Your crash is with time stamp 1324309652 which is Dec 19 2011. You are using older binaries.
Alright, it was indeed a while since I tried.
I'll try again today/tomorrow when I get home with the latest binaries.
Topic: An (even more) optimized version of cpuminer (pooler's cpuminer, CPU-only) - page 62. (Read 1958546 times)
January 16, 2012, 08:41:39 AM
Alright, it was indeed a while since I tried.
I'll try again today/tomorrow when I get home with the latest binaries.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
January 16, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
Your crash is with time stamp 1324309652 which is Dec 19 2011. You are using older binaries.
January 16, 2012, 08:07:33 AM
Because you trying to run the 64-bit minerd.exe process with the 32-bit pthreadGC2.dll as far as I can see
How can I fix? This was some time ago, but I do believe I took one complete binary from the top of this thread and ran it, I didn't inject any DLLs of my own into it.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
January 16, 2012, 08:05:38 AM
Because you trying to run the 64-bit minerd.exe process with the 32-bit pthreadGC2.dll OR you are trying to run an old version of minerd by double clicking it. i.e no arguments in which case it will crash due to an uninitialized mutex lock.
I believe it to be the latter!
I believe it to be the latter!
January 16, 2012, 07:13:41 AM
Can anyone help me with my question posted above?
Quote
I'm trying to run the optimized miner on Windows 7 64 bit, and it just crashes immediately without any error messages.
I see this in the system (application) event log:
Faulting application name: minerd.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x4eef5c94
Faulting module name: pthreadGC2.dll, version: 2.8.0.0, time stamp: 0x4be6d174
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x00000000000036a3
Faulting process id: 0x149c
Faulting application start time: 0x01ccc39bb160b781
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Litecoin\new_miner\minerd.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Litecoin\new_miner\pthreadGC2.dll
Report Id: ef0fea24-2f8e-11e1-9e5e-14dae96c0870
So far I have been successfully using the miner-i7.exe release by ArtForz. Any idea why this crashes? I have Soluto installed, so that might be the reason why I'm not seeing any error message ... although I did try to exit it and that didn't help.
I see this in the system (application) event log:
Faulting application name: minerd.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x4eef5c94
Faulting module name: pthreadGC2.dll, version: 2.8.0.0, time stamp: 0x4be6d174
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x00000000000036a3
Faulting process id: 0x149c
Faulting application start time: 0x01ccc39bb160b781
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Litecoin\new_miner\minerd.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Litecoin\new_miner\pthreadGC2.dll
Report Id: ef0fea24-2f8e-11e1-9e5e-14dae96c0870
So far I have been successfully using the miner-i7.exe release by ArtForz. Any idea why this crashes? I have Soluto installed, so that might be the reason why I'm not seeing any error message ... although I did try to exit it and that didn't help.
January 13, 2012, 02:20:54 AM
Indeed a nice improvement again. From 5 khs to 6.5khs per core on my P2X4 955...
Edit: and I just noticed: my CPU, although still at 100% and with the above-mentioned hashrate gain, runs much cooler: 53°C instead of the previous 58°C!
Edit: and I just noticed: my CPU, although still at 100% and with the above-mentioned hashrate gain, runs much cooler: 53°C instead of the previous 58°C!
January 13, 2012, 12:28:46 AM
Got another 2khash/s per core for me.
January 13, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Thank you for the offer, but I don't have much experience with cgminer... and I am working on too many projects at the moment. 
I think that someone (who is too modest to admit he's a good coder
) has already started working on that, however.
This kind of brings a question about who maintains the "official" litecoin miner I think that someone (who is too modest to admit he's a good coder
) has already started working on that, however. De facto your miner is the most used/popular at the moment. Do you have time/motivation for maintaining it in the foreseeable future?Don't worry, I do.
I'm just saying that I don't want to take on more projects than I can handle. 
January 12, 2012, 10:09:25 PM
I gotta run so I'll bench the Core2Duo's later.
I just checked the Core2's (6320 @ 1.86GHz) and went from 6.95 kh/s to 7.9 kh/s (~13.6%). The earlier number is from the miner pulled Dec 29.
January 12, 2012, 08:53:51 PM
Thank you for the offer, but I don't have much experience with cgminer... and I am working on too many projects at the moment.
I think that someone (who is too modest to admit he's a good coder) has already started working on that, however.
This kind of brings a question about who maintains the "official" litecoin miner I think that someone (who is too modest to admit he's a good coder
) has already started working on that, however. De facto your miner is the most used/popular at the moment. Do you have time/motivation for maintaining it in the foreseeable future? January 12, 2012, 05:59:58 PM
As always, all benchmarks are welcome.
In particular, I suspect that this version might actually be slower on Pentium D's... Can anybody confirm or deny this?
In particular, I suspect that this version might actually be slower on Pentium D's... Can anybody confirm or deny this?
My Pentium D's went up. On one machine the last codebase pulled Jan 4 was doing 4.28 and this one pulled Jan 12 is doing 5.44. Additionally, both threads are now showing the same rate (2.72 kh/s). Previously one said 2.05 and the other 2.23. This is a Pentium D 920 (2 @ 2.80GHz).
My Opteron 8218's went down slightly from about 15.7 kh/s over 6 threads to about 15.3 kh/s. I don't think the 8218 is K10 arch tho.
No benches for my Sempron and Athlon boxes because they are mining BTC and when I simultaneously mined LTC for a few days I got too many SICK and DEAD notices from cgminer. I think X wanted more CPU than it could get, even with cpuminer at nice -n19
My Xeon boxes (E5335 8@ 2.00GHz) show the ~8% bump from 30.72 to 33.33.
My other Xeon's (X3430 4@ 2.40GHz) went from 20.06 to 23.16 (~15%) only they were running code pulled Jan 9.
I gotta run so I'll bench the Core2Duo's later.
Thanks again Pooler!
January 12, 2012, 05:12:17 PM
WOW!
From 3.04 to 5.23 @ Phenom X6!
That's weird, either you skipped a version, either the Linux version improved at a different pace than the Windows builds. I already have around 5.0/core on a Phenom X4 with the build of January ~5. From 3.04 to 5.23 @ Phenom X6!
January 12, 2012, 09:13:58 AM
@pooler!
Don't you wanna do the following job:
Request for an Scrypt capable fork of cgminer - maybe within new CGMiner / RPC:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/request-for-an-scrypt-capable-fork-of-cgminer-maybe-within-new-cgminer-rpc-56040
Thanks!!
Thiago
Don't you wanna do the following job:
Request for an Scrypt capable fork of cgminer - maybe within new CGMiner / RPC:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/request-for-an-scrypt-capable-fork-of-cgminer-maybe-within-new-cgminer-rpc-56040
Thanks!!
Thiago
Thank you for the offer, but I don't have much experience with cgminer... and I am working on too many projects at the moment.
I think that someone (who is too modest to admit he's a good coder
) has already started working on that, however. 
January 12, 2012, 06:13:12 AM
Nice work again... mostly 1-3 kh/s boost for my intel crunhers keep it up...!
keep it up...! January 12, 2012, 02:23:00 AM
@pooler!
Don't you wanna do the following job:
Request for an Scrypt capable fork of cgminer - maybe within new CGMiner / RPC:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/request-for-an-scrypt-capable-fork-of-cgminer-maybe-within-new-cgminer-rpc-56040
Thanks!!
Thiago
Don't you wanna do the following job:
Request for an Scrypt capable fork of cgminer - maybe within new CGMiner / RPC:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/request-for-an-scrypt-capable-fork-of-cgminer-maybe-within-new-cgminer-rpc-56040
Thanks!!
Thiago
January 12, 2012, 02:17:54 AM
New version!
