Hi @dstm,
I have one question regarding pool failover.
For example i have "pool1" and "pool2" in configuration file. "Pool1" stops responding and miner connects to "pool2". Does miner check if "pool1" is online and reverts to it or it stays on "pool2" until that one fails to respond?
Best regards
Topic: [ANN] dstm's ZCash / Equihash Nvidia Miner v0.6.2 (Linux / Windows) - page 8. (Read 224961 times)
June 04, 2018, 04:38:27 AM
June 03, 2018, 09:25:36 AM
Anyone else having an issue with the --intensity setting or am I doing it wrong? No matter what I set it at, my GPU is around a 25% load.
I have a single 1070ti Founders Edition and I've tried "--intensity=0:0.5" all the way up to "--intensity=0:0.95" and it's still around a 25% load.
I have a single 1070ti Founders Edition and I've tried "--intensity=0:0.5" all the way up to "--intensity=0:0.95" and it's still around a 25% load.
June 03, 2018, 08:46:00 AM
ive been trying to troubleshoot problemati gpu(s) in dstm 0.6.1 with SMOS, and it seems like 1 or 2 of my cards have issues so im using "--dev 0 1 2 4 5" to run all but one card at a time
however, its resulted in the console outputting only the stats of gpu#4 line after line. no stats are given for the other cards or overall hashrate
i should be getting 1600-2000sols if 5 cards are functional - and i do seem to get that poolside, but the lack of console output makes tuning tough
UPDATE: running either card 4 and/or card 5 alone reveals that both work terribly (either giving only stats for one gpu, or doing nothing at all except getting difficulty changes and rebooting.
i know the cards are problematic, but in windows they cooperated at aleast - i dont know what the issue is here (swapping risers is my next step)
however, its resulted in the console outputting only the stats of gpu#4 line after line. no stats are given for the other cards or overall hashrate
i should be getting 1600-2000sols if 5 cards are functional - and i do seem to get that poolside, but the lack of console output makes tuning tough
UPDATE: running either card 4 and/or card 5 alone reveals that both work terribly (either giving only stats for one gpu, or doing nothing at all except getting difficulty changes and rebooting.
i know the cards are problematic, but in windows they cooperated at aleast - i dont know what the issue is here (swapping risers is my next step)
June 01, 2018, 05:30:08 PM
Dear DSTM
The program begins to write #send timeout
and the pool is reduced hashrate
you can do that after 2-3 such messages closed miner
but otherwise the graphics card working to the data pool do not reach.
v0.6.1-v0.6
https://i.imgur.com/Q4ZoNMV.png
https://i.imgur.com/AiUlFtc.png
The program begins to write #send timeout
and the pool is reduced hashrate
you can do that after 2-3 such messages closed miner
but otherwise the graphics card working to the data pool do not reach.
v0.6.1-v0.6
https://i.imgur.com/Q4ZoNMV.png
https://i.imgur.com/AiUlFtc.png
June 01, 2018, 04:06:13 PM
Btw someone have trouble using gtx 1050ti ?
My rigs always get blue screen if using dtsm after update last windows version
My rigs always get blue screen if using dtsm after update last windows version
June 01, 2018, 10:23:45 AM
Thanks for the stats. Nice work.
I dont understand that. My 1063 G1 gaming shows 310, 1066 G1 gaming shown 330. Its MUCH lower, than yours. Meanwhile, my rig of 1070 (NON ti) (msi gaming X with 1 samsung and 4 micron memory) and 1 EVGA FTW show approx 495. Hey ppl 
I just finished testing the new v 0.6 with most of the Nvidia GTX 10xx cards, results below
GTX 1050 4GB Ti = 180 Sol/s
GTX 1060 3GB = 325 Sol/s
GTX 1060 6GB = 345 Sol/s
GTX 1070 8GB = 460 Sol/s
GTX 1070 11GB Ti = 480 Sol/s
GTX 1080 11GB Ti = 650 - 685 Sol/s
for more details check http://1stminingrig.com/new-dstms-zcash-cuda-miner-0-6-tested-reviewed/
I just finished testing the new v 0.6 with most of the Nvidia GTX 10xx cards, results below
GTX 1050 4GB Ti = 180 Sol/s
GTX 1060 3GB = 325 Sol/s
GTX 1060 6GB = 345 Sol/s
GTX 1070 8GB = 460 Sol/s
GTX 1070 11GB Ti = 480 Sol/s
GTX 1080 11GB Ti = 650 - 685 Sol/s
for more details check http://1stminingrig.com/new-dstms-zcash-cuda-miner-0-6-tested-reviewed/
June 01, 2018, 06:16:06 AM
Is it safe to use this miner on my main PC?
June 01, 2018, 05:25:26 AM
How Abaout POS
This miner is for PoW mining, nothing to do with PoW.
June 01, 2018, 03:25:58 AM
As we have been talking about the payout time, here you have a pic of my last payouts, and most important, the last two which reflect the increase in dificullty on flypool
My payout time for 0.20 ZEC has gone down from 143.9 hours to 135.2 hours after the difficulty was increased by flypool on the 24th of May.
As I was saying, the payout time is not higher for me but might me for someone else. Maybe as Quimeco was saying people with less than 6 cards they do see their payout time increased.
My payout time for 0.20 ZEC has gone down from 143.9 hours to 135.2 hours after the difficulty was increased by flypool on the 24th of May.
As I was saying, the payout time is not higher for me but might me for someone else. Maybe as Quimeco was saying people with less than 6 cards they do see their payout time increased.
June 01, 2018, 12:51:26 AM
sol/s "look" like they are down here too, but daily looks the same. on winzec
May 31, 2018, 04:47:13 PM
Hi all,
Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.1 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.9 Sol/s 541.4 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.30 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 159 W | 0.27 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.9 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.50 100 124 +
GPU0 63C 75% | 542.5 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W 163 W | 0.46 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.0 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.43 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.9 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.40 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.4 Sol/s 541.1 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.37 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 536.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.35 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.1 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.33 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.31 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 542.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W 165 W | 0.30 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.9 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.28 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 550.8 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 161 W | 0.27 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 533.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.26 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 537.0 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.25 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.7 Sol/s 540.3 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.24 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 544.8 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.23 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.6 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 220 +
> GPU0 63C 75% | 541.1 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.32 100 220
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.31 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 540.1 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.30 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 542.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 154 W | 0.29 100 220
Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.1 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.9 Sol/s 541.4 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.30 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 159 W | 0.27 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.9 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.50 100 124 +
GPU0 63C 75% | 542.5 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W 163 W | 0.46 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.0 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.43 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.9 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.40 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.4 Sol/s 541.1 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.37 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 536.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.35 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.1 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.33 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.31 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 542.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W 165 W | 0.30 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.9 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.28 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 550.8 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 161 W | 0.27 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 533.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.26 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 537.0 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.25 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.7 Sol/s 540.3 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.24 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 544.8 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.23 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.6 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 220 +
> GPU0 63C 75% | 541.1 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.32 100 220
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.31 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 540.1 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.30 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 542.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 154 W | 0.29 100 220
It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.
You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained
My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"
If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.
If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed
Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!
The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.
So for your 14 post I nearly forget you were the real expert in this subject... my payout is exactly the same it hasn’t gone down and I have no need to lie about it. No need to be harsh though calling people noobs or fools when you are no better than anyone here or elsewhere.
So go an learn some manners then come back and try to post something helpful.
Learn something guy, I never said the payouts changed on Flypool, I did say however that it "will" take longer to get a payout, and that is a fact bud...It isnt my fault ya think ya know everything and were clueless on the biggest thing the zec name atm, the miner works great but on nix youll have lil issues due to things not being setup correctly (user error 90% of the time) If you cant be helpful then simply keep you're comments to yourself as every comment i've made was 100% factual and helpful.
Read carefully your first 6 words... the payout is NOT the same...so read what you post before you post it.
And if you read in mi post I said my payout time is the same. I copy paste it for you:
If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 163 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.
I don’t know everything that’s why I post and ask and I did on page 163, so do not come here to teach me lessons. Pay a bit more attention and read carefully.
I hate to interrupt a flame war like this - you guys need to learn respect for other people's opinions - yes I'm new here - been mining zcash since Oct 2017, 2x 1080Ti + 1 x 1070. I do not know it all like some of you think you do - but I've seen the EXACT same thing on flypool. Here's what I see wrong with flypool that hurts us little guys. Their recent increase of difficulty has created a situation where for a given block (2.5 - 5.0 minutes depending how fast flypool mines) YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ANY SHARE AT ALL WITH ONE CARD. Try it - watch your log for cases where with just 1 card you don't get a single share with enough 0's to be valid before a new block is issued and you start over. For all that work (2.5 - 5.0 min on average) you ran your machine for no return because you couldn't make 1 share in the block time (2.5 - 5.0 min typical at flypool). My single card machine is a 1070 that won't get along with my dual 1080Ti machine - so it runs separately. It's not worth the power to run it on flypool.
Synopsis - Flypool is huge, mining the lion's share of ZEC with some REALLY BIG farms feeding them. Those guys submit shares every few seconds to flypool, which is why they don't see a big difference. In fact, flypool's decision reduces their stale share rate by dropping the network traffic into the flypool server. No block goes by that the big guys don't submit shares, but they may loose 1 share when a block is stale, and waste a very small amount of work at "the end" of a block where they don't submit the share being worked on but not yet found and a new block is issued, wasting at most 1-2 seconds of work if they send a share every 3 seconds. Remember, SOLS/s is what you pay for in power, but shares is what pays you - no mining pool pays for sols/sec. see caution below in solution. Now, with just ONE GPU (my 1070) on flypool, I submit maybe 1 share every 2 to 3 blocks now - sometimes as many as 5 blocks go by. I used to submit at least 1 + share per block on my 1070 card by itself. That means for blocks with zero shares submitted, I waste 1-5 minutes of time mining. This is all due to the fixed (high) difficulty of flypool.
The solution? For small guys like us with < 6 cards of 1070, 1080 size, flypool is no longer the pool of choice. I had payouts every 10-12 hours on flypool for months but now I'm wasting time there with my 1070 rig, so I'm moving to suprnova.cc who favors small gpu owners. With them, I can manually set difficulty "-p d=512" and on a single 1070 I submit multiple shares per block (though each share is worth less due to lower difficulty - suprnova devalues less dificult shares) which means when suprnova finally mines a block (every few hours unlike flypools every few minutes) I can get a realistic number of shares in that block and earn a decent payout every 1-2 blocks suprnova succeeds in mining.
What flypool has done is favor the big miners (6+ cards of 1080 equiv), and devalue the little guys. That's why there are more than just a single pool out there. I started with suprnova.cc on my 1 card rig, then went to flypool when I got my dual 1080ti rig, now I'm moving both rigs back to suprnova.cc. And, yes, I did notice the drop in payments even on my 2 x 1080Ti setup, which is what got me checking into things.
Note - as an aside, instead of flaming and disrespecting others - as miners, we really need to unite against the equihash asics. ZEC MUST come up with an asic-resistant algo that puts the power in the people's hands who have ONE (or more) GPUs. ASICS cost alot to build a mask, make wafers, process, test, and package - so I'd like nothing more than to make the equihash asic worthless overnight so as to discourage them from doing it again. ASICS **WILL** push the difficulty up so far that us GPU folks will power off our rigs. As ZEC miners, we support the "Team" who get those 2.5 ZEC per block to keep things working. They need to do their 0xEF'ing job, and revamp ZEC so a cave in China isn't the 51% ownership point of ZEC mining. I mean no disrespect to China, but I've worked in Shenzhen, Cupertino and Aguadia Puerto Rico, and I have seen first hand how China has a clear advantage, especially with ~free hydro power at their new 3 gorges dam. Now I'll step off my soapbox and let you flame me if you wish.
El Quimeco
Good post Quimeco and I totally agree. I was the first one asking for respect because there is no need to go against anyone in here.
Regarding payout times I can only talk about my experience and so I did. Sorry to hear yours isn’t as good as others and you had to change pool. I am not sure what’s going to happen with AISC but ZEC doesn’t seem bothered about them right now and they seem more reactive than proactive so until ASIC are out we will not see any movement from them unfortunately.
I might be wrong but there are ASIC for ETH and it is still profitable to mine with GPU so hopefully nothing will change but a smaller payout for our hash power.
May 31, 2018, 02:36:04 PM
Hi all,
Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.1 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.9 Sol/s 541.4 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.30 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 159 W | 0.27 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.9 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.50 100 124 +
GPU0 63C 75% | 542.5 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W 163 W | 0.46 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.0 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.43 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.9 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.40 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.4 Sol/s 541.1 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.37 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 536.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.35 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.1 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.33 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.31 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 542.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W 165 W | 0.30 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.9 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.28 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 550.8 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 161 W | 0.27 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 533.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.26 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 537.0 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.25 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.7 Sol/s 540.3 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.24 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 544.8 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.23 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.6 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 220 +
> GPU0 63C 75% | 541.1 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.32 100 220
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.31 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 540.1 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.30 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 542.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 154 W | 0.29 100 220
Need help, last days my output seems very strange, the "+" that indicates one submitted share almost gone
please see my output, only two submitted shares from about 30 lines
Some suggestions?
