Is there any way I can disable GPU0 in this miner and let zm run on other Gpus?
Read first post, you may find the answer...
Topic: [ANN] dstm's ZCash / Equihash Nvidia Miner v0.6.2 (Linux / Windows) - page 88. (Read 224961 times)
December 12, 2017, 11:03:26 AM
Read first post, you may find the answer...
December 12, 2017, 10:37:22 AM
Is there any way I can disable GPU0 in this miner and let zm run on other Gpus?
December 12, 2017, 09:36:16 AM
Can some help me with this?
I use SMOS for a while now no problems. Just want to try a different miner. I've been using ewbf on flypool. Ok on SMOS dashboard for me the dstm has a string for miningpoolhub. Here's what I'm talking about
I use SMOS for a while now no problems. Just want to try a different miner. I've been using ewbf on flypool. Ok on SMOS dashboard for me the dstm has a string for miningpoolhub. Here's what I'm talking about
Quote
--server europe.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com --port 20570 --user youraccount.$rigName --pass x
How would I change it to flypool? Would I use the same string that is in my miner for ewbf/flypool? December 12, 2017, 08:15:12 AM
New Version 0.5.7
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
Thank you for an awesome update, the overall cpu usage on my 8 GPU rig dropped from 45-50% to 25-30% which is quite significant improvement.
I can also see the 0.5% improvement on the 1060 cards, great job!
December 12, 2017, 08:13:17 AM
New Version 0.5.7
nvml: handle invalid values
nvml: handle invalid values
What does it mean?
December 12, 2017, 08:11:15 AM
EthMonitoring.com updated to 0.5.7 for EthControl
December 12, 2017, 08:02:34 AM
New Version 0.5.7
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
Nice improvement!
I'm testing right now on a small rig with 2x 1070 and 2x 1080ti (2330 sols)
I have more than half cpu load on windows 10, same hashrate.
IMO, it would be nice to also add an option to launch the miner with higher cpu priority (like ccminer --cpu-priority)
I change the priority in a BAT file, and it helps a lot.
December 12, 2017, 07:12:16 AM
New Version 0.5.7
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
reduce cpu load
minor performance improvements
con: use single pool connection
con: ssl: clear session data before reconnect
nvml: handle invalid values
This release contains quite some technical work/optimizations, which results most notably in a lower cpu load - about 40% - 30%. It also contains minor solver performance improvements - most notable on an 1060 - about 0.5%, pretty small - however it's still there. ZM uses now a single connection to the pool, since some pools/routers seemed to have difficulties with multiple connections - this might help people who had regular disconnects. Pools which adjust the difficulty based on the share rate won't be able to distinguish between the GPUs because zm uses a single connections now - so the difficulty and thus the share rate might change.
People who requested failover pool support: I'm planning to support it in the next release, I'm releasing this iteration first to make sure the transition to a single connection works as expected.
December 12, 2017, 06:04:32 AM
Thank you sir. Can you help me with one more thing? I use SMOS for a while now no problems. Just want to try a different miner. I've been using ewbf on flypool. Ok on SMOS dashboard for me the dstm has a string for miningpoolhub. Here's what I'm talking about
win 10 64bit ver 1703
What OS are you using?
that's my setup right now
I'm new to dstm and would like to know if you can use dstm on flypool?
that's my setup right now
win 10 64bit ver 1703
December 12, 2017, 02:56:51 AM
Hello, is this ok for mining Bitcoin Gold with dstm's on coinotron?
It finded just 1 share with 1060 and 1080ti isnt?
and what "unknown method client.get_version" means?
It finded just 1 share with 1060 and 1080ti isnt?
and what "unknown method client.get_version" means?
Code:
2017-12-12 08.50.45|# telemetry server started
2017-12-12 08.50.45|# GPU0 connected to: coinotron.com:3349
2017-12-12 08.50.45|unknown method client.get_version
2017-12-12 08.50.46|# GPU1 connected to: coinotron.com:3349
2017-12-12 08.50.46|unknown method client.get_version
2017-12-12 08.50.48|# GPU0 server supports extranonce
2017-12-12 08.50.48|# GPU1 server supports extranonce
2017-12-12 08.50.48|# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 0000cccccccc000000000000...
2017-12-12 08.50.50|# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 0000cccccccc000000000000...
2017-12-12 08.51.08|> GPU0 59C Sol/s: 747.2 Sol/W: 3.19 Avg: 747.2 I/s: 402.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.10|> GPU1 64C Sol/s: 334.4 Sol/W: 3.40 Avg: 334.4 I/s: 175.9 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.10| ========== Sol/s: 1081.6 Sol/W: 3.30 Avg: 1081.6 I/s: 577.9 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.28|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 748.7 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 747.9 I/s: 400.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.30|> GPU1 65C Sol/s: 326.2 Sol/W: 3.31 Avg: 330.3 I/s: 175.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.30| ========== Sol/s: 1074.9 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 1078.3 I/s: 575.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.48|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 743.6 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 746.5 I/s: 400.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.50|> GPU1 65C Sol/s: 320.1 Sol/W: 3.25 Avg: 326.9 I/s: 174.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.51.50| ========== Sol/s: 1063.6 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 1073.4 I/s: 575.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.08|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 757.9 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 749.3 I/s: 400.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.11|> GPU1 65C Sol/s: 327.5 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 327.1 I/s: 173.1 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.11| ========== Sol/s: 1085.5 Sol/W: 3.24 Avg: 1076.4 I/s: 573.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.29|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 742.5 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 748.0 I/s: 400.5 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.31|> GPU1 65C Sol/s: 321.6 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 326.0 I/s: 173.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.31| ========== Sol/s: 1064.1 Sol/W: 3.23 Avg: 1073.9 I/s: 573.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.49|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 739.7 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 746.6 I/s: 400.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.51| GPU1 65C Sol/s: 320.7 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 325.1 I/s: 173.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.52.51| ========== Sol/s: 1060.4 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1071.7 I/s: 574.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.09|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 749.5 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 747.0 I/s: 400.7 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.11|> GPU1 65C Sol/s: 327.4 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 325.4 I/s: 174.1 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.11| ========== Sol/s: 1076.9 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1072.4 I/s: 574.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.29| GPU0 60C Sol/s: 742.8 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 746.5 I/s: 400.7 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.31|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 330.6 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 326.1 I/s: 174.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.31| ========== Sol/s: 1073.4 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1072.6 I/s: 575.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.49|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 752.8 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 747.2 I/s: 400.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.51| GPU1 65C Sol/s: 320.9 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 325.5 I/s: 173.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.53.51| ========== Sol/s: 1073.7 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1072.7 I/s: 573.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.09|> GPU0 60C Sol/s: 747.1 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 747.2 I/s: 400.5 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.11|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 323.6 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.3 I/s: 174.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.11| ========== Sol/s: 1070.7 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1072.5 I/s: 574.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.29| GPU0 61C Sol/s: 746.4 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 747.1 I/s: 400.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.31|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 325.2 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.3 I/s: 173.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.31| ========== Sol/s: 1071.6 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1072.4 I/s: 574.1 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.49|> GPU0 61C Sol/s: 737.0 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 746.3 I/s: 400.5 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.54.51| GPU1 66C Sol/s: 326.7 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.4 I/s: 174.0 Sh: 0.25 1.00 82 +
2017-12-12 08.54.51| ========== Sol/s: 1063.8 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1071.7 I/s: 574.4 Sh: 0.25 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.09|> GPU0 61C Sol/s: 740.2 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 745.8 I/s: 400.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.55.11|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 318.9 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 324.9 I/s: 175.1 Sh: 0.23 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.11| ========== Sol/s: 1059.1 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 1070.7 I/s: 575.4 Sh: 0.23 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.30| GPU0 61C Sol/s: 745.1 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 745.8 I/s: 400.4 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.55.31|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 328.1 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.1 I/s: 174.5 Sh: 0.21 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.31| ========== Sol/s: 1073.3 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 1070.9 I/s: 574.9 Sh: 0.21 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.50|> GPU0 61C Sol/s: 743.8 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 745.6 I/s: 400.4 Sh: 0.00 . . *
2017-12-12 08.55.51| GPU1 66C Sol/s: 328.5 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.4 I/s: 174.1 Sh: 0.20 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.55.51| ========== Sol/s: 1072.3 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 1071.0 I/s: 574.4 Sh: 0.20 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.56.10|> GPU0 61C Sol/s: 749.1 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 745.8 I/s: 400.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-12 08.56.12|> GPU1 66C Sol/s: 328.7 Sol/W: 3.21 Avg: 325.6 I/s: 174.5 Sh: 0.19 1.00 82
2017-12-12 08.56.12| ========== Sol/s: 1077.8 Sol/W: 3.22 Avg: 1071.4 I/s: 574.8 Sh: 0.19 1.00 82
December 11, 2017, 08:21:23 PM
So idk if this is a MiningPoolHub problem or dstm miner problem but im getting paid really low in BTG on mph.
Should be about 0.057 in 24 hours with 2030kh and its 0.047?
Anyone else mining BTG on mph? results?
Edit: So I just switched to Bminer and my hashrate and income appear to be like they should be on MPH.
it WAS a miner problem.
Even tho the miner was showing good hashrate the pool was showing 1.7kh
My miner shows 2050 now and the pool says the same.
Should be about 0.057 in 24 hours with 2030kh and its 0.047?
Anyone else mining BTG on mph? results?
Edit: So I just switched to Bminer and my hashrate and income appear to be like they should be on MPH.
it WAS a miner problem.
Even tho the miner was showing good hashrate the pool was showing 1.7kh
My miner shows 2050 now and the pool says the same.
December 11, 2017, 07:35:40 PM
All of my testing of dstm to date has been on flypool.
December 11, 2017, 02:49:50 PM
Works quite well for me using SMOS
With the GTX 1080 Ti on 200W, 1800 core, 5080 mem
I am getting:
I haven't OC'd the card that much, only +150Core, and +150 mem
With the GTX 1080 Ti on 200W, 1800 core, 5080 mem
I am getting:
Code:
GPU0 51C Sol/s: 707.4 Sol/W: 3.58 Avg: 714.2 I/s: 382.1 Sh: 3.62 1.00 30
GPU0 51C Sol/s: 701.1 Sol/W: 3.58 Avg: 714.0 I/s: 382.0 Sh: 3.73 1.00 33
GPU0 51C Sol/s: 719.2 Sol/W: 3.58 Avg: 714.1 I/s: 382.0 Sh: 3.83 1.00 30
GPU0 51C Sol/s: 728.6 Sol/W: 3.58 Avg: 714.4 I/s: 381.7 Sh: 3.82 1.00 31
GPU0 51C Sol/s: 712.8 Sol/W: 3.58 Avg: 714.3 I/s: 382.0 Sh: 3.86 1.00
I haven't OC'd the card that much, only +150Core, and +150 mem
December 11, 2017, 01:33:45 PM
What OS are you using?
that's my setup right now
I'm new to dstm and would like to know if you can use dstm on flypool?
that's my setup right now
win 10 64bit ver 1703
December 11, 2017, 10:32:53 AM
Does anyone else get trouble with ZM and Zenmine.pro? no matter what server of theirs is set?
I get this on all miners every 5 mins approx;
I get this on all miners every 5 mins approx;
Code:
GPU0 69C Sol/s: 659.9 Sol/W: 3.65 Avg: 656.1 I/s: 354.2 Sh: 2.40 1.00 1727 +
GPU1 79C Sol/s: 626.0 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 621.1 I/s: 331.5 Sh: 2.40 1.00 3086 +++
GPU2 71C Sol/s: 461.8 Sol/W: 3.10 Avg: 464.9 I/s: 248.5 Sh: 0.90 1.00 1979
========== Sol/s: 1747.7 Sol/W: 3.52 Avg: 1742.1 I/s: 934.2 Sh: 5.70 1.00 2264
# connection closed by server r:0
# reconnecting
# GPU0 connected to: us.zenmine.pro:9009
# GPU1 connected to: us.zenmine.pro:9009
# GPU2 connected to: us.zenmine.pro:9009
# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 000471c71c71c71c69e06522...
# GPU1 server set difficulty to: 000471c71c71c71c69e06522...
# GPU2 server set difficulty to: 000471c71c71c71c69e06522...
> GPU0 65C Sol/s: 670.7 Sol/W: 3.70 Avg: 670.7 I/s: 360.3 Sh: 6.00 1.00 1495 ++
> GPU1 75C Sol/s: 633.1 Sol/W: 3.81 Avg: 633.1 I/s: 337.9 Sh: 0.00 . .
> GPU2 65C Sol/s: 459.9 Sol/W: 3.20 Avg: 459.9 I/s: 250.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
Yes, I get it also. I've searched for an answer and have posted about it but no reply so far. I switched to Zecminer and the hashrate is 10% lower, but that is better than all the disconnects I get.
December 11, 2017, 10:09:37 AM
What OS are you using?
that's my setup right now
I'm new to dstm and would like to know if you can use dstm on flypool?
that's my setup right now
December 11, 2017, 09:15:23 AM
I'm new to dstm and would like to know if you can use dstm on flypool?
that's my setup right now
December 11, 2017, 08:12:38 AM
Been trying out the program. I'm not sure why but my shares are not submitting correctly...
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# zm 0.5.6
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# GPU0 + GeForce GTX 1080 MB: 8192 PCI: 1:0
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# telemetry server started
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# GPU0 connected to: equihash.mine.zpool.ca:2142
2017-12-10 11:43:39 PM|# GPU0 server supports extranonce
2017-12-10 11:43:39 PM|# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 00002003e07c0f81f0000000...
2017-12-10 11:44:00 PM|> GPU0 54C Sol/s: 187.2 Sol/W: 1.34 Avg: 187.2 I/s: 97.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:44:20 PM|> GPU0 55C Sol/s: 175.1 Sol/W: 1.30 Avg: 181.1 I/s: 91.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:44:41 PM|> GPU0 54C Sol/s: 170.8 Sol/W: 1.28 Avg: 177.7 I/s: 91.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:45:01 PM| GPU0 54C Sol/s: 233.5 Sol/W: 1.37 Avg: 191.7 I/s: 124.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
Can anyone help me on this? I'm really lost.
PS: Ignore the sol/s values, I was doing something else and it lagged the mining process.
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# zm 0.5.6
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# GPU0 + GeForce GTX 1080 MB: 8192 PCI: 1:0
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# telemetry server started
2017-12-10 11:43:35 PM|# GPU0 connected to: equihash.mine.zpool.ca:2142
2017-12-10 11:43:39 PM|# GPU0 server supports extranonce
2017-12-10 11:43:39 PM|# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 00002003e07c0f81f0000000...
2017-12-10 11:44:00 PM|> GPU0 54C Sol/s: 187.2 Sol/W: 1.34 Avg: 187.2 I/s: 97.3 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:44:20 PM|> GPU0 55C Sol/s: 175.1 Sol/W: 1.30 Avg: 181.1 I/s: 91.8 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:44:41 PM|> GPU0 54C Sol/s: 170.8 Sol/W: 1.28 Avg: 177.7 I/s: 91.6 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-10 11:45:01 PM| GPU0 54C Sol/s: 233.5 Sol/W: 1.37 Avg: 191.7 I/s: 124.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
Can anyone help me on this? I'm really lost.
PS: Ignore the sol/s values, I was doing something else and it lagged the mining process.
The server sets a pretty high difficulty so it will take some time (on average) to find a share especially with the low solution rate you have.
Hm...But my actual sol/s is about 490-500 actually (I was double opening 2 miners at that time, hence the 170-230 sol/s rate). I've tried using MPH, and it worked perfectly fine.
2017-12-11 8:41:46 PM|# zm 0.5.6
2017-12-11 8:41:46 PM|# GPU0 + GeForce GTX 1080 MB: 8192 PCI: 1:0
2017-12-11 8:41:46 PM|
2017-12-11 8:41:46 PM|# telemetry server started
2017-12-11 8:41:46 PM|# GPU0 connected to: asia.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:17023
2017-12-11 8:41:50 PM|# GPU0 server set difficulty to: 000080000000000000000000...
2017-12-11 8:42:11 PM|> GPU0 52C Sol/s: 508.9 Sol/W: 2.62 Avg: 508.9 I/s: 272.0 Sh: 0.00 . .
2017-12-11 8:42:31 PM| GPU0 61C Sol/s: 498.8 Sol/W: 2.59 Avg: 503.8 I/s: 270.2 Sh: 1.50 1.00 71 +
2017-12-11 8:42:51 PM|> GPU0 65C Sol/s: 501.5 Sol/W: 2.57 Avg: 503.1 I/s: 269.5 Sh: 1.00 1.00 71
2017-12-11 8:43:11 PM| GPU0 59C Sol/s: 498.7 Sol/W: 2.77 Avg: 502.0 I/s: 262.7 Sh: 0.75 1.00 71
2017-12-11 8:43:31 PM| GPU0 56C Sol/s: 504.0 Sol/W: 2.86 Avg: 502.4 I/s: 266.8 Sh: 0.60 1.00 71
I guess there's probably something not very well with the server from zpool?
December 11, 2017, 08:04:18 AM
I'm new to dstm and would like to know if you can use dstm on flypool?
December 11, 2017, 07:59:55 AM
So, why would dstm 0.5.6 report "inf" (presumably "infinite") for Sol/w with a GTX 1050 Ti? Driver version is 388.59, so I am up to date there.
Sorry if this question was covered in one of the preceding 1637 posts, but thread search on this forum is terminally defective and a google site search just pulled up reported Sol/w results from various cards.
Otherwise, dstm seems to be a winner - the hashrate is slightly lower than bminer, but that is more than made up for by about 30W less average power draw for my rinky-dink single card test setup.
Sorry if this question was covered in one of the preceding 1637 posts, but thread search on this forum is terminally defective and a google site search just pulled up reported Sol/w results from various cards.
Otherwise, dstm seems to be a winner - the hashrate is slightly lower than bminer, but that is more than made up for by about 30W less average power draw for my rinky-dink single card test setup.
Jump to: