how much is your speed with your pc Alberto?
My speed is no important, I get 1 Exakeys/s as far i can remember.
If i asked its because i want to buy new pc and need your advice for choose hardwares.
Topic: Keyhunt - development requests - bug reports - page 2. (Read 11571 times)
My speed is no important, I get 1 Exakeys/s as far i can remember.
If i asked its because i want to buy new pc and need your advice for choose hardwares.
how much is your speed with your pc Alberto?
My speed is no important, I get 1 Exakeys/s as far i can remember.
how much is your speed with your pc Alberto?
is there any recommended command with this server for faster speed?
I have no idea, btw the speed is not good, to be honest with you not even some hundreds exakeys are enough for this.
i have a server with 8 cores and 16gb Ram
Im using -t 8 -k 1024, the speed is 115 pkeys/s.
should I still using random mode or with this speed its good to use sequential mode?
is there any recommended command with this server for faster speed?
Im using -t 8 -k 1024, the speed is 115 pkeys/s.
should I still using random mode or with this speed its good to use sequential mode?
is there any recommended command with this server for faster speed?
May please explain alittle how random mode working? is it different every time we start random?
It is always random, check your self with the -M option
Thank you Alberto, the problem fixed now.
now , random mode is more useful or sequential mode?
is it good that we start at beginning of range or start from 10% or more of range?
now , random mode is more useful or sequential mode?
is it good that we start at beginning of range or start from 10% or more of range?
That depend of your target, for small ranges sequential is good, but for largest ranges random is the best choice.
May please explain alittle how random mode working? is it different every time we start random?
Thank you Alberto, the problem fixed now.
now , random mode is more useful or sequential mode?
is it good that we start at beginning of range or start from 10% or more of range?
now , random mode is more useful or sequential mode?
is it good that we start at beginning of range or start from 10% or more of range?
That depend of your target, for small ranges sequential is good, but for largest ranges random is the best choice.
I tried to test my speed with puzzle 120 which you put on github for test and thats working.
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
The issue may be some configuration of the WSL enviroment sometimes it is capped at a certain percentage of the Host RAM please check:
https://www.aleksandrhovhannisyan.com/blog/limiting-memory-usage-in-wsl-2/
Thank you Alberto, the problem fixed now.
now , random mode is more useful or sequential mode?
is it good that we start at beginning of range or start from 10% or more of range?
I tried to test my speed with puzzle 120 which you put on github for test and thats working.
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
The issue may be some configuration of the WSL enviroment sometimes it is capped at a certain percentage of the Host RAM please check:
https://www.aleksandrhovhannisyan.com/blog/limiting-memory-usage-in-wsl-2/
Thanks to Alberto for this nice tool
I tried to test my speed with puzzle 120 which you put on github for test and thats working.
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
I tried to test my speed with puzzle 120 which you put on github for test and thats working.
But when i try to start scan puzzle 130 the processing stuck in 0%
I changed the -k from 256 to 128 now thats working...
in windows -k 256 worked
There are 2 processors installed on the motherboard. The program only works with one. I specify all cores, but only one processor is used. The program can't work with multiple processors?
That depend of the Operating System.
It is not related the program.
There are 2 processors installed on the motherboard. The program only works with one. I specify all cores, but only one processor is used. The program can't work with multiple processors?
what about the idea run key hunter on bitminer/antminer hardware?
That is not possible
Miner Hardware only is capable to do sha256.
And key hunt process need sha256, rmd160, eliptic curve operations and some other math operations.
hey Alberto,
thanks for your outstanding work
what about the idea run key hunter on bitminer/antminer hardware?
thanks for your outstanding work
what about the idea run key hunter on bitminer/antminer hardware?
Please delete this if it's off-topic for this thread.
it is not a off-topic.
Yes there are some users who use up to 1TB of ram, as far i remember those get some tens of Exakeys/s but it is not enough for high bit puzzles
Hi all, Alberto,
Has anyone done tests of KeyHunt (and shared the results) with very large amount of ram - say 512GB - 1TB? I'm thinking of doing this myself to at least document the speed gains (relationship between the n and k values, and the speed reported). To my understanding, adding more ram will significantly increase the speed because you can use a higher n and k values. I believe adding more RAM is much more beneficial to adding more CPU power, but of course both are important.
Edit: I'm talking about BSGS mode, of course.
Please delete this if it's off-topic for this thread.
Has anyone done tests of KeyHunt (and shared the results) with very large amount of ram - say 512GB - 1TB? I'm thinking of doing this myself to at least document the speed gains (relationship between the n and k values, and the speed reported). To my understanding, adding more ram will significantly increase the speed because you can use a higher n and k values. I believe adding more RAM is much more beneficial to adding more CPU power, but of course both are important.
Edit: I'm talking about BSGS mode, of course.
Please delete this if it's off-topic for this thread.
If anyone is using keyhunt on an AMD processor, try compiling it with AOCC.
I got a +13% performance increase on Zen2 architecture compared to GCC-12, 13 and 14.
It would be interesting to see tests on Zen4 architecture.
https://www.amd.com/en/developer/aocc.html
I got a +13% performance increase on Zen2 architecture compared to GCC-12, 13 and 14.
It would be interesting to see tests on Zen4 architecture.
https://www.amd.com/en/developer/aocc.html
So I wanted to ask if there is a solution
I already told you a possible work around, select a specific range of the number of keys that you want to scan and do it sequentially instead of random.
If that doesn't work for you then nothing will work for you, MAKE YOUR OWN TESTS.
OK, i got you, yes the limit is the ram.
Then why no you just select your specific range and run it sequentially even with the small N it should works?
Then why no you just select your specific range and run it sequentially even with the small N it should works?
So I wanted to ask if there is a solution, my friend.
My computer scans 17592186044416 wallets in order, then selects a random order again and scans 17592186044416 wallets in order. I just asked if we can increase the number of wallets scanned.
I want it to scan 100000000000000000 wallets in order, then choose a random order again, and then scan 100000000000000000 wallets again. But since the amount of RAM is not enough, I wanted to ask you. Thank you for your answers. This program is amazing. I hope we will see new versions in the future.
Jump to: