Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner - page 103. (Read 444067 times)
February 11, 2017, 08:51:20 AM
Joblo do not rush. Work carefully and reliably. We are not in a hurry.
February 11, 2017, 06:20:21 AM
they changed again the algo, and its only temporary (again) :p https://zcoin.io/language/en/update-zcoin-development-16-january-2017/
this one is close to the first lyra2, but different :p anyway, the old one will never be reused, can be replaced so
this one is close to the first lyra2, but different :p anyway, the old one will never be reused, can be replaced so
February 11, 2017, 01:52:10 AM
Another delay. The problem with zcoin AVX also affects zcoin on Windows with AVX2.
February 10, 2017, 05:54:23 PM
Yet another weird problem, this time with zcoin.
I'm getting stack smashing with AVX on Zcoin. Other lyra algos ok, zcoin ok on AVX2.
There is no difference between the AVX targetted code for zcoin vs other lyra algos. There is no
difference in any of the portable code bwtween AVX and AVX2. In other words all the code
works, either for a different algo, or a different architecture, but it's all covered.
About the problem, stack smashing is iften called by infinitely recursive function calls or a
function with an extremely large local variable. In either case I would expect the overflow
to occur on the first pass.
But it doesn't. It completes several hashes calling all functions down to the Intel intrinsics
and returns before doing it again. The code path is the same on every path, there are no deviations
that lead down a rathole.
This is my signal I need a break.
Other test almost complete 2 of 8 cases failed, so need to back out these 2 changes.
I'm getting stack smashing with AVX on Zcoin. Other lyra algos ok, zcoin ok on AVX2.
There is no difference between the AVX targetted code for zcoin vs other lyra algos. There is no
difference in any of the portable code bwtween AVX and AVX2. In other words all the code
works, either for a different algo, or a different architecture, but it's all covered.
About the problem, stack smashing is iften called by infinitely recursive function calls or a
function with an extremely large local variable. In either case I would expect the overflow
to occur on the first pass.
But it doesn't. It completes several hashes calling all functions down to the Intel intrinsics
and returns before doing it again. The code path is the same on every path, there are no deviations
that lead down a rathole.
This is my signal I need a break.
Other test almost complete 2 of 8 cases failed, so need to back out these 2 changes.
February 10, 2017, 04:24:17 PM
affraid of viruses, gotta run it in a vm 
It isn't that I'm afraid of a virus from you, it's that I'm just not interested in closed source, whether
it's from Claymore, SP, or anyone else.
If you just want me to confirm your results, I won't do that, it doesn't interest me either.
First it was that you're mad because he made a claim you found ridiculous - now you can verify it, so it's back to hating it because he didn't release the source... why didn't you just say that in the first place?
You're blowing it out of proportion. I only resented discussing problems with his fork in this thread.
My skepticism of the claims is just an opinion, based on factors I previously mentioned.
My disagreement with witholding the source code is all on me. Without it I'm just not interested in
what he is doing. I was a little provocative trying to get him to release it, and I may be dismissive,
but there's no hate.
February 10, 2017, 04:16:41 PM
I am sorry but i did not ask for any confirmations from anyone, i just released an optimization for an algo, that's all.
Anyone can use it, that's why i shared it.
I don't get it why you act like this, so if i ask wolf to give me the source of his kernel because i don't believe its faster than mine, and he won't do it (for obvious reasons), i should get mad at him or what?
Anyone can use it, that's why i shared it.
I don't get it why you act like this, so if i ask wolf to give me the source of his kernel because i don't believe its faster than mine, and he won't do it (for obvious reasons), i should get mad at him or what?
February 10, 2017, 04:04:45 PM
affraid of viruses, gotta run it in a vm
It isn't that I'm afraid of a virus from you, it's that I'm just not interested in closed source, whether
it's from Claymore, SP, or anyone else.
If you just want me to confirm your results, I won't do that, it doesn't interest me either.
First it was that you're mad because he made a claim you found ridiculous - now you can verify it, so it's back to hating it because he didn't release the source... why didn't you just say that in the first place?
February 10, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
affraid of viruses, gotta run it in a vm
It isn't that I'm afraid of a virus from you, it's that I'm just not interested in closed source, whether
it's from Claymore, SP, or anyone else.
If you just want me to confirm your results, I won't do that, it doesn't interest me either.
February 10, 2017, 03:46:46 PM
affraid of viruses, gotta run it in a vm
February 10, 2017, 03:04:13 PM
joblo, you are all wrong.
I said i implemented matrix usage like optiminer did in his miner a long time ago, and i used it on your code, yes.
Never said it was optiminers code, lol.
Anyways i like reworking your miner because i like it the most.. coulda work on tpruvot version or any other.. but yours is the nicest
And i don't get it why are you pissed on me for the speedup i achieved with timetravel algo.
I told you, test it for yourself if you don't believe in that speedup.
I said i implemented matrix usage like optiminer did in his miner a long time ago, and i used it on your code, yes.
Never said it was optiminers code, lol.
Anyways i like reworking your miner because i like it the most.. coulda work on tpruvot version or any other.. but yours is the nicest
And i don't get it why are you pissed on me for the speedup i achieved with timetravel algo.
I told you, test it for yourself if you don't believe in that speedup.
Yes it was the matrix implementation in lyra2 that you claimed from optiminer are you are correct.
That solved the misaligment issues with AVX2 and provided some speed improvement.
I only care about source code. Your claims mean nothing to me without it. I haven't seen anyone else
praising your accomplishment, 40% faster than the previous fastest on timetravel is certainly praise worthy.
Your explanation of optimizing JH doesn't add up. I need proof and the binary is only slick advertising.
