I agree with the separate ports having different difficulties.
Implement the change and I will post results.
Topic: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable - page 29. (Read 67732 times)
August 12, 2017, 01:53:06 PM
August 12, 2017, 01:32:44 PM
Hey Crysx,
Thanks for accepting me to the beta test.
Before I start with my observations, let me post my setup.
I tested for SIGT with 6x Zotac GTX 1060 6GB Amp! Edition with pow:75%, CC:+175, MC: -400 and fan: 45%
And for the batch, I just changed to my pool login creds. leaving everything undisturbed. Intensity is auto assigned to 24 by the miner app.
The result bottom line: By far, this is the best miner I used for SIGT. With minor improvements, this could rule else all in the market.
Stats:
--------
1) It yields around 117-118 (with around 19+MH/s on each) consistently with the above setup. Though I wouldn't agree about the efficiency yet (which I will speak in the next point), it runs pretty stable with this setup for hours (or close to a day max on my test).
2) Starts of with more shares at low diff and as the diff increases, the time taken to find shares increase as well. Though this is natural, I see the rig waiting for 7-8 minutes to find 1 share which I felt was little longer. However, I see you already replied with your proposition of a solution of lowering the diff for both lowdiff and highdiff. This seems to be a good Idea. But I really could not figure out if 6x 1060 should be a low diff or high diff. This may sound navie but believe me, there would be many who'd be wondering what they want to use. A clarity (or an example may be in the read me) on up to what could be considered low diff and high diff would reduce the pressure on the pool and would also help solve blocks better. Please go ahead with proposed diff setup.
3) Although stable at some good OCs, it still crashes may be like after some hours, I don't have any watchdog implemented to watch my rig. So if something happens in the night while I sleep, I would be loosing some golden hours (which happened 2-3 times). effective implementation of a watchdog that understands while something goes wrong (in terms of GPU crash, miner errors, connectivity issues to the pool, etc.) and restarts the miner/system would be an amazing addition.
4) It starts with 1 or 2 GPUs at the start but takes plenty of time to get the remaining cards loaded and running. Is that designed that way to avoid crash?
[EDIT] 5) The power see-saw thing - I too happened to see (I left it to the miner app to decide but tuned AB to the above settings). I read your comment on another reply which states "the miner itself tries to create the 'perfect' scenario for mining IF you have those settings active ... take them off - and you will see that there will be a constant regular power consumption and mining", firstly, I don't have any temp setting in the miner and I have the see-saw power issues too. it would be great if you could let us know how to take them off. And if we take them off, would it affect the monitoring? whats the trade-off doing so?
I understand this is how beta works and I believe, it will improve from what it already is. I am continuing my miners in your pool with 0.9.8 at the moment
. Unlike some greedy devs (I think you will understand whom I refer to. You name it 
), it's good to see that very few devs like you doesn't be greedy with the knowledge but trying to give something back to the community (with minimal fee/donation which IS still necessary to get your R&D labs to a better place which could help you with better test cases there by yielding a better miner, a win win). Good luck to more releases to come.
PS: I would like to know your view on the panic happening with SIGT at the moment.
Thanks for accepting me to the beta test.
Before I start with my observations, let me post my setup.
I tested for SIGT with 6x Zotac GTX 1060 6GB Amp! Edition with pow:75%, CC:+175, MC: -400 and fan: 45%
And for the batch, I just changed to my pool login creds. leaving everything undisturbed. Intensity is auto assigned to 24 by the miner app.
The result bottom line: By far, this is the best miner I used for SIGT. With minor improvements, this could rule else all in the market.
Stats:
--------
1) It yields around 117-118 (with around 19+MH/s on each) consistently with the above setup. Though I wouldn't agree about the efficiency yet (which I will speak in the next point), it runs pretty stable with this setup for hours (or close to a day max on my test).
2) Starts of with more shares at low diff and as the diff increases, the time taken to find shares increase as well. Though this is natural, I see the rig waiting for 7-8 minutes to find 1 share which I felt was little longer. However, I see you already replied with your proposition of a solution of lowering the diff for both lowdiff and highdiff. This seems to be a good Idea. But I really could not figure out if 6x 1060 should be a low diff or high diff. This may sound navie but believe me, there would be many who'd be wondering what they want to use. A clarity (or an example may be in the read me) on up to what could be considered low diff and high diff would reduce the pressure on the pool and would also help solve blocks better. Please go ahead with proposed diff setup.
3) Although stable at some good OCs, it still crashes may be like after some hours, I don't have any watchdog implemented to watch my rig. So if something happens in the night while I sleep, I would be loosing some golden hours (which happened 2-3 times). effective implementation of a watchdog that understands while something goes wrong (in terms of GPU crash, miner errors, connectivity issues to the pool, etc.) and restarts the miner/system would be an amazing addition.
4) It starts with 1 or 2 GPUs at the start but takes plenty of time to get the remaining cards loaded and running. Is that designed that way to avoid crash?
[EDIT] 5) The power see-saw thing - I too happened to see (I left it to the miner app to decide but tuned AB to the above settings). I read your comment on another reply which states "the miner itself tries to create the 'perfect' scenario for mining IF you have those settings active ... take them off - and you will see that there will be a constant regular power consumption and mining", firstly, I don't have any temp setting in the miner and I have the see-saw power issues too. it would be great if you could let us know how to take them off. And if we take them off, would it affect the monitoring? whats the trade-off doing so?
I understand this is how beta works and I believe, it will improve from what it already is. I am continuing my miners in your pool with 0.9.8 at the moment
. Unlike some greedy devs (I think you will understand whom I refer to. You name it ), it's good to see that very few devs like you doesn't be greedy with the knowledge but trying to give something back to the community (with minimal fee/donation which IS still necessary to get your R&D labs to a better place which could help you with better test cases there by yielding a better miner, a win win). Good luck to more releases to come. PS: I would like to know your view on the panic happening with SIGT at the moment.
August 12, 2017, 01:29:21 PM
I will write this just. It might be a small bug i seen.
When i started miner several times and after restart also, it always initialized only 2x GPU from 7. 7 were shown in device manager and in after burner, but when i started miner only gpu 2 and 6 shown hashrate, rest were stuck on 0.
Then i cancled miner for 5th time, went alt tab to do something, tried run miner again and it worked. Dunno why it didnt recognized my GPU-s right away.
This is my .bat file:
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
cwigm -c sigt -u Brucelats.Zotacx7_SIGT -p x --cpu-priority=3 -i 22 --tlimit=65,65,65,65,65,65,65
pause
I used exact same on my other rigs with 5 6 7 GPU-s, only changed temp limits a bit and worker name and they all worked. Only thing that is speciffic to this rig that had problems is, it had all the same GPU-s and that are Zotac GTX 1070 AMP! Extreme. Rest have mix, or at least 1 card is different. Cheers!
When i started miner several times and after restart also, it always initialized only 2x GPU from 7. 7 were shown in device manager and in after burner, but when i started miner only gpu 2 and 6 shown hashrate, rest were stuck on 0.
Then i cancled miner for 5th time, went alt tab to do something, tried run miner again and it worked. Dunno why it didnt recognized my GPU-s right away.
This is my .bat file:
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
cwigm -c sigt -u Brucelats.Zotacx7_SIGT -p x --cpu-priority=3 -i 22 --tlimit=65,65,65,65,65,65,65
pause
I used exact same on my other rigs with 5 6 7 GPU-s, only changed temp limits a bit and worker name and they all worked. Only thing that is speciffic to this rig that had problems is, it had all the same GPU-s and that are Zotac GTX 1070 AMP! Extreme. Rest have mix, or at least 1 card is different. Cheers!
first - remove all the setx environment parameters ...
they are really only used for sgminer / amd settings ...
cuda settings are usually set within the environment when you install the nvidia driver - and there is no need to set those environment parameter for nvidia cards ... you will see the same hashrate and results when you remove them ...
second - why --tlimit? ...
CWIgm is a unique miner ... try without that parameter and restart ...
you may want to try adding --lodiff to access the lower difficulty port also ... at least test it -until the port changes take place ( if they take place ) ...
let us know that all goes ...
#crysx
August 12, 2017, 01:15:44 PM
I will write this just. It might be a small bug i seen.
When i started miner several times and after restart also, it always initialized only 2x GPU from 7. 7 were shown in device manager and in after burner, but when i started miner only gpu 2 and 6 shown hashrate, rest were stuck on 0.
Then i cancled miner for 5th time, went alt tab to do something, tried run miner again and it worked. Dunno why it didnt recognized my GPU-s right away.
This is my .bat file:
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
cwigm -c sigt -u Brucelats.Zotacx7_SIGT -p x --cpu-priority=3 -i 22 --tlimit=65,65,65,65,65,65,65
pause
I used exact same on my other rigs with 5 6 7 GPU-s, only changed temp limits a bit and worker name and they all worked. Only thing that is speciffic to this rig that had problems is, it had all the same GPU-s and that are Zotac GTX 1070 AMP! Extreme. Rest have mix, or at least 1 card is different. Cheers!
When i started miner several times and after restart also, it always initialized only 2x GPU from 7. 7 were shown in device manager and in after burner, but when i started miner only gpu 2 and 6 shown hashrate, rest were stuck on 0.
Then i cancled miner for 5th time, went alt tab to do something, tried run miner again and it worked. Dunno why it didnt recognized my GPU-s right away.
This is my .bat file:
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
cwigm -c sigt -u Brucelats.Zotacx7_SIGT -p x --cpu-priority=3 -i 22 --tlimit=65,65,65,65,65,65,65
pause
I used exact same on my other rigs with 5 6 7 GPU-s, only changed temp limits a bit and worker name and they all worked. Only thing that is speciffic to this rig that had problems is, it had all the same GPU-s and that are Zotac GTX 1070 AMP! Extreme. Rest have mix, or at least 1 card is different. Cheers!
August 12, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
August 12, 2017, 12:21:54 PM
Do you have plans for future to have open miner? not lock for specific pool. Maybe with some fee.
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work
we have been asked this multiple times ...
currently there are no plans to release an unlocked miner ... we lock it to our pools so we get NO other interference with issues outside of our own ... which is why its a closed beta ...
there are hacked versions out there - and we will not support any one of them ... we cannot infect our closed environment with external issue - no matter how small they are ...
as for a fee version - we are trying to work against that ... a fee free miner is a better miner - but the pool we have setup is also being tuned ( and ultimately all algos will be tuned ) to the pool / stratum for the best performance ... we intend on having more than just a 'miner' ...
at the moment - there are many other unlocked miners out there for the taking ... we advice against using any form of hacked version of our miner - and it will be entirely at your risk if you ...
CWIgm will become a miner that will automate so much more than just the algo / coin ... which is why it is required to be consistent in its output and in a controlled environment ... and with the additional module we are incorporating into CWIgm - as well as the optimization of the algos it supports - will mean we will continue to require a strict grasp on what the miner does in our own environment ...
in saying that - ANYTHING can change ... this is afterall a beta test ...
#crysx
August 12, 2017, 12:10:47 PM
Getting this kind of error every now and then "[17:01:03][GPU0]:Invalid nonce" on the right side of the miner. 4x past 1½h. Everything works and all but just figured to post about it.
EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.
EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.
well ...
the --max-temp parameter is an experimental parameter - and does work but will pause your miner for milliseconds at a time to 'cool' the gpu ... this causes seesaw power consumption ( ie - high then low then high ) among other things ... this is great for those in a very high temp environment and dont mind losing a small bit hash - but not if you dont need to ...
if you want the miner to run constantly - remove that setting ...
-d 0 is a setting that will only force gpu device number 2 to run ... and only that card ... if you have more cards and want to run them also - then do so ...
--pstate is a ccminer parameter - and even though we adopted a few parameters from ccminer and sgminer for compatibility reasons - we created a number of our own parameters as well ... under normal circumstances - this will not force it to stay in pstate 0 mode ... but please double check that - as some windows users do run in administrator profiles ...
if you are overclocking - lower it ...
see what happens when you mess around with the settings and tweak them so the miner can run more consistently ... and hopefully less / or none invalid nonces ...
we are working on this also ...
#crysx
August 12, 2017, 12:04:03 PM
VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:1.64% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:30:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 21076.7 | Block: 35136 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 269.506 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.24 | Shares: 3519.78 | Rej: 0.588878% | Speed: 175.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 589.07 | Rej: 4.91 | Speed: 29.13MH/s|
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 620.8 | Rej: 3.86 | Speed: 29.31MH/s|
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 618.98 | Rej: 5 | Speed: 29.45MH/s|
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 543.51 | Rej: 1.82 | Speed: 29.07MH/s|
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 592.34 | Rej: 2.83 | Speed: 29.44MH/s|
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 555.08 | Rej: 2.43 | Speed: 29.61MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1899Mhz |
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C | F:59% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:48C | F:49% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1927Mhz |
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1894Mhz |
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1931Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501 | [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340 | )
[12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4 | [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c | )
[12:29:06]Share: b1511593 | [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:36]Share: a6845026 | )
[12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931 | [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab | )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me. this is excellent...
that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted.
_________\ \ \____\ /| \ \_\ \ Y Y \ __________
\______ / \/\_/ |__|\______ /__|_| / /
\/ \/ \/ /
VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU: 0% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:40:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 20220.5 | Block: 35151 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 40.8193 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.12 | Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 0.52666% | Speed: 29.79M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 3.3 | Speed: 29.03MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:54C | F:72% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1950Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9 | [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt
[12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1 | ed
[12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2 | [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum
[12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7 | .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C
[12:36:31]Share: 86e53529 | onnection refused
[12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4 | [06:16:32]Retry in 30s
[12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3 | [06:17:29]Retry in 30s
[12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9 | [06:19:34]Retry in 30s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs.
for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc. the issue is participation. and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently.
at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs. if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block. 2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm.
multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for. i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now.
like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back
CPU:1.64% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:30:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 21076.7 | Block: 35136 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 269.506 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.24 | Shares: 3519.78 | Rej: 0.588878% | Speed: 175.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 589.07 | Rej: 4.91 | Speed: 29.13MH/s|
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 620.8 | Rej: 3.86 | Speed: 29.31MH/s|
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 618.98 | Rej: 5 | Speed: 29.45MH/s|
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 543.51 | Rej: 1.82 | Speed: 29.07MH/s|
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 592.34 | Rej: 2.83 | Speed: 29.44MH/s|
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 555.08 | Rej: 2.43 | Speed: 29.61MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1899Mhz |
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C | F:59% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:48C | F:49% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1927Mhz |
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1894Mhz |
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1931Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501 | [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340 | )
[12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4 | [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c | )
[12:29:06]Share: b1511593 | [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:36]Share: a6845026 | )
[12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931 | [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab | )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me. this is excellent...
that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted.
_________\ \ \____\ /| \ \_\ \ Y Y \ __________
\______ / \/\_/ |__|\______ /__|_| / /
\/ \/ \/ /
VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU: 0% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:40:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 20220.5 | Block: 35151 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 40.8193 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.12 | Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 0.52666% | Speed: 29.79M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 3.3 | Speed: 29.03MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:54C | F:72% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1950Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9 | [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt
[12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1 | ed
[12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2 | [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum
[12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7 | .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C
[12:36:31]Share: 86e53529 | onnection refused
[12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4 | [06:16:32]Retry in 30s
[12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3 | [06:17:29]Retry in 30s
[12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9 | [06:19:34]Retry in 30s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs.
for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc. the issue is participation. and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently.
at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs. if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block. 2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm.
multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for. i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now.
like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back
August 12, 2017, 11:53:19 AM
Sent a PM!
Want to try this miner
Cheers!
Want to try this miner
Cheers!
August 12, 2017, 09:50:15 AM
Growing concerned with the pool... I have over 60k of shares submitted my unconfirmed share is staying at 0 and my confirmed is also not going up!
EDIT: nvm pool works slightly different to my previous pool
EDIT: nvm pool works slightly different to my previous pool
August 12, 2017, 09:46:16 AM
Do you have plans for future to have open miner? not lock for specific pool. Maybe with some fee.
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work
August 12, 2017, 09:42:47 AM
my initial observation upon using the miner;
Rig 1
OS: Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 6x 1060 6gb
Total Speed: 116.20
OC: MSI AB - PL 70, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75
using SPMod3:
Total Speed: 111.26
Rig 2
OS: Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 1070 mini 8GB Solo Mining
Total Speed: 27.19
OC: MSI AB - PL 75, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75
using ccminer_skunk_krnlx
Total Speed: 27.11
Its obvious that 1060 benefits with CWI, but on 1070 they're almost the same in performance. I'll continue observe the performance of this new miner.
Rig 1
OS: Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 6x 1060 6gb
Total Speed: 116.20
OC: MSI AB - PL 70, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75
using SPMod3:
Total Speed: 111.26
Rig 2
OS: Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 1070 mini 8GB Solo Mining
Total Speed: 27.19
OC: MSI AB - PL 75, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75
using ccminer_skunk_krnlx
Total Speed: 27.11
Its obvious that 1060 benefits with CWI, but on 1070 they're almost the same in performance. I'll continue observe the performance of this new miner.
August 12, 2017, 09:40:33 AM
Reporting testing results:
ver 0.9.8 on OS win 7 64
GTX 970 75% power limit +160 core clock
17.3 MH/s // 0.135MH/s/W
GTX 970 65% power limit +160 core clock
16.27 MH/s // 0.147MH/s/W
GTX 970 58% power limit +160 core
14.41 MH/s // 0.141MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 75% power limit +160 core clock
36.2 MH/s // 0.276MH/s/W
GTX 1080 65% power limit +160 core clock
34.06 MH/s // 0.307MH/s/W
GTX 1080 50% power limit +160 core clock
29.32 MH/s // 0.326MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 Ti 75% power limit +160 core clock
52.19 MH/s // 0.296MH/s/W
GTX 1080 Ti 65% power limit +160 core clock
49.6 MH/s // 0.318MH/s/W
GTX 1080 Ti 50% power limit +160 core clock
43.6 MH/s // 0.355MH/s/W
------------------------------------------
Power limit are for testing purpose based on MH/s/W
ver 0.9.8 on OS win 7 64
GTX 970 75% power limit +160 core clock
17.3 MH/s // 0.135MH/s/W
GTX 970 65% power limit +160 core clock
16.27 MH/s // 0.147MH/s/W
GTX 970 58% power limit +160 core
14.41 MH/s // 0.141MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 75% power limit +160 core clock
36.2 MH/s // 0.276MH/s/W
GTX 1080 65% power limit +160 core clock
34.06 MH/s // 0.307MH/s/W
GTX 1080 50% power limit +160 core clock
29.32 MH/s // 0.326MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 Ti 75% power limit +160 core clock
52.19 MH/s // 0.296MH/s/W
GTX 1080 Ti 65% power limit +160 core clock
49.6 MH/s // 0.318MH/s/W
GTX 1080 Ti 50% power limit +160 core clock
43.6 MH/s // 0.355MH/s/W
------------------------------------------
Power limit are for testing purpose based on MH/s/W
August 12, 2017, 09:22:00 AM
I would like to try, too pm is out
pm is out August 12, 2017, 09:16:43 AM
Getting this kind of error every now and then "[17:01:03][GPU0]:Invalid nonce" on the right side of the miner. 4x past 1½h. Everything works and all but just figured to post about it.
EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.
EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.
August 12, 2017, 08:59:21 AM
I would like to try also ... 
August 12, 2017, 08:56:44 AM
I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!
im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...
but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...
the imbeciles and their minions ...
i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...
so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...
#crysx
No problem, appreciate your attention to detail
Hope those idoits go away!
hi crysx,
your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.
your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.
two more pages of requests left ...
getting there
...#crysx
Eagerly awaiting for the miner
all good Supercoiner111 ...
just finished ...
if this continues at 70 per day - i wont have a life ...
...now - back to testing the bitcore pool ... and assigning it on the list of pools available ...
#crysx
Thanks for sending over the closed beta invite. The miner is great a boost of 10 MH/s in comparison to the traditional ccminer and that is for all my 6 x 1070, great job! The OC setting are the same as CCminer I will leave it for a day to check the stability and return. This is great I see myself sticking with the pool and the miner!
Awesome work, I will spread the word to the DNR community, keep it up!
August 12, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
can't wait for 0.9.9 please make it ready fast.
August 12, 2017, 08:34:41 AM
I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!
im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...
but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...
the imbeciles and their minions ...
i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...
so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...
#crysx
No problem, appreciate your attention to detail
Hope those idoits go away!
hi crysx,
your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.
your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.
two more pages of requests left ...
getting there
...#crysx
Eagerly awaiting for the miner
all good Supercoiner111 ...
just finished ...
if this continues at 70 per day - i wont have a life ...
...now - back to testing the bitcore pool ... and assigning it on the list of pools available ...
#crysx
August 12, 2017, 08:29:35 AM
So far so good. Getting highest hashrate out of all miners(few sp-mods and krnlx miner) that I've tested. 
Thanks for the beta-invite!
https://i.imgur.com/3UqmQGX.png
Thanks for the beta-invite!https://i.imgur.com/3UqmQGX.png
Jump to: