, it does about 20-40 getblocktemplate calls in a row (1 for each FPGA device?). These 20-40 getblocktemplate calls amount to about 3-4MB total. So on average, getblocktemplate generates about 1-2 MB of network traffic per minute.

On the other hand, when mining with getwork, these 37 FPGA devices amount to about 15 Ghash/sec, so it generates about 4 getwork calls per second, or about 600 kB/minute as measured by a packet sniffer.

Bottom line, getblocktemplate as it is implemented in bfgminer causes my host to generate more network traffic than getwork (but fewer RPC calls). I haven't taken the time to read the code yet, but, Luke, isn't there something trivial to optimize to reduce the number of getblocktemplate calls?
bitcoind is not intended for use of slow networks, and doesn't even attempt to minimize traffic. It also does not currently implement long-polling (though next-test has a patch to support it), so the template needs to be refreshed regularly in case of the old one being stale.

As you note, above matters with bitcoind aside, bfgminer does not implement GBT optimally at this time, since it is using code originally built around getwork; cgminer has bypassed the getwork paths for its GBT support, but also intentionally designed the GBT path to use more bandwidth (conman wants to make GBT look bad). Rewriting the pool networking code in bfgminer has been on my todo list for a while (mainly due to other problematic bugs in it), and hopefully I'll get to that before 3.0. But even without it, each template is still able to scale per device, so the problem of ASICs hashing much faster is still dealt with in practice.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2786
Merit: 1151


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 21, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
 #439

Abstract: getblocktemplate more wasteful than getwork

As a solo miner, I switched one of my FPGA hosts to bfgminer 2.9.3 in order to mine with getblocktemplate against bitcoind 0.7.1. This particular host has 37 FPGA devices (mixture of bfl singles, cm1's, icarus's) and I notice that bfgminer is sub-optimal: every 2-3 minutes, it does about 20-40 getblocktemplate calls in a row (1 for each FPGA device?). These 20-40 getblocktemplate calls amount to about 3-4MB total. So on average, getblocktemplate generates about 1-2 MB of network traffic per minute.

On the other hand, when mining with getwork, these 37 FPGA devices amount to about 15 Ghash/sec, so it generates about 4 getwork calls per second, or about 600 kB/minute as measured by a packet sniffer.

Bottom line, getblocktemplate as it is implemented in bfgminer causes my host to generate more network traffic than getwork (but fewer RPC calls). I haven't taken the time to read the code yet, but, Luke, isn't there something trivial to optimize to reduce the number of getblocktemplate calls?
bitcoind is not intended for use of slow networks, and doesn't even attempt to minimize traffic. It also does not currently implement long-polling (though next-test has a patch to support it), so the template needs to be refreshed regularly in case of the old one being stale.

As you note, above matters with bitcoind aside, bfgminer does not implement GBT optimally at this time, since it is using code originally built around getwork; cgminer has bypassed the getwork paths for its GBT support, but also intentionally designed the GBT path to use more bandwidth (conman wants to make GBT look bad). Rewriting the pool networking code in bfgminer has been on my todo list for a while (mainly due to other problematic bugs in it), and hopefully I'll get to that before 3.0. But even without it, each template is still able to scale per device, so the problem of ASICs hashing much faster is still dealt with in practice.

As per the discussion we had in #btcfpga not long ago where you already know the truth, yet you still try to spread lies ...

Spreading lies about people I guess is the only way you'll be able to get people to accept your piece of shit, crappy protocol that's worse than the old getwork in it's network usage and certainly no better performance for mining compared to getwork with any single device up to at least a few 100GH/s

What ckolivas did was make sure the GBT piece of shit was getting the same number of work requests as Stratum is receiving.

If that is called "intentionally designed the GBT path to use more bandwidth" then you seriously should not be allowed to go anywhere near the bitcoind software.
You already put botnet support in bitcoind 0.7.x so no doubt I'm not surprised at you telling people to make BTC transaction confirms worse.
You made transaction confirm times worse with your piece of crap pool for 5 months so the pool would make more BTC, so yeah it's not surprising.

Your above statement directly implies that using GBT means you negatively affect transaction confirm times and using Stratum is better for transaction confirm times since you are directly implying that GBT should be doing fewer work requests than Stratum sends the miner.

BTC is about transactions - go read Staoshi's paper if you are so stupid as to not understand that.
If no one confirms transactions, then BTC is dead.

Since you are directly implying that the GBT implementation in your clone miner negatively affects transaction confirm times compared to Stratum, then you are seriously saying that people SHOULD NOT be using it.
Though the argument itself is worse, since you are saying that the GBT protocol requires fewer work requests and thus negatively impacts transaction commit times compared to Stratum, and thus the protocol itself is to blame.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
TAiS46
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
November 23, 2012, 02:14:02 PM
 #440

Hey,

I have connected 8 BFL Singles.
With bitminter I can mine without any problems.
But if I use bfgminer, there will be only one of 8 used.

Also I cant access the menu of bfgminer.



any idea? running on ubuntu
bfgminer -o http://pool -u user -p password
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 »
  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!