February 10, 2017, 02:49:18 PM
joblo, you are all wrong.
I said i implemented matrix usage like optiminer did in his miner a long time ago, and i used it on your code, yes.
Never said it was optiminers code, lol.
Anyways i like reworking your miner because i like it the most.. coulda work on tpruvot version or any other.. but yours is the nicest
And i don't get it why are you pissed on me for the speedup i achieved with timetravel algo.
I told you, test it for yourself if you don't believe in that speedup.
I said i implemented matrix usage like optiminer did in his miner a long time ago, and i used it on your code, yes.
Never said it was optiminers code, lol.
Anyways i like reworking your miner because i like it the most.. coulda work on tpruvot version or any other.. but yours is the nicest
And i don't get it why are you pissed on me for the speedup i achieved with timetravel algo.
I told you, test it for yourself if you don't believe in that speedup.
February 10, 2017, 02:38:07 PM
Thanks for your great work to all of you btw!
February 10, 2017, 02:23:58 PM
I'm working hard on the next release with support for the new zcoin algo but I don't think it will
be ready for the cutover.
In still in the middle of long testing another algo with 5 of 8 test cases complete. I don't have control
over the test cases so I have to wait for the right conditions to occur in the algo. When that's
done I have to retest all the lyra2 algos in multiple architectures to make sure nothing broke.
I'm looking at 7-10% faster for all Lyra2.
be ready for the cutover.
In still in the middle of long testing another algo with 5 of 8 test cases complete. I don't have control
over the test cases so I have to wait for the right conditions to occur in the algo. When that's
done I have to retest all the lyra2 algos in multiple architectures to make sure nothing broke.
I'm looking at 7-10% faster for all Lyra2.
February 10, 2017, 02:10:10 PM
Hey guys, I'm a little pissed right now at doktor83 for using my code for zcoin (it was mine, not optiminer as he claimed)
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
It's how open source works.
Only when it stays open.
WRONG. You open source code with a given license, and people can do what they want within the terms of said license. Often this includes not releasing modifications.
That was not my point. If the source goes closed it's no longer "open source".
It's not about him using my code, it's more about a first release that is binary only making ourageous
performance claims. I'm skeptical.
In the past year I've learned a lot about what can be optimized, how it can be optimized and what improvements
can be expected. This is way off the chart.
February 10, 2017, 02:03:43 PM
Hey guys, I'm a little pissed right now at doktor83 for using my code for zcoin (it was mine, not optiminer as he claimed)
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
It's how open source works.
Only when it stays open.
February 10, 2017, 01:43:01 PM
Hey guys, I'm a little pissed right now at doktor83 for using my code for zcoin (it was mine, not optiminer as he claimed)
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
and not releasing the source for his claimed 40% improvements to the timetravel algo.
So please take this elsewhere.
February 10, 2017, 01:42:26 PM
I already implemented new zcoin changes you can download from here with source and binaries:
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
it seems i fail to compile with the following error:
Code:
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating compat/Makefile
config.status: creating compat/jansson/Makefile
config.status: creating cpuminer-config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
algo/argon2/.deps/cpuminer-argon2a.Po:1: *** multiple target patterns. Stop.
strip: 'cpuminer': No such file
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating compat/Makefile
config.status: creating compat/jansson/Makefile
config.status: creating cpuminer-config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
algo/argon2/.deps/cpuminer-argon2a.Po:1: *** multiple target patterns. Stop.
strip: 'cpuminer': No such file
im running the included build.sh script in ubuntu 16
well i worked on windows and compiled on mingw, did not try it on linux tough..
February 10, 2017, 01:04:05 PM
I already implemented new zcoin changes you can download from here with source and binaries:
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
it seems i fail to compile with the following error:
Code:
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating compat/Makefile
config.status: creating compat/jansson/Makefile
config.status: creating cpuminer-config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
algo/argon2/.deps/cpuminer-argon2a.Po:1: *** multiple target patterns. Stop.
strip: 'cpuminer': No such file
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating compat/Makefile
config.status: creating compat/jansson/Makefile
config.status: creating cpuminer-config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
algo/argon2/.deps/cpuminer-argon2a.Po:1: *** multiple target patterns. Stop.
strip: 'cpuminer': No such file
im running the included build.sh script in ubuntu 16
February 10, 2017, 11:00:34 AM
@Doktor
something didnt work for me with your sourcecode
Linux Xubuntu 16.04LTS
i7 2600
im frustrated hmmm joblo´s source im able to compile in less then 2 minutes grrr
until i can compile it running the binary trough wine looks good
increase around 180kh/s
EDIT: doesnt like dirty written code , useless and non exist description of given binary nor source-code , resulted in an switch back to Joblo´s clean and flawless working one
something didnt work for me with your sourcecode
Linux Xubuntu 16.04LTS
i7 2600
im frustrated hmmm joblo´s source im able to compile in less then 2 minutes grrr
until i can compile it running the binary trough wine looks good
increase around 180kh/s
EDIT: doesnt like dirty written code , useless and non exist description of given binary nor source-code , resulted in an switch back to Joblo´s clean and flawless working one
February 10, 2017, 09:24:31 AM
I already implemented new zcoin changes you can download from here with source and binaries:
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
https://mega.nz/#F!HRoSACxY!rF7r9kD9O7dJr-i8oEs3wA
Just a straight port of zcoin.
Where's the timetravel source with that huge improvement you claimed?
You did not have that actually.
I am not giving out the source for timetravel ....yet
I'll be doing better than optiminer, I included the new fully aligned matrix plus a few more improvements
not included in optiminer.
I also have more timetravel speed coming but may hold back untill you release your source.
Jump to: