Topic: [ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay] - page 1211. (Read 2375939 times)

I won my bet So you got 20 percent increase in performance but you are sticking with the slower one because it is easier to start? My turn to laugh

For shits and giggles I tried the single instance approach and I got around 184kh/s.

I say around ad there were 31 instances running and I took an average.

I think I may go with the miner from MarcusDe as it is easier to start. 

Need to run some more tests.

Pmsl. Now stop laughing and follow the instructions for starting multiple instances of minerd with one thread per instance, as mentioned here:-

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8926975

I bet you one XMG that you get more than 153 Kh/s

Cheers !!!

I am now getting 180 kh/s !!!

Hey maybe a nice public service announcement will work:  The target hash rate is 50 MH/sec and anyone taking a significant percentage of this is harming the community.  Let all play fair; hugs and kisses, unicorns, rainbows, spread the love people.  - Glenda the good.

Or perhaps:  By edict of the high command any party caught taking more than their fair share of the communal hash rate will have their ip banned their equipment hung drawn and quartered and the useless hulk displayed on the tower of London bridge for the rest of the community to behold.  - King Henry the Ninth.

Considering the market cap of this coin – just too funny.    But at least we are burning less power as a community now. 

only got 41kh/s, with my other miner I get 153 kh/s!!! - lol

Can u paste cpu-z image or just give me detailed info what model?

Here you go!

http://graymines.net/miners/magi/cpuminer_win64_magi_byMarcusDe-ivybridge-0922.zip

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hiadf8o5u7bsit7/XMGpoolminerWin64.rar?dl=0

Nice

AMD FX ?

Thanks for that and I stand corrected The documentation provided with the source code does mention using the AVX instruction set if available. Your build for Haswell crashes on an AMD FX4100 (as expected) so the compiler must be using some of the advanced features available under Haswell. All your other versions are stable on the FX4100 and on an Intel i7 4510u but run at slightly different speeds. I am very interested in which compiler you have been using. For my 64 bit version I used Cygwin with CFLAGS="-O3 -march=generic -mtune=generic" CXXFLAGS="-O3 -march=generic -mtune=generic".

Edit: Oops - CFLAGS="-O3 mtune=generic" CXXFLAGS="-O3 -mtune=generic" and the ./configure command line included --build=x86_64-pc-cygwin

I have a dual Xeon ES server 2.3Ghz 32 core and I get 153 Kh/s

Where is the link to the Spexx version so I can test ?

This haswell release is getting me 74kh/s but your previous release is getting me 81kh/s

@MarcusDe You're awesome!

I'm getting ~24 khs now!
Processor: i5 2410m and miner version: sandybridge 0922

‘sandybridge’
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, POPCNT, AVX, AES and PCLMUL

‘ivybridge’
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, POPCNT, AVX, AES, PCLMUL, FSGSBASE, RDRND and F16C


Anyway, lets see if miner will use any of those 3 new instructions, omw to make ivybridge version ;-)

Oh hold on a minute. Your processor has four cores, so it would be best to use just 4 threads i.e. just the first four command lines of the startup batch file above. The remaining command lines will not work for you - they attempt to use 12 further cores which you don't have.

I thought that Ivybridge was a "shrink" of Sandybridge with the same instruction sets on both, so anything compiled for one should work on the other. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The weird behavior you noticed was discovered in an earlier version compiled by somebody else. The problem arises when using --threads greater than 1 and you can see what is going on by using the Windows Task Manager (and Process Explorer if you are a proper geek ). Try starting 16 instances of minerd with --threads 1 and you should see an immediate significant improvement. I found that a small further improvement was obtained by forcing each instance to use a predetermined set of three cores, balancing the load. To do this, create a batch file with startup commands thus:-

start /low /min /affinity 0x7 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xb minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xd minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xe minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0x70 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xb0 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xd0 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xe0 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0x700 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xb00 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xd00 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xe00 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0x7000 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xb000 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xd000 minerd etc
start /low /min /affinity 0xe000 minerd etc

I found with further testing that it was possible to wring a tiny bit more performance out by having each process/thread connect to a unique worker profile on the pool(s) and the method above will also allow simultaneous connection to more than one pool. I have a quad-core processor with four minerd processes running thus:-

start /low /min /affinity 0x7 minerd --url stratum+tcp::/xmg.suprnova.cc:7127 --user Spexx.Spexx --pass stratocaster --threads 1 --quiet
start /low /min /affinity 0xb minerd --url stratum+tcp::/xmg.suprnova.cc:7127 --user Spexx.Spexx1 --pass stratocaster --threads 1 --quiet
start /low /min /affinity 0xd minerd --url stratum+tcp://mine2.magi.nonce-pool.com:4090 --user Spexx.Spexx --pass stratocaster --threads 1 --quiet
start /low /min /affinity 0xe minerd --url stratum+tcp://mine2.magi.nonce-pool.com:4090 --user Spexx.Spexx1 --pass stratocaster --threads 1 --quiet


This should help a great deal. I would be very interested to see a revised set of results from your machine when using this balanced startup regime with the various versions of minerd now available.

Take westmere version on 2 x Xeon E5620. I have same machine and it runs without problems there.

http://graymines.net/miners/magi/

Miners you mention are older versions, I sorted all now ;-)

Please check you CPU architecture - if you run higher version than supported by your CPU, your CPU doesn't support instruction set,  app crashes. It's normal :-)

core2 (should run on all "new" CPUs) -> westmere (runs great on my Xeons) -> sandybridge -> haswell

I can make ivybridge, but it won't be much faster, imo.