Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:03:40 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 244948 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 12:58:13 PM
 #421

After 3 days of testing, I get better stability with the overclocker bitstream and 2.9.1 on my x6500s.
Any chance we could bisect the SICK problem on IRC sometime? Smiley

1480809820
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480809820

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480809820
Reply with quote  #2

1480809820
Report to moderator
1480809820
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480809820

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480809820
Reply with quote  #2

1480809820
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480809820
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480809820

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480809820
Reply with quote  #2

1480809820
Report to moderator
1480809820
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480809820

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480809820
Reply with quote  #2

1480809820
Report to moderator
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
 #422

Stats with --scrypt param still wrong for me in  2.9.3.


Regards
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 16, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
 #423

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

n4l3hp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 173


View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:05:04 AM
 #424

After 3 days of testing, I get better stability with the overclocker bitstream and 2.9.1 on my x6500s.
Any chance we could bisect the SICK problem on IRC sometime? Smiley

Ran 2.9.0 and overclocker bitstream for 12 hrs, it doesn't seem to affect the performance while using Chrome and other tasks unlike using the default bitstream included with 2.9.0 and 2.9.1 that seem to lower the performance of the FPGAs (not a problem on a dedicated mining machine, of course).

     

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.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:08:01 AM
 #425

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.

vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
 #426

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



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
 #427

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: 467



View Profile
November 17, 2012, 03:57:15 PM
 #428

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


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:40:25 PM
 #429

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: 1526


/dev/null


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
 #430

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


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 04:59:31 PM
 #431

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: 2086



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
 #432

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: 2086



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
 #433

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


View Profile
November 18, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
 #434

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: 2086



View Profile
November 18, 2012, 08:35:07 PM
 #435

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


View Profile
November 19, 2012, 12:56:11 AM
 #436

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



View Profile
November 20, 2012, 06:58:29 PM
 #437

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2012, 08:17:15 PM
 #438

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

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

Activity: 1918


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2012, 04:41:24 AM
 #439

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

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
mrb
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1106


View Profile WWW
November 21, 2012, 10:43:24 AM
 #440

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?
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!