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.1 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.37 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.9 Sol/s 541.4 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.30 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 159 W | 0.27 100 132
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.9 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.50 100 124 +
GPU0 63C 75% | 542.5 Sol/s 541.2 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.36 S/W 163 W | 0.46 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 543.0 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 160 W | 0.43 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.9 Sol/s 541.3 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.40 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 538.4 Sol/s 541.1 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 162 W | 0.37 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 536.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.36 S/W 158 W | 0.35 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 539.1 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.33 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 539.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.31 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 542.7 Sol/s 540.8 Avg 289.4 I/s | 3.35 S/W 165 W | 0.30 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.9 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.28 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 550.8 Sol/s 541.0 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.36 S/W 161 W | 0.27 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 533.7 Sol/s 540.7 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.26 100 124
> GPU0 63C 75% | 537.0 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.25 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 535.7 Sol/s 540.3 Avg 289.1 I/s | 3.35 S/W 164 W | 0.24 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 544.8 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.23 100 124
GPU0 63C 75% | 540.6 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.3 I/s | 3.35 S/W 161 W | 0.33 100 220 +
> GPU0 63C 75% | 541.1 Sol/s 540.5 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 162 W | 0.32 100 220
GPU0 63C 75% | 541.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.2 I/s | 3.35 S/W 160 W | 0.31 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 540.1 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 163 W | 0.30 100 220
GPU0 64C 75% | 542.6 Sol/s 540.6 Avg 289.0 I/s | 3.35 S/W 154 W | 0.29 100 220
It is completely normal as flypool increased the difficulty for everyone in order to reduce the number of connections to their servers but the payout is not affected.
You can look at that on flypool website, click on payout and read the twits over there. It is explained
My minimum payout time increased from 30-31 hours to 41 hours, so its not exactly "completely normal"
If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 63 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.
If you mine in nanopool might be a different issue but the miner itself is the same and hasn’t changed
Yes, I mine in flypool, OK I will check for two days from now, Thanks for help!
The Payout is "NOT" the same and anyone saying so is a damn fool, and that's wrong to do as noobs will no doubt think things are the same, it's taking me much longer for payouts after going from difficulty of 1.95 to 11.7 and now that asics are on zec we'll no doubt encounter much more problems until we find another coin to goto that doesnt screw over GPU miners, the miner itself has no issues atm unless you have driver problems which *nix is going to be full of, no the miner hasnt upped anyones difficulty flypool has and it'll get much worse, would be nice to have a coin that is anti asic that doesnt screw us lil gpu miner guys over, but i guess that's a pipe dream at this rate, the fact is yes it will take longer to get a payout now as its added 20 hours on my payouts.
So for your 14 post I nearly forget you were the real expert in this subject... my payout is exactly the same it hasn’t gone down and I have no need to lie about it. No need to be harsh though calling people noobs or fools when you are no better than anyone here or elsewhere.
So go an learn some manners then come back and try to post something helpful.
Learn something guy, I never said the payouts changed on Flypool, I did say however that it "will" take longer to get a payout, and that is a fact bud...It isnt my fault ya think ya know everything and were clueless on the biggest thing the zec name atm, the miner works great but on nix youll have lil issues due to things not being setup correctly (user error 90% of the time) If you cant be helpful then simply keep you're comments to yourself as every comment i've made was 100% factual and helpful.
Read carefully your first 6 words... the payout is NOT the same...so read what you post before you post it.
And if you read in mi post I said my payout time is the same. I copy paste it for you:
If you mine in flypool that is what happened. My console reports the same low share, you can see my post on page 163 I believe but my payout time is exactly the same. It hasn’t changed.
I don’t know everything that’s why I post and ask and I did on page 163, so do not come here to teach me lessons. Pay a bit more attention and read carefully.
I hate to interrupt a flame war like this - you guys need to learn respect for other people's opinions - yes I'm new here - been mining zcash since Oct 2017, 2x 1080Ti + 1 x 1070. I do not know it all like some of you think you do - but I've seen the EXACT same thing on flypool. Here's what I see wrong with flypool that hurts us little guys. Their recent increase of difficulty has created a situation where for a given block (2.5 - 5.0 minutes depending how fast flypool mines) YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ANY SHARE AT ALL WITH ONE CARD. Try it - watch your log for cases where with just 1 card you don't get a single share with enough 0's to be valid before a new block is issued and you start over. For all that work (2.5 - 5.0 min on average) you ran your machine for no return because you couldn't make 1 share in the block time (2.5 - 5.0 min typical at flypool). My single card machine is a 1070 that won't get along with my dual 1080Ti machine - so it runs separately. It's not worth the power to run it on flypool.
Synopsis - Flypool is huge, mining the lion's share of ZEC with some REALLY BIG farms feeding them. Those guys submit shares every few seconds to flypool, which is why they don't see a big difference. In fact, flypool's decision reduces their stale share rate by dropping the network traffic into the flypool server. No block goes by that the big guys don't submit shares, but they may loose 1 share when a block is stale, and waste a very small amount of work at "the end" of a block where they don't submit the share being worked on but not yet found and a new block is issued, wasting at most 1-2 seconds of work if they send a share every 3 seconds. Remember, SOLS/s is what you pay for in power, but shares is what pays you - no mining pool pays for sols/sec. see caution below in solution. Now, with just ONE GPU (my 1070) on flypool, I submit maybe 1 share every 2 to 3 blocks now - sometimes as many as 5 blocks go by. I used to submit at least 1 + share per block on my 1070 card by itself. That means for blocks with zero shares submitted, I waste 1-5 minutes of time mining. This is all due to the fixed (high) difficulty of flypool.
The solution? For small guys like us with < 6 cards of 1070, 1080 size, flypool is no longer the pool of choice. I had payouts every 10-12 hours on flypool for months but now I'm wasting time there with my 1070 rig, so I'm moving to suprnova.cc who favors small gpu owners. With them, I can manually set difficulty "-p d=512" and on a single 1070 I submit multiple shares per block (though each share is worth less due to lower difficulty - suprnova devalues less dificult shares) which means when suprnova finally mines a block (every few hours unlike flypools every few minutes) I can get a realistic number of shares in that block and earn a decent payout every 1-2 blocks suprnova succeeds in mining.
What flypool has done is favor the big miners (6+ cards of 1080 equiv), and devalue the little guys. That's why there are more than just a single pool out there. I started with suprnova.cc on my 1 card rig, then went to flypool when I got my dual 1080ti rig, now I'm moving both rigs back to suprnova.cc. And, yes, I did notice the drop in payments even on my 2 x 1080Ti setup, which is what got me checking into things.
Note - as an aside, instead of flaming and disrespecting others - as miners, we really need to unite against the equihash asics. ZEC MUST come up with an asic-resistant algo that puts the power in the people's hands who have ONE (or more) GPUs. ASICS cost alot to build a mask, make wafers, process, test, and package - so I'd like nothing more than to make the equihash asic worthless overnight so as to discourage them from doing it again. ASICS **WILL** push the difficulty up so far that us GPU folks will power off our rigs. As ZEC miners, we support the "Team" who get those 2.5 ZEC per block to keep things working. They need to do their 0xEF'ing job, and revamp ZEC so a cave in China isn't the 51% ownership point of ZEC mining. I mean no disrespect to China, but I've worked in Shenzhen, Cupertino and Aguadia Puerto Rico, and I have seen first hand how China has a clear advantage, especially with ~free hydro power at their new 3 gorges dam. Now I'll step off my soapbox and let you flame me if you wish.
El Quimeco
May 31, 2018, 02:30:47 AM
Hello
any solution for
recv failed: 10054
reconnecting ..
couldnt find device 0
any solution for
recv failed: 10054
reconnecting ..
couldnt find device 0
Code:
WSAECONNRESET
10054
Connection reset by peer.
An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. This normally results if the peer application on the remote host is suddenly stopped, the host is rebooted, the host or remote network interface is disabled, or the remote host uses a hard close (see setsockopt for more information on the SO_LINGER option on the remote socket). This error may also result if a connection was broken due to keep-alive activity detecting a failure while one or more operations are in progress. Operations that were in progress fail with WSAENETRESET. Subsequent operations fail with WSAECONNRESET.
10054
Connection reset by peer.
An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. This normally results if the peer application on the remote host is suddenly stopped, the host is rebooted, the host or remote network interface is disabled, or the remote host uses a hard close (see setsockopt for more information on the SO_LINGER option on the remote socket). This error may also result if a connection was broken due to keep-alive activity detecting a failure while one or more operations are in progress. Operations that were in progress fail with WSAENETRESET. Subsequent operations fail with WSAECONNRESET.
You have network problem. For example try another pool.
May 30, 2018, 04:48:10 PM
How Abaout POS
No PoS here, only PoW. May 30, 2018, 04:38:38 PM
Hello
any solution for
recv failed: 10054
reconnecting ..
couldnt find device 0
any solution for
recv failed: 10054
reconnecting ..
couldnt find device 0
May 30, 2018, 08:42:24 AM
How Abaout POS
May 30, 2018, 08:40:46 AM
This is a bug introduced in 0.6.1.
ZM doesn't output stats properly if you use the '--dev' option.
It's fixed already in the current development branch.
Ah thank you so much. That explains it, because indeed I used "--dev 1". Awesome work! ZM doesn't output stats properly if you use the '--dev' option.
It's fixed already in the current development branch.
May 30, 2018, 05:21:42 AM
Concerning the reported performance drop on some systems on 0.6.1-linux.
The performance drop is caused by the 2% performance optimization in 0.6.1. It occurs on mainbords where multiple PCIe-slots share one PCIe-lane, like mainboards using the H110 chipset. I'm currently working on it, thx for reporting and providing data.
The performance drop is caused by the 2% performance optimization in 0.6.1. It occurs on mainbords where multiple PCIe-slots share one PCIe-lane, like mainboards using the H110 chipset. I'm currently working on it, thx for reporting and providing data.
May 30, 2018, 05:21:10 AM
I have posted this before but I'm having ZERO issues on Linux (Ubuntu Server) with 0.6.1 on a eight GTX1070TI rig. I don't understand why others are having issues. I'm seeing the slight speed increase dstm said we would and have never had one single crash since I started using his miner back in December.
So I don't know what is up with other problems reported. I agree with chaostic in that most of the issues are user error and not setting up the Linux environment correctly. I've been using Linux since 1997 so perhaps that is why I don't have issues.
So I don't know what is up with other problems reported. I agree with chaostic in that most of the issues are user error and not setting up the Linux environment correctly. I've been using Linux since 1997 so perhaps that is why I don't have issues.
Thx for your reports
What mainboard are you on?
May 30, 2018, 05:20:28 AM
Hi there.
I used version 0.6 for weeks and never had any problems. Today I updated to 0.6.1 and while the performance seems ok (at least at pool side) I have a strange phenomenon:
The miner output only occurs ONCE and then never again (tested on different pools, coins etc.), so my whole output looks like this:
I'm currently mining with a single 1060 (3GB) under Windows 10. Is there any way to force the miner to output the status line (or manually do so like e.g. pressing "h" in xmrig)? Thanks for your help!
just for comparison: version 0.6 looks like this:
I used version 0.6 for weeks and never had any problems. Today I updated to 0.6.1 and while the performance seems ok (at least at pool side) I have a strange phenomenon:
The miner output only occurs ONCE and then never again (tested on different pools, coins etc.), so my whole output looks like this:
Code:
2018-05-25 12:34:36|# server set difficulty to: 0.13281225 [003c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3...]
2018-05-25 12:34:56|> GPU1 74C 53% | 299.7 Sol/s 299.7 Avg 156.5 I/s | 3.37 S/W 93 W | 11.98 100 36 ++++
2018-05-25 12:35:46|# server set difficulty to: 0.39843674 [0014141414141414141414141414141...]
2018-05-25 12:36:52|# server set difficulty to: 1.06249797 [0007878787878787878787878787878...]
2018-05-25 12:37:56|# server set difficulty to: 0.45021101 [0011c4f82b5f6776758143822497ee8...]
2018-05-25 12:39:02|# server set difficulty to: 0.22510550 [002389f056beceeceb028704492fdd0...]
2018-05-25 12:41:11|# server set difficulty to: 0.33348963 [0017fd1bd424589e05fd9e5c044476a...]
2018-05-25 12:42:16|# server set difficulty to: 0.10105746 [004f29a8a25c70263eeeb5f1a022254...]
2018-05-25 12:43:22|# server set difficulty to: 0.35370113 [00169e302e666749ef9b1d69bf9aac3...]
2018-05-25 12:44:26|# server set difficulty to: 0.88425282 [00090c1345c30470cc72110a5a62059...]
2018-05-25 12:34:56|> GPU1 74C 53% | 299.7 Sol/s 299.7 Avg 156.5 I/s | 3.37 S/W 93 W | 11.98 100 36 ++++
2018-05-25 12:35:46|# server set difficulty to: 0.39843674 [0014141414141414141414141414141...]
2018-05-25 12:36:52|# server set difficulty to: 1.06249797 [0007878787878787878787878787878...]
2018-05-25 12:37:56|# server set difficulty to: 0.45021101 [0011c4f82b5f6776758143822497ee8...]
2018-05-25 12:39:02|# server set difficulty to: 0.22510550 [002389f056beceeceb028704492fdd0...]
2018-05-25 12:41:11|# server set difficulty to: 0.33348963 [0017fd1bd424589e05fd9e5c044476a...]
2018-05-25 12:42:16|# server set difficulty to: 0.10105746 [004f29a8a25c70263eeeb5f1a022254...]
2018-05-25 12:43:22|# server set difficulty to: 0.35370113 [00169e302e666749ef9b1d69bf9aac3...]
2018-05-25 12:44:26|# server set difficulty to: 0.88425282 [00090c1345c30470cc72110a5a62059...]
I'm currently mining with a single 1060 (3GB) under Windows 10. Is there any way to force the miner to output the status line (or manually do so like e.g. pressing "h" in xmrig)? Thanks for your help!
just for comparison: version 0.6 looks like this:
Code:
2018-05-25 13:05:04|# server set difficulty to: 003c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c3c...
2018-05-25 13:05:24|> GPU1 72C Sol/s: 295.1 Sol/W: 3.29 Avg: 295.1 I/s: 158.7 Sh: 14.88 1.00 53 +++++
2018-05-25 13:05:44| GPU1 73C Sol/s: 298.3 Sol/W: 3.29 Avg: 296.7 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 17.94 1.00 39 +++++++
2018-05-25 13:05:57|# server set difficulty to: 0012ee5c12ece860d8678811...
2018-05-25 13:06:04|> GPU1 74C Sol/s: 297.4 Sol/W: 3.28 Avg: 296.9 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 14.93 1.00 48 +++
2018-05-25 13:06:25| GPU1 75C Sol/s: 296.5 Sol/W: 3.27 Avg: 296.8 I/s: 156.9 Sh: 14.91 1.00 37 +++++
2018-05-25 13:06:45| GPU1 76C Sol/s: 290.6 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 295.6 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 12.52 1.00 38 +
2018-05-25 13:07:05| GPU1 76C Sol/s: 292.5 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 295.1 I/s: 156.9 Sh: 11.43 1.00 48 ++
2018-05-25 13:05:24|> GPU1 72C Sol/s: 295.1 Sol/W: 3.29 Avg: 295.1 I/s: 158.7 Sh: 14.88 1.00 53 +++++
2018-05-25 13:05:44| GPU1 73C Sol/s: 298.3 Sol/W: 3.29 Avg: 296.7 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 17.94 1.00 39 +++++++
2018-05-25 13:05:57|# server set difficulty to: 0012ee5c12ece860d8678811...
2018-05-25 13:06:04|> GPU1 74C Sol/s: 297.4 Sol/W: 3.28 Avg: 296.9 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 14.93 1.00 48 +++
2018-05-25 13:06:25| GPU1 75C Sol/s: 296.5 Sol/W: 3.27 Avg: 296.8 I/s: 156.9 Sh: 14.91 1.00 37 +++++
2018-05-25 13:06:45| GPU1 76C Sol/s: 290.6 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 295.6 I/s: 156.8 Sh: 12.52 1.00 38 +
2018-05-25 13:07:05| GPU1 76C Sol/s: 292.5 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 295.1 I/s: 156.9 Sh: 11.43 1.00 48 ++
I have the exact same issue going on. just updated Awesome Miner. Looks like part of that update was to update to the new DSTM 0.6.1 Now the only thing updating in my miner is the server difficulty changes. Only running 3 1050TI's on it at the moment.
This is a bug introduced in 0.6.1.
ZM doesn't output stats properly if you use the '--dev' option.
It's fixed already in the current development branch.
Jump to: