...
Excellent news!
wlwesq, are you using Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) on those machines?Excellent news!
No, just 10.8.4. I haven't felt the urge to get into the OS X beta (yet).
Topic: Asteroid -- a new Mac mining client (0.9.7) - page 6. (Read 46464 times)
No, just 10.8.4. I haven't felt the urge to get into the OS X beta (yet).
I'm getting half the hashrate issue with cgminer 3.3.1 on Windows (downloaded from the official place earlier this evening). Maybe it's just a cgminer issue rather than your build?
But let me ask since you brought it up, and I'm honestly very interested, what do you find you like in bfgminer that you don't see in cgminer?
Well, for me it is simply that I have an ASIC and corresponding drivers installed, so I can freely switch between bfgminer and BitMinter client, but as soon as I want to use cgminer, I have to remove kernel extensions and reboot, which is a little bit inconvenient
In the meantime I saved the relevant code as an applet for yourself or others to turn on/off the com.silabs.driver.CP210xVCPDriver drivers without rebooting. It works quite well! I use it for testing Asteroid and how it plays with other miners. You can download it here: Toggle USB to UART.app.
...
Excellent news!
wlwesq, are you using Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) on those machines? Excellent news!
Yes, the rate displayed in Asteroid is just a UI bug due to multiple identically-named miners. The half-hashrate being reported to the pool (only with USB devices) seems to be a problem with my cgminer binaries and is definitely a serious bug for anyone doing USB-based mining with Asteroid now. However, I've narrowed down the problem and should have a fix ready soon!
I'll roll it out to the cgminer for Mac OS X binaries I maintain for the community too.
I'll roll it out to the cgminer for Mac OS X binaries I maintain for the community too.
Excellent news!
Yes, the rate displayed in Asteroid is just a UI bug due to multiple identically-named miners. The half-hashrate being reported to the pool (only with USB devices) seems to be a problem with my cgminer binaries and is definitely a serious bug for anyone doing USB-based mining with Asteroid now. However, I've narrowed down the problem and should have a fix ready soon!
I'll roll it out to the cgminer for Mac OS X binaries I maintain for the community too.
I'll roll it out to the cgminer for Mac OS X binaries I maintain for the community too.
Just a quick update. For grins I switched mining pools to BTC Guild, and the "only half the hash rate is showing up" experience remains. The console shows otherwise, but both Asteroid and the pool are reporting roughly half of the rate the console reports.
So, at least we know it's not something tied to a particular pool (unless both Eligius and BTC Guild have the same issue, whatever it is).
So, at least we know it's not something tied to a particular pool (unless both Eligius and BTC Guild have the same issue, whatever it is).
It is interesting, definitely, and curious. The miner output window shows everything is kosher. Yet the pool (and the Asteroid GUI) show half of the hash rate. Doesn't make sense, and I'll look forward to what you find out. Thanks!
Interesting, thanks for the update wlwesq. I think you're on to something, as I seem to confirm it here as well (normal hash rates reported, but only half being reported by the pool). I spent most of yesterday trying to isolate the problem and will continue looking today as well. Signs point to perhaps my compilation of cgminer, which I'm currently troubleshooting. Asteroid itself (the GUI) doesn't seem to have a direct effect at all. I'll let you know, and thanks again!
EDIT: The cgminer build used by MacMiner appears to have the same issue. Bfgminer seems to be unaffected. Still investigating...
Signs point to perhaps my compilation of cgminer, which I'm currently troubleshooting. Asteroid itself (the GUI) doesn't seem to have a direct effect at all. I'll let you know, and thanks again!EDIT: The cgminer build used by MacMiner appears to have the same issue. Bfgminer seems to be unaffected. Still investigating...
To help illustrate, here's the link to my stats where you can see the 600-700 range using MacMiner's FPGA/ASIC option and then the lower range using Asteroid and cgminer.
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1BoCjgNQmsc8EK3Fmo1QgBjwuUTsy5ys66
I'll try to quiet down and be less of a pest now.
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1BoCjgNQmsc8EK3Fmo1QgBjwuUTsy5ys66
I'll try to quiet down and be less of a pest now.
I'll do some tests on the rates reported by the pools, although it's been my experience that they typically under-report hash rates and shouldn't be seen as very accurate. Have you seen accurate hash rates reported by that pool with those same devices in other mining programs? Your logs show you averaging 625MH/s and the number of submitted shares looks good for your hash rate. Nonetheless, I'll of course double check. Thanks again!
Oops, forgot to answer this question!
Yes, hash rates reported by Eligius (and other pools) with these devices in MacMiner have reported in the 660 Mh/s range (2x330).
But, the rates in MacMiner were using the FPGA/ASIC miner that he has built in, not cgminer. Perhaps that's the difference?
Here's some more info, which I think is good.
On a whim (and on a different laptop, the one at home) I plugged one miner in, launched Asteroid, and fired it up. After it was up and running, I plugged the second one in.
At this point, the Asteroid window went kablooey--the two miner bars got written on top of the overall bar, so it's a bit messed up UI wise. But, the console shows definitely higher hash rates more along the lines of what I have seen using Bitminter, for example.
So, other than the UI problem that I "discovered" I'd say things are looking up!
On a whim (and on a different laptop, the one at home) I plugged one miner in, launched Asteroid, and fired it up. After it was up and running, I plugged the second one in.
At this point, the Asteroid window went kablooey--the two miner bars got written on top of the overall bar, so it's a bit messed up UI wise. But, the console shows definitely higher hash rates more along the lines of what I have seen using Bitminter, for example.
So, other than the UI problem that I "discovered" I'd say things are looking up!
Oh, forgot to mention--if I have just one of the miners plugged in, it runs at about 250 Mh/s rather than 300+.
Very strange indeed!
Awesome, thanks for the reports and log files! It looks like they're mostly UI bugs. With what you provided I should be able to clean it up easily enough (looks like it just gets confused with identically internally named devices).Very strange indeed!
I'll do some tests on the rates reported by the pools, although it's been my experience that they typically under-report hash rates and shouldn't be seen as very accurate. Have you seen accurate hash rates reported by that pool with those same devices in other mining programs? Your logs show you averaging 625MH/s and the number of submitted shares looks good for your hash rate. Nonetheless, I'll of course double check. Thanks again!
Oh, forgot to mention--if I have just one of the miners plugged in, it runs at about 250 Mh/s rather than 300+.
Very strange indeed!
Very strange indeed!
OK, here's something odd I've observed running on two different Macs.
I'm using a pair of the USB miners. In the "Asteroid" window, both ASICMINER options are checked.
The lower one is labeled 1, the upper is labeled 2.
I start the mining, and things spin up (so to speak).
Block 1 shows it is tooling along at around 300+ Mh/s. Block 2 shows it is "starting."
If I uncheck Block 2, everything comes to a halt--zero Mh/s on both, and they both show "stopped."
Yet, the Miner Console shows the thing is still working.
Odd, no?
Here's the other weird thing. I would expect that if both miners are running that the speed would be 600+ Mh/s, but the pool stats show it's only half that amount.
I'll send a bug report directly to you, Karin.
I'm using a pair of the USB miners. In the "Asteroid" window, both ASICMINER options are checked.
The lower one is labeled 1, the upper is labeled 2.
I start the mining, and things spin up (so to speak).
Block 1 shows it is tooling along at around 300+ Mh/s. Block 2 shows it is "starting."
If I uncheck Block 2, everything comes to a halt--zero Mh/s on both, and they both show "stopped."
Yet, the Miner Console shows the thing is still working.
Odd, no?
Here's the other weird thing. I would expect that if both miners are running that the speed would be 600+ Mh/s, but the pool stats show it's only half that amount.
I'll send a bug report directly to you, Karin.
I've had a bunch of requests in the last couple hours, you should all have received invites now. And thanks!
If you're in need of more beta testers, I've got a couple of MacBook Pros that I can test on, along with two of the ASIC USB miners.
But let me ask since you brought it up, and I'm honestly very interested, what do you find you like in bfgminer that you don't see in cgminer?
Well, for me it is simply that I have an ASIC and corresponding drivers installed, so I can freely switch between bfgminer and BitMinter client, but as soon as I want to use cgminer, I have to remove kernel extensions and reboot, which is a little bit inconvenient
But let me ask since you brought it up, and I'm honestly very interested, what do you find you like in bfgminer that you don't see in cgminer?
Well, for me it is simply that I have an ASIC and corresponding drivers installed, so I can freely switch between bfgminer and BitMinter client, but as soon as I want to use cgminer, I have to remove kernel extensions and reboot, which is a little bit inconvenient
Will you add bfgminer support too?
Asteroid has all the hooks for multiple miners, and it's not the first time I've been asked about it, but it would require additional time to maintain a universal binary version of bfgminer and some time to test compatibility. Time that would take me away from maintaining cgminer and Asteroid. But that being said I'm not averse to doing so if the demand is there.The other side of that is a smooth user experience for the target audience, which are everyday users who don't need to be saturated with details (I'm thinking similar to the BitMinter audience, but on any pool and a cleaner UI). Again, that's somewhat of a cop-out but I can't ignore that KISS is a strong design principle for this project.
But let me ask since you brought it up, and I'm honestly very interested, what do you find you like in bfgminer that you don't see in cgminer?
Jump to: