CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[scotte]

Compiled 1.5.32 on linux OK after changing the realtime stuff for windows only as descibed a few pages back. Also had to stop cuda complaining about my gcc being > 4.8, just changed the include file to accept a minor rev of 9 instead of 8

works fine on quarkcoin, got 6 coins in few hours this morning - GTX850M at around 4600 khash/s

spreadcoin mining not working:
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 1 miner thread started, using 'spread' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] JSON inval data
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 127.0.0.1:41677 spread block 241465
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds

compiled tsiv's spreadminer 0.1 that seems to be working, so my wallet must be ok?
[2015-01-27 12:40:26] 1 miner threads started, using 'spreadx11' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:40:27] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 850M, 1173 khash/s

commandline options for both miners was the same other than "-a spread" for sp_hash's miner

I'm completely new to this, so feel free to tell me to go off and read whatever if thats what I need to do

[1714674699]

1714674699

[1714674699]

1714674699

[chrysophylax]

Compiled 1.5.32 on linux OK after changing the realtime stuff for windows only as descibed a few pages back. Also had to stop cuda complaining about my gcc being > 4.8, just changed the include file to accept a minor rev of 9 instead of 8

works fine on quarkcoin, got 6 coins in few hours this morning - GTX850M at around 4600 khash/s

spreadcoin mining not working:
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 1 miner thread started, using 'spread' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] JSON inval data
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 127.0.0.1:41677 spread block 241465
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds

compiled tsiv's spreadminer 0.1 that seems to be working, so my wallet must be ok?
[2015-01-27 12:40:26] 1 miner threads started, using 'spreadx11' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:40:27] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 850M, 1173 khash/s

commandline options for both miners was the same other than "-a spread" for sp_hash's miner

I'm completely new to this, so feel free to tell me to go off and read whatever if thats what I need to do

are you talking about sp's ccminer downlaoded from git v 1.5.32?

if so - that doesnt have the spreadx11 algo implemented ...

#crysx

[scotte]

Compiled 1.5.32 on linux OK after changing the realtime stuff for windows only as descibed a few pages back. Also had to stop cuda complaining about my gcc being > 4.8, just changed the include file to accept a minor rev of 9 instead of 8

works fine on quarkcoin, got 6 coins in few hours this morning - GTX850M at around 4600 khash/s

spreadcoin mining not working:
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 1 miner thread started, using 'spread' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] JSON inval data
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 127.0.0.1:41677 spread block 241465
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds

compiled tsiv's spreadminer 0.1 that seems to be working, so my wallet must be ok?
[2015-01-27 12:40:26] 1 miner threads started, using 'spreadx11' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:40:27] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 850M, 1173 khash/s

commandline options for both miners was the same other than "-a spread" for sp_hash's miner

I'm completely new to this, so feel free to tell me to go off and read whatever if thats what I need to do

are you talking about sp's ccminer downlaoded from git v 1.5.32?

if so - that doesnt have the spreadx11 algo implemented ...

#crysx

yes it was from git, that explains it. thanks, just playing with this stuff, not sure I can do anything worthwhile on a laptop anyway

[chrysophylax]

Compiled 1.5.32 on linux OK after changing the realtime stuff for windows only as descibed a few pages back. Also had to stop cuda complaining about my gcc being > 4.8, just changed the include file to accept a minor rev of 9 instead of 8

works fine on quarkcoin, got 6 coins in few hours this morning - GTX850M at around 4600 khash/s

spreadcoin mining not working:
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 1 miner thread started, using 'spread' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] JSON inval data
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] 127.0.0.1:41677 spread block 241465
[2015-01-27 12:42:53] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds

compiled tsiv's spreadminer 0.1 that seems to be working, so my wallet must be ok?
[2015-01-27 12:40:26] 1 miner threads started, using 'spreadx11' algorithm.
[2015-01-27 12:40:27] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 850M, 1173 khash/s

commandline options for both miners was the same other than "-a spread" for sp_hash's miner

I'm completely new to this, so feel free to tell me to go off and read whatever if thats what I need to do

are you talking about sp's ccminer downlaoded from git v 1.5.32?

if so - that doesnt have the spreadx11 algo implemented ...

#crysx

yes it was from git, that explains it. thanks, just playing with this stuff, not sure I can do anything worthwhile on a laptop anyway

the spreadx11 miner is private at the moment - for donors to sp ( .1btc ) ...

only issue is that sp is only releasing the windows version of the miner for now ...

so if you have a windows machine that you want to test with - then donate and get the miner from sp ( as long as sp still is willing to do that of course - contact him and find out ) ...

but quark is still very profitable compared to a lot of other algos if you are hashing with yaamp and other multi-algo site ...

#crysx

[bathrobehero]

but quark is still very profitable compared to a lot of other algos if you are hashing with yaamp and other multi-algo site ...

#crysx

It is however it is worth noting that there isn't much volume behind the coins which shoot the price up momentarily. I'm talking about MonetaryUnit which doubled in price but only have $14 volume and Dimecoin which also only have $16 volume.

[chrysophylax]

but quark is still very profitable compared to a lot of other algos if you are hashing with yaamp and other multi-algo site ...

#crysx

It is however it is worth noting that there isn't much volume behind the coins which shoot the price up momentarily. I'm talking about MonetaryUnit which doubled in price but only have $14 volume and Dimecoin which also only have $16 volume.

agreed ...

though on face value - the payout can be higher than most ...

it fluctuates obviously - but ive seen mostly that quark and neoscrypt seem to be more 'profitable' on yaamp than most other algorithms ...

currently its neoscrypt ...

#crysx

[frazier34567]

Are any of you guys running the new miner on Windows 8.1?

Yes.

I get this error when I try to run it:

0xc000007b

Did you ever encounter anything as such?

Need Cudart32_65.dll file in that folder or installing cuda 6.5 sdk on your system.

[AliMan]

Are any of you guys running the new miner on Windows 8.1?

Yes.

I get this error when I try to run it:

0xc000007b

Did you ever encounter anything as such?

Need Cudart32_65.dll file in that folder or installing cuda 6.5 sdk on your system.

Thanks for the response.

Yea I have that in the same folder, when I run tsiv's miner, it runs fine, but with sp's, I get this error.

[scryptr]

QUARK --

There are 500 miners on Yaamp mining quark now, over 1gh/s volume.       --scryptr

[italeffect]

What's the power consumption look like on the spreadcoin miner? Comparable to x11?

[italeffect]

QUARK --

There are 500 miners on Yaamp mining quark now, over 1gh/s volume.       --scryptr

I keep getting disconnected on YAAMP quark today but x11, etc. seems to be fine. Maybe overloaded?

[tsiv]

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...

Code:

[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...)

Well, I went ahead and added CPU verification into the original spreadminer. Running in benchmark mode quickly shows if things are working or not. And the verdict for my 970 is that it doesn't work. Windows binary is still in build and will be added later, fuck compiling shavite for four different targets.

The weird part is that people, including me, have been successfully running it on 970s and now suddenly it's all "no, fuck you dad." Maybe some driver upgrade messed something up..? Hnnngh, do I really need to register as a super official extremely important CUDA developer to see if compiling with CUDA 7.0 would make any difference...

Edit: Win32 binary up at https://github.com/tsiv/spreadminer/releases/tag/v0.1r3 and source at https://github.com/tsiv/spreadminer as always

[opper]

Hmm, strange ... I have 2 rigs with 970s - one with 6 cards and one with 5 cards. They both seem to find block on a regular bases without any rejected issues. Driver is 344.75

[Dotcommie]

Hmm, strange ... I have 2 rigs with 970s - one with 6 cards and one with 5 cards. They both seem to find block on a regular bases without any rejected issues. Driver is 344.75

I'd say it's the driver, but I don't think I've mined spread with the older drivers and I had no rejects until a couple days ago. I set my 2 970s back to default instead of -x 13, but so far no rejects or accepts.  Had 1 earlier when I had it at 13.  Just shooting in the dark now though.

[scryptr]

QUARK --

There are 500 miners on Yaamp mining quark now, over 1gh/s volume.       --scryptr

I keep getting disconnected on YAAMP quark today but x11, etc. seems to be fine. Maybe overloaded?

Same thing here!  Maybe you are right.  From 10-12 miners a few weeks ago...        --scryptr

[bathrobehero]

#3:



edited

[tsiv]

Hmm, strange ... I have 2 rigs with 970s - one with 6 cards and one with 5 cards. They both seem to find block on a regular bases without any rejected issues. Driver is 344.75

I also had 344.75 and was getting pretty much 100% crap. Upgraded to 347.25 and running with -x 13:



Not exactly great but seems a bit better. Trying to get hold of CUDA 7.0 to try it out, might be a while.

Also made the found block notification a lot less noisy in the latest release, that huge dump was intended for debugging and I just didn't realize it was getting printed even when not running with -D.

[scotte]

QUARK --

There are 500 miners on Yaamp mining quark now, over 1gh/s volume.       --scryptr

I keep getting disconnected on YAAMP quark today but x11, etc. seems to be fine. Maybe overloaded?

Same thing here!  Maybe you are right.  From 10-12 miners a few weeks ago...        --scryptr

I'm running a script that cycles through different algos on YAAMP so that in theory the pool gets me to mine the most profitable using  "-p x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2"  to tell the pool what I can do
earlier today I was getting lots of rejects on quark, sometimes down to 10% accept rate main reason was "job not found", now its much better, 90% accept and higher,  the rejects are "duplicate share" so I assume the earlier problem was not down to my miner but more a fault of the pool/network that has been fixed.
 The only other algos YAAMP wanted me to mine were X13 and X14 the others were skipped, I get less rejects with those.
Now it still disconnects with stratum_recv_line failed every so often on quark ,5-30 mins range, skips all the other algos and goes right back to quark. I might as well just run quark only to get rid of the delays induced by failing the others.

[bathrobehero]

I'm running a script that cycles through different algos on YAAMP so that in theory the pool gets me to mine the most profitable using  "-p x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2"

Does that actually grant you higher payouts at the end of the day? I'd imagine constant switching is just lagging behind what was profitable. And the more people use a script like it the worse it gets.

Edit: CPU validation errors are still there with v4.

[scotte]

I'm running a script that cycles through different algos on YAAMP so that in theory the pool gets me to mine the most profitable using  "-p x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2"

Does that actually grant you higher payouts at the end of the day? I'd imagine constant switching is just lagging behind what was profitable. And the more people use a script like it the worse it gets.

Edit: CPU validation errors are still there with v4.

<--- look at my stats, I'm a newbie. This is the 1st day. I will try single algos and see what difference I get, my wallet is not synced yet. I'd assume that the pool calculates what profitable and switches you to it. At the moment its X14 (alipaycoin) and quark (a mixture) no idea they really are the best, though I see many more people are on X11, going to try a few different things over the next few days and see what happens.