The changes only affect 64-bit systems; they should bring an up to 8% speed increase to Intel processors, and a 20% increase to CPUs of the AMD K10 family.
Binary for 64-bit Windows (courtesy of diki):
https://github.com/downloads/pooler/cpuminer/pooler-cpuminer-win64-20120111.zip
A binary for 64-bit Mac OS X will be available soon.
As always, all benchmarks are welcome.
In particular, I suspect that this version might actually be slower on Pentium D's... Can anybody confirm or deny this?
The changes only affect 64-bit systems; they should bring an up to 8% speed increase to Intel processors, and a 20% increase to CPUs of the AMD K10 family.
Binary for 64-bit Windows (courtesy of diki):
https://github.com/downloads/pooler/cpuminer/pooler-cpuminer-win64-20120111.zip
A binary for 64-bit Mac OS X will be available soon.
As always, all benchmarks are welcome.
In particular, I suspect that this version might actually be slower on Pentium D's... Can anybody confirm or deny this?
WOW!
From 3.04 to 5.23 @ Phenom X6!
All my machines are Ubuntu 11.04 64 bits.
I have only two intels...
Thanks a lot!!
Best!
Thiago
January 11, 2012, 10:52:00 PM
went from 6.3khash/s to 7.05khash/s on my q9400.
January 11, 2012, 10:36:12 PM
Thanks for the new version.
I just loaded it onto my Mac Mini Core i5 2.3 GHz, seems to be about the same as the version from 3-January. I'm seeing 13.5 kH/s - 14.10 kH/s.
- Zed
I just loaded it onto my Mac Mini Core i5 2.3 GHz, seems to be about the same as the version from 3-January. I'm seeing 13.5 kH/s - 14.10 kH/s.
- Zed
January 11, 2012, 09:52:53 PM
OSX Builds:
64 Bit (OSX 10.6 & 10.7): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_64bit_Jan11.zip
32 Bit (OSX 10.4 & 10.5): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_32bit_Jan11.zip
PPC (OSX 10.4 & 10.5): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_ppc_Jan11.zip
NOTE: I'm pretty sure Intel 10.5 can handle 64 Bit applications, but I don't have a development machine running 10.5, my apologies.
NOTE 2: The PPC binary is *not* the optimized code from ssvb. I haven't been able to compile that on my PPC machines. This is just the C implementation. Pooler made it Big Endian compatible, so I was able to compile it.
64 Bit (OSX 10.6 & 10.7): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_64bit_Jan11.zip
32 Bit (OSX 10.4 & 10.5): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_32bit_Jan11.zip
PPC (OSX 10.4 & 10.5): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/828037/pooler_minerd_osx_ppc_Jan11.zip
NOTE: I'm pretty sure Intel 10.5 can handle 64 Bit applications, but I don't have a development machine running 10.5, my apologies.
NOTE 2: The PPC binary is *not* the optimized code from ssvb. I haven't been able to compile that on my PPC machines. This is just the C implementation. Pooler made it Big Endian compatible, so I was able to compile it.
January 11, 2012, 05:04:25 PM
New version!
The changes only affect 64-bit systems; they should bring an up to 8% speed increase to Intel processors, and a 20% increase to CPUs of the AMD K10 family.
Binary for 64-bit Windows (courtesy of diki):
https://github.com/downloads/pooler/cpuminer/pooler-cpuminer-win64-20120111.zip
A binary for 64-bit Mac OS X will be available soon.
As always, all benchmarks are welcome.
In particular, I suspect that this version might actually be slower on Pentium D's... Can anybody confirm or deny this?
The changes only affect 64-bit systems; they should bring an up to 8% speed increase to Intel processors, and a 20% increase to CPUs of the AMD K10 family.
Binary for 64-bit Windows (courtesy of diki):
https://github.com/downloads/pooler/cpuminer/pooler-cpuminer-win64-20120111.zip
A binary for 64-bit Mac OS X will be available soon.
As always, all benchmarks are welcome.
Jump to: