|
Dotcommie
|
 |
January 26, 2015, 06:31:53 AM |
|
Yes, I was about to say the same thing. I had to wait about 6hrs for the first block, but it was also a booo. Don't think the current implementation is working. (at least for me) It also seems my rig with 970s are able to use -x 22 on the original spreadminer and they're only down maybe 50-100khs compared to the first beta. Patiently waiting for the next release, but in the meantime...anyone get an excepted share with SP's release yet? Curious to find out if it works for some but not all. |
|
|
|
|
bathrobehero
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1051
ICO? Not even once.
|
|
January 26, 2015, 07:44:52 AM |
|
I haven't got the email yet. Btw, both binaries and the source is being distributed?
|
Not your keys, not your coins!
|
|
|
sp_ (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
January 26, 2015, 08:08:06 AM |
|
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 10:05:50 AM |
|
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release. |
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 10:15:25 AM |
|
Something I noticed about the throughput values and it kinda makes sense too: Multiples of SMM count seem to work best for the -x parameter. 5 for 750 Ti, 13 for 970, 16 for 980. Only have 750s and a 970 to test with but 20 or 15 for 750 Ti and 13 or 26 for 970 seem to work well.
|
|
|
|
|
Epsylon3
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1122
ccminer/cpuminer developer
|
|
January 26, 2015, 10:34:38 AM |
|
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release. tsiv: I started to merge your spread code in ccminer, but without testnet or a pool, its hard to finalize it... I added the cpu part https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/tree/spreadx11i will rebase it on my final 1.5.2 |
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 11:34:57 AM |
|
Something I noticed about the throughput values and it kinda makes sense too: Multiples of SMM count seem to work best for the -x parameter. 5 for 750 Ti, 13 for 970, 16 for 980. Only have 750s and a 970 to test with but 20 or 15 for 750 Ti and 13 or 26 for 970 seem to work well.
Isn't that usually the case? Makes sense to me, just never really crossed my mind before. Still most if not every bit of ccminer code seems to just use a more or less arbitrary numbers for throughput. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to always base it on SMM count one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 11:41:37 AM
Last edit: January 26, 2015, 11:53:26 AM by tsiv |
|
I have found a bug in the hash. The problem is that tsivs code is missing verfication by the cpu before sending the results. Build 2 comming soon
Care to elaborate on the bug part? Might see if I CBA to fix it in the official release. tsiv: I started to merge your spread code in ccminer, but without testnet or a pool, its hard to finalize it... I added the cpu part https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/tree/spreadx11i will rebase it on my final 1.5.2 That CPU code seems to be just the X11 part of the hash though, completely ignoring the miner signature and whole block hash? And yea, I know exactly how annoying it is to test when your only method of verification is actually solving a block. I ended up hard coding it to work on a static block of input data that I knew the correct hash for until I got the damn thing working  Well, more or less working apparently. |
|
|
|
|
sp_ (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
January 26, 2015, 11:58:07 AM |
|
I will merge the original c code into the spreadcoin fork. the gpu finds a solution, it will be verified by the cpu. The current build have no verification done by the cpu.
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:15:05 PM |
|
I will merge the original c code into the spreadcoin fork. the gpu finds a solution, it will be verified by the cpu. The current build have no verification done by the cpu.
I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block. |
|
|
|
|
sp_ (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:19:39 PM |
|
I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block.
It is a bug in my version. I have replaced some of the kernals in the miner to give a small boost. When changing kernals, things can go wrong, and it would be helpful to have the cpu to doublecheck the result. |
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1093
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:20:11 PM |
|
wow ...
is it just me - or is it that you guys seem to be working together ANYWAY? ...
why dont you merge all the work that you have been doing ( yes i know - easier said than done ) and just work off one fork? ...
seems that each of you awesome devs can bring their own thing to the table - and improve ccminer to an unprecedented level ...
just my observation here guys ...
i know if i could employ you all under the one roof - thats exactly what would happen ...
#crysx
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:30:14 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:30:43 PM |
|
I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block.
It is a bug in my version. I have replaced some of the kernals in the miner to give a small boost. When changing kernals, things can go wrong, and it would be helpful to have the cpu to doublecheck the result. Aah, got it. Thought you found something wrong in the original. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dotcommie
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:38:28 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
tsiv
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:40:51 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about. Talking about the original, yep. Oh well, maybe my 970 is just jinxed  |
|
|
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
January 26, 2015, 12:48:39 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about. Talking about the original, yep. Oh well, maybe my 970 is just jinxed register pressure can do that at some extend. I had a similar problem with a previous version of keccak and compute 5.2 where none of the hash were getting validated due to some bad allocation (The content of the register wasn't what it was supposed to be... and the problem wasn't showing at compile time...) |
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
antonio8
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 26, 2015, 01:01:31 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
tsiv, I get 100% rejects on my 970 with your miner when finding blocks. Have since day one and never figured it out. The 750ti's does fine though. |
If you are going to leave your BTC on an exchange please send it to this address instead 1GH3ub3UUHbU5qDJW5u3E9jZ96ZEmzaXtG, I will at least use the money better than someone who steals it from the exchange. Thanks  |
|
|
djm34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
|
|
January 26, 2015, 01:18:20 PM |
|
On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder... [2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
tsiv, I get 100% rejects on my 970 with your miner when finding blocks. Have since day one and never figured it out. The 750ti's does fine though. a quick fix would be to recompile without compute_52 (if this is related) |
djm34 facebook pageBTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1093
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
January 26, 2015, 01:23:50 PM |
|
wow ...
is it just me - or is it that you guys seem to be working together ANYWAY? ...
why dont you merge all the work that you have been doing ( yes i know - easier said than done ) and just work off one fork? ...
seems that each of you awesome devs can bring their own thing to the table - and improve ccminer to an unprecedented level ...
just my observation here guys ...
i know if i could employ you all under the one roof - thats exactly what would happen ...
#crysx
Because then people would get his Spread miner for free? not necessarily wolf ... same situation applies - band together and make a private 'short' period for donors to the devs ... a dev pool if you will ... for a short period of time released only to the donors - as with the current sp spreadminer ( although i cant use that one as its not linux - but beside the point ) ... seems to work ... #crysx |
|
|
|
|
