Payouts disabled, you will not receive any coins to your offline wallet for the time being"
What's wrong?
Topic: [ANN]: cpuminer-opt v3.8.8.1, open source optimized multi-algo CPU miner - page 129. (Read 444131 times)
October 12, 2016, 08:22:13 PM
"We are investigating issues in the backend. Your shares and hashrate are safe and we will fix things ASAP.
Payouts disabled, you will not receive any coins to your offline wallet for the time being"
What's wrong?
Payouts disabled, you will not receive any coins to your offline wallet for the time being"
What's wrong?
October 12, 2016, 11:18:29 AM
my apologies, I'm extremely new here (this might be my fourth post) and new to the mining scene in general.
October 12, 2016, 10:56:13 AM
I have dual L5640 Wesmere processors (dual 6 core = 24 thread) and I get horrible performance no matter which exe I use... or even running via Linux, 100 h/s is about all I get. Is there a bug or something I'm missing?
Try it with 6 threads per cpu, that should better fit the L3 cache and make sure the miner recongnizes AES.
Otherwise I need a lot more info.
Are there any debug logs or anything like that I can retrieve? any parameters I can add, when launching, to get additional debug info ?
You mean like a console session? Why haven't you posted that yet? There's a lot of good info displayed when the miner starts up,
it should be obvious to post that as a minimum when asking a question.
October 12, 2016, 10:00:19 AM
I have dual L5640 Wesmere processors (dual 6 core = 24 thread) and I get horrible performance no matter which exe I use... or even running via Linux, 100 h/s is about all I get. Is there a bug or something I'm missing?
Try it with 6 threads per cpu, that should better fit the L3 cache and make sure the miner recongnizes AES.
Otherwise I need a lot more info.
Are there any debug logs or anything like that I can retrieve? any parameters I can add, when launching, to get additional debug info ?
October 12, 2016, 01:27:47 AM
is this the way to go with my gpu card?
No, this is a CPU miner.
October 11, 2016, 11:07:03 PM
is this the way to go with my gpu card?
October 11, 2016, 02:48:30 PM
I have dual L5640 Wesmere processors (dual 6 core = 24 thread) and I get horrible performance no matter which exe I use... or even running via Linux, 100 h/s is about all I get. Is there a bug or something I'm missing?
Try it with 6 threads per cpu, that should better fit the L3 cache and make sure the miner recongnizes AES.
Otherwise I need a lot more info.
October 11, 2016, 12:09:11 PM
I have dual L5640 Wesmere processors (dual 6 core = 24 thread) and I get horrible performance no matter which exe I use... or even running via Linux, 100 h/s is about all I get. Is there a bug or something I'm missing?
October 07, 2016, 07:02:44 PM
There is no AVX2 targetted code in cryptonight so the diffreence
between Ivybridge and Haswell should be minimal. Try -core-avx-i on the Haswell to confirm. It should perform similar to -core-avx2, if not
there may be an issue.
between Ivybridge and Haswell should be minimal. Try -core-avx-i on the Haswell to confirm. It should perform similar to -core-avx2, if not
there may be an issue.
joblo, Hi.
Thx for your updates and etc in git
am read about compiling with minGW for Windows... can i compile with VS 2015 ?
No, VS isn't supported. You could try the precompiled binaries.
October 07, 2016, 06:03:56 PM
There is no AVX2 targetted code in cryptonight so the diffreence
between Ivybridge and Haswell should be minimal. Try -core-avx-i on the Haswell to confirm. It should perform similar to -core-avx2, if not
there may be an issue.
between Ivybridge and Haswell should be minimal. Try -core-avx-i on the Haswell to confirm. It should perform similar to -core-avx2, if not
there may be an issue.
joblo, Hi.
Thx for your updates and etc in git
am read about compiling with minGW for Windows... can i compile with VS 2015 ?
October 07, 2016, 05:47:38 PM
I looked at the CPU miner for riecoin a few months ago but didn't see any obvious optimization opportunities.
I may take another look but I'm not really interested if I don't think I can improve it.
October 07, 2016, 12:10:51 PM
October 05, 2016, 10:57:42 PM
joblo, can I make a request for a new coin? z.cash is on testnet right now. Looks interesting. (plus there's a bounty for good open source miners, so you get a chance at $30k USD).
I'm aware of the bounty but writing an algo from scratch is out of my league.
October 05, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
joblo, can I make a request for a new coin? z.cash is on testnet right now. Looks interesting. (plus there's a bounty for good open source miners, so you get a chance at $30k USD).
October 05, 2016, 10:46:53 AM
My results are consistent with Nicehash. I get best performance with 4 threads with i7 and 3 threads with i5 for cryptonight.
Your performance seems low for an i7 no matter the number of threads you used. My i5-2400 is faster than your i7-3770.
Your performance seems low for an i7 no matter the number of threads you used. My i5-2400 is faster than your i7-3770.
huh really? This PC is running a 480 which is mining also, but looking at the stats it doesn't seem to be using the CPU at all. Additionally I've checked and the CPU is not thermally throttling or anything like that.
I'm not doing anything particulary strange with my cpuminer config. I'm running the most recent 3.4.7 build using cpuminer-core-avx-i.exe with the command:
cpuminer-core-avx-i.exe -a cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://xmr-eu.dwarfpool.com:8005 -u [wallet address] -q
Any ideas why I might be getting such a low hash rate on this machine? On another machine with an i7-4770 I get around 200 H/s using the cpuminer-core-avx2 binary.
Co-mining with Nvidia causes no problems but I've never co-mined with AMD. There is no AVX2 targetted code in cryptonight so the diffreence
between Ivybridge and Haswell should be minimal. Try -core-avx-i on the Haswell to confirm. It should perform similar to -core-avx2, if not
there may be an issue.
October 05, 2016, 09:01:22 AM
My results are consistent with Nicehash. I get best performance with 4 threads with i7 and 3 threads with i5 for cryptonight.
Your performance seems low for an i7 no matter the number of threads you used. My i5-2400 is faster than your i7-3770.
Your performance seems low for an i7 no matter the number of threads you used. My i5-2400 is faster than your i7-3770.
huh really? This PC is running a 480 which is mining also, but looking at the stats it doesn't seem to be using the CPU at all. Additionally I've checked and the CPU is not thermally throttling or anything like that.
I'm not doing anything particulary strange with my cpuminer config. I'm running the most recent 3.4.7 build using cpuminer-core-avx-i.exe with the command:
cpuminer-core-avx-i.exe -a cryptonight -o stratum+tcp://xmr-eu.dwarfpool.com:8005 -u [wallet address] -q
Any ideas why I might be getting such a low hash rate on this machine? On another machine with an i7-4770 I get around 200 H/s using the cpuminer-core-avx2 binary.
October 05, 2016, 08:11:52 AM
joblo: we have detected that cryptonight would run faster in most cases when not using all available threads. This has most likely to do with CPU cache; the bigger it is, the more threads it can run fast. Are you aware of this?
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
Really? I did some benchmarking on my i7-3770 (8 MB L3 cache) in 4,6,7 and 8 thread usage (4C HT).
My results were as follows.
4 threads average : 123.21 standard deviation 1.36
6 threads average : 139.18 standard deviation 13.57
7 threads average : 144.74 standard deviation 9.21
8 threads average : 157.94 standard deviation 21.55
This is data collected from three different runs over several minutes, approx 50 data points per number of threads.
As you can see the hashing speed for cryptonight does increase when more threads are used, however the consistency of the data lowers. When I was running 4 threads almost all the results were consistent (e.g. 122.3, 124, 122.5, 123.6, 124 .. etc), however as the number of threads increased to cover hyperthreaded cores that value started to fluctuated wildly. For example, for 8 threads I saw values ranging from a min of 125.0 to a max of 208.4! However, when averaged out you can still see that more threads = faster hashing rate. I didn't try more threads than the number of physical and logical cores on my machine.
My results are consistent with Nicehash. I get best performance with 4 threads with i7 and 3 threads with i5 for cryptonight.
Your performance seems low for an i7 no matter the number of threads you used. My i5-2400 is faster than your i7-3770.
October 05, 2016, 05:46:58 AM
joblo: we have detected that cryptonight would run faster in most cases when not using all available threads. This has most likely to do with CPU cache; the bigger it is, the more threads it can run fast. Are you aware of this?
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
Really? I did some benchmarking on my i7-3770 (8 MB L3 cache) in 4,6,7 and 8 thread usage (4C HT).
My results were as follows.
4 threads average : 123.21 standard deviation 1.36
6 threads average : 139.18 standard deviation 13.57
7 threads average : 144.74 standard deviation 9.21
8 threads average : 157.94 standard deviation 21.55
This is data collected from three different runs over several minutes, approx 50 data points per number of threads.
As you can see the hashing speed for cryptonight does increase when more threads are used, however the consistency of the data lowers. When I was running 4 threads almost all the results were consistent (e.g. 122.3, 124, 122.5, 123.6, 124 .. etc), however as the number of threads increased to cover hyperthreaded cores that value started to fluctuated wildly. For example, for 8 threads I saw values ranging from a min of 125.0 to a max of 208.4! However, when averaged out you can still see that more threads = faster hashing rate. I didn't try more threads than the number of physical and logical cores on my machine.
October 05, 2016, 05:42:25 AM
2mb per thread
October 05, 2016, 05:39:26 AM
joblo: we have detected that cryptonight would run faster in most cases when not using all available threads. This has most likely to do with CPU cache; the bigger it is, the more threads it can run fast. Are you aware of this?
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
i have observed the following:
e3-1265lv2: half threads gives best result
i5-3330, fx-8320e, a10-6800k: max threads gives best results
this is indeed in regards to the cache (noted somewhere in this forum, maybe even this thread, not sure), though some cpus still need the default max threads to return best results even though they have plenty cache
Jump to: