CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1175.

jjjordan

sr. member

Activity: 271

Merit: 251

Quote from: jpouza on January 26, 2015, 02:48:58 PM

Quote from: jjjordan on January 26, 2015, 02:25:39 PM

Average (or what it looks like) on EVGA 970 SC +100 core
tsiv - 4400
sp1 - 4500
sp2 - 4600

Still testing to see if and when it will find a block.

sp_ r2 is not working, I've got a lot of boooos... Sad

reverting to tsiv's miner....

Same here

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

I am getting all rejects also with my 750ti with version 2.

jpouza

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1116

Quote from: jjjordan on January 26, 2015, 02:25:39 PM

Average (or what it looks like) on EVGA 970 SC +100 core
tsiv - 4400
sp1 - 4500
sp2 - 4600

Still testing to see if and when it will find a block.

sp_ r2 is not working, I've got a lot of boooos... Sad

reverting to tsiv's miner....

jjjordan

sr. member

Activity: 271

Merit: 251

Average (or what it looks like) on EVGA 970 SC +100 core
tsiv - 4400
sp1 - 4500
sp2 - 4600

Still testing to see if and when it will find a block.

jpouza

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1116

Is Release 2 ok?

jpouza

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1116

Quote from: sp_ on January 26, 2015, 08:35:38 AM

release 2 is sent:

-2 bugfixes in the hash(hopefully no rejected blocks)
-Added another modded kernal. More hash
-Improved the default launch config for 970/980 cards. (they where way off).

best results without the -x parameter.

Since there is no cpu verification, should be tested before deployed.

Nice, testing already, we have similar results now.

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

I found a block with release 2 and at +160 mhz core I get around 1760 kh/s per 750 Ti. However for some reason both spreadminers exit whenever I find a block so I have a loop. It says "Thread 1 found a solution" then "First nonce : x" and closes. Says exactly the same if a card crashes, but nothing is crashing when a block is found.

zdminer

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Quote from: sp_ on January 26, 2015, 08:35:38 AM

release 2 is sent:

-2 bugfixes in the hash(hopefully no rejected blocks)
-Added another modded kernal. More hash
-Improved the default launch config for 970/980 cards. (they where way off).

best results without the -x parameter.

Since there is no cpu verification, should be tested before deployed.

http://i60.tinypic.com/jg1a1y.png

I still didn't receive spreadminer, I sent you my mail this morning in PM.

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

release 2 is sent:

-2 bugfixes in the hash(hopefully no rejected blocks)
-Added another modded kernal. More hash
-Improved the default launch config for 970/980 cards. (they where way off).

best results without the -x parameter.

Since there is no cpu verification, should be tested before deployed.

chrysophylax

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1091

--- ChainWorks Industries ---

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: chrysophylax on January 26, 2015, 07:20:11 AM

wow ...

is it just me - or is it that you guys seem to be working together ANYWAY? ...

why dont you merge all the work that you have been doing ( yes i know - easier said than done ) and just work off one fork? ...

seems that each of you awesome devs can bring their own thing to the table - and improve ccminer to an unprecedented level ...

just my observation here guys ...

i know if i could employ you all under the one roof - thats exactly what would happen ...

#crysx

Because then people would get his Spread miner for free?

not necessarily wolf ...

same situation applies - band together and make a private 'short' period for donors to the devs ...

a dev pool if you will ... for a short period of time released only to the donors - as with the current sp spreadminer ( although i cant use that one as its not linux - but beside the point ) ...

seems to work ...

#crysx

djm34

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1050

Quote from: antonio8 on January 26, 2015, 08:01:31 AM

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

tsiv,

I get 100% rejects on my 970 with your miner when finding blocks.

Have since day one and never figured it out. The 750ti's does fine though.

a quick fix would be to recompile without compute_52 (if this is related)

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

tsiv,

I get 100% rejects on my 970 with your miner when finding blocks.

Have since day one and never figured it out. The 750ti's does fine though.

djm34

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1050

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 26, 2015, 07:38:28 AM

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about.

Talking about the original, yep. Oh well, maybe my 970 is just jinxed Cheesy

register pressure can do that at some extend.
I had a similar problem with a previous version of keccak and compute 5.2 where none of the hash were getting validated due to some bad allocation (The content of the register wasn't what it was supposed to be... and the problem wasn't showing at compile time...)

tsiv

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 26, 2015, 07:38:28 AM

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about.

Talking about the original, yep. Oh well, maybe my 970 is just jinxed Cheesy

Dotcommie

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

I don't believe I had any rejects on your original spreadminer on my 970s. Seemed to work with the same consistency as 750s for me, unless this is newer code you're talking about.

tsiv

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Quote from: sp_ on January 26, 2015, 07:19:39 AM

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:15:05 AM

I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block.

It is a bug in my version. I have replaced some of the kernals in the miner to give a small boost. When changing kernals, things can go wrong, and it would be helpful to have the cpu to doublecheck the result.

Aah, got it. Thought you found something wrong in the original.

tsiv

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

On a related note, I am I bit concerned about the miner on non-750Ti cards. I'm getting pretty much zero rejects and exactly as many blocks as you could expect against the current network hash rate on my 750 rig, but a fair amount of rejects (but not 100%) on the 970. Can't see any particular reason why the same code would work on 750 and not on 970 though. It is a mystery. Just seems bit odd that near all the rejects I get are on the 970. Could be coincidence but I can't help but wonder...

Code:

[2015-01-23 01:11:53] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 04:56:03] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 10036 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-23 16:48:20] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 10040 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:28:52] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 10039 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 07:53:30] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-24 09:22:16] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 05:06:02] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 10035 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 16:22:12] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 10047 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-25 21:06:44] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 10027 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 04:59:57] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 10034 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2015-01-26 13:35:12] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 10038 khash/s (yay!!!)

chrysophylax

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1091

--- ChainWorks Industries ---

wow ...

is it just me - or is it that you guys seem to be working together ANYWAY? ...

why dont you merge all the work that you have been doing ( yes i know - easier said than done ) and just work off one fork? ...

seems that each of you awesome devs can bring their own thing to the table - and improve ccminer to an unprecedented level ...

just my observation here guys ...

i know if i could employ you all under the one roof - thats exactly what would happen ...

#crysx

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: tsiv on January 26, 2015, 07:15:05 AM

I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block.

It is a bug in my version. I have replaced some of the kernals in the miner to give a small boost. When changing kernals, things can go wrong, and it would be helpful to have the cpu to doublecheck the result.

tsiv

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Quote from: sp_ on January 26, 2015, 06:58:07 AM

I will merge the original c code into the spreadcoin fork. the gpu finds a solution, it will be verified by the cpu. The current build have no verification done by the cpu.

I'm confused. You said you found a bug in the hash? Or are you considering the lack of verification to be a bug? I left it out kinda intentionally since submitting "bad" solutions doesn't really hurt and I just didn't bother with the CPU verification. But yea it would be nice and very helpful in debugging. Running in benchmark mode with a low target would be a good tool for checking if the GPU hashing works or not, instead of having to wait until you actually solve a block.

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1175. (Read 2347597 times)