Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin x64 for Windows - page 5. (Read 37433 times)

member
Activity: 182
Merit: 10
July 25, 2010, 03:05:05 AM
#78
I really like Windows Server 2008, which is pretty close to Windows 7.  It'll be a while before I give that up.

OTOH, I'm thinking very seriously re going with Ubuntu for my next primary desktop.  As a test, I've recently installed Ubuntu 10.04 Server x64 + GNOME on an old Core 2 Quad machine.  Everything except boot lives on an encrypted RAID5 array managed by LVM.  Losing Excel 2007 might be a problem, though.

Although I don't use Tor, I'm sure that there must be many setup guides for Ubuntu.

This is way off topic.  Sorry.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 11
July 25, 2010, 01:13:57 AM
#77
Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm moving to Ubuntu.

I still prefer windows 7 for many things, but I am liking Ubuntu more and more. If only some things weren't such a pain in the ass to use (Tor: Windows 7? 1 minute install. Ubuntu? WTF...)
member
Activity: 182
Merit: 10
July 24, 2010, 08:30:15 PM
#76
Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm moving to Ubuntu.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 258
July 24, 2010, 07:54:44 PM
#75
On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.
OK.  Could someone please explain the why of that, in terms that a non-programmer can understand?  Why is the stock Windows build slower than the stock Ubuntu build?
Optimizations mainly. When the program is being compiled on Windows, certainly optimizations make the program more efficient.

On Linux, we have both 32bit and 64bit builds to take advantage of the 64bit arch of the system. On windows, there was only a 32bit build.
member
Activity: 182
Merit: 10
July 24, 2010, 06:14:13 PM
#74
On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.
OK.  Could someone please explain the why of that, in terms that a non-programmer can understand?  Why is the stock Windows build slower than the stock Ubuntu build?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 11
July 24, 2010, 10:36:45 AM
#73
There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.
Yes, sorry, I left that part out, the Linux servers (same hardware) always generate higher khash/s than the windows machines, at least mine do. Your mileage may vary.

On my desktop, I have a dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. The SSE2 build brings Windows 7 speeds up to around the same as the Ubuntu build.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 258
July 23, 2010, 10:38:55 PM
#72
There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.
Yes, sorry, I left that part out, the Linux servers (same hardware) always generate higher khash/s than the windows machines, at least mine do. Your mileage may vary.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
July 23, 2010, 08:56:34 PM
#71
There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.

that's not an indicator of performance mind, block generation is pure luck, it's the hashes per second that mean something.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 258
July 23, 2010, 07:19:34 PM
#70
There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
Yeah, my Linux 64bit systems still have the leg up on my windows servers, even with this optimization that is made that speeds them up by 50%, seems Linux still rules the roost for coin generation speed.

Most of my coin generation comes from my Linux servers more than my windows servers, it's about a 1 to 4 ratio, for every 4 blocks made by my Linux servers, 1 will be made by one of the windows servers.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 11
July 23, 2010, 07:01:28 PM
#69
There is a speedup for me, but it is not faster than the ubuntu 64-bit version. I am surprised; with SSE2 I expected it to fly :S
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 258
July 22, 2010, 07:41:38 PM
#68
My experience is similar, the first release was rock solid like the original client, the other releases, while still faster, randomly crash after minutes/hours/days  so it's kind of random.

So it's a trade off between stability and speed. The faster it gets, the less stable it seems.  Grin

Of course, I have mine on a batch to restart if there is a crash and to count how many times the program crashed during the day for example. So far up to about 2 crashes a day.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 505
July 22, 2010, 07:02:49 PM
#67
I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run


the missing DLL is in my first release (libeay32.dll)

thats not the one causing MSVC build not to work, that'd be MSVCR100.dll.
anyway, the Intel build does work, although it crashes.  Undecided

keep coding, i'm looking forward to test a cuda-version on my gtx260.  Grin
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
July 22, 2010, 05:33:54 PM
#66
Vista x64 here

From regular version ~1700khash/s to this version ~2300khash/s (last versios posted here)

Really nice, but i think need to be more stable

given that it's based on stock code and I doubt there's an issue with the compiler, it's more likely there's a bug in the SVN source, I'll make a build from the last stable production version just as soon as I've finished this CUDA code off.
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
July 22, 2010, 05:31:12 PM
#65
Vista x64 here

From regular version ~1700khash/s to this version ~2300khash/s (last versios posted here)

Really nice, but i think need to be more stable
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
July 22, 2010, 05:27:53 PM
#64
I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run


the missing DLL is in my first release (libeay32.dll)
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 505
July 22, 2010, 03:00:49 PM
#63
I'll give this one a run, the last build would crash randomly after a few hours  Wink

same here,
MSVC build didnt work at all (missing DLL even after vcredist_x64 install),
Intel build seems to work fine for 1-2hours and then crashes.

I get around 1600 with the regular client, Intel build ~2150, latest Intel tweaked ~2220.

Update: this one seems to crash even faster, 30minutes first run, almost 1hour second run
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
July 22, 2010, 01:33:46 PM
#62
Ichi: Probably pretty fast, I saw a huge increase in performance to the tweaked version.  No tellin until you try it though.
member
Activity: 182
Merit: 10
July 22, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
#61
Wow, that tweaked one... I'm getting stunning rates.  I have a quad core Intel laptop.

I have ... one while everything but bitcoin (including explorer.exe) is shut down.
Stock:         x64 v1          x64 v2           x64 v2 Tweaked       
Optimized Usage:1500-18002000-25001500-20002700-3400

On a Quad-Core AMD Opteron 2376 server running Ubuntu 10.04 Desktop x64 (wubi) and Bitcoin 0.3.0 x64, I get ~2,200 khash/s.  With Bitcoin 0.3.0 x86, I get ~2,000 khash/s.  What would I expect running Windows Server 2008 x64 and Olipro's x64 v2 Tweaked?

Is it faster than the stock Linux x64 build?  Could the Linux build be similarly tweaked?
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
July 22, 2010, 12:26:39 PM
#60
Oli: One alternative is to start the CUDA part hashing with a nonce of MAXINT and subtract one, and the host client start at one and go upwards.  Then, either one could find a hash and you're not repeating work.
member
Activity: 61
Merit: 10
July 22, 2010, 12:24:36 PM
#59
DEFINITELY in to test CUDA!
Pages:
Jump to: