CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1190.

Schleicher

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 514

Quote from: flipclip on January 09, 2015, 09:00:19 PM

Quote from: scryptr on January 09, 2015, 08:25:41 PM

SP_ v28 beta-

Sorry to report this, but on both of my rigs I got the following error when attempting to compile v28:

"cuda_myriadgroestl.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `d_resultNonce'
Algo256/cuda_fugue256.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [ccminer] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make: *** [all] Error 2"

There was no executable "ccminer" left in the directory. I am still running v26, which appears very stable. It went over 4000 accepts on each rig with less than 1% rejects. --scryptr

To fix this edit cuda_myriadgroestl.cu (in ccminer's root folder).
On line eleven add: extern
the line should read: extern uint2 *d_resultNonce[8];

I made that edit, compiled without issue, and have been hashing away 2 hours without issue.

(This line was changed to its current iteration of lacking "extern" 1/5/14 via commit: 462dd9bc99a255e4b593f82b1237ce152d55cb59)

Wierd, there's no error when compiling with Visual Studio.
Anyway, better use static instead of extern

flipclip

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Quote from: scryptr on January 09, 2015, 08:25:41 PM

Quote from: sp_ on January 09, 2015, 06:43:17 PM

- merged with klaust fork
- improved blake,keccak and skein

The 28th public beta(windows executable) is available here: (10-jan-2015)

http://www.filedropper.com/release28

The sourcecode is available here:

https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer

SP_ v28 beta-

Sorry to report this, but on both of my rigs I got the following error when attempting to compile v28:

"cuda_myriadgroestl.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `d_resultNonce'
Algo256/cuda_fugue256.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [ccminer] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make: *** [all] Error 2"

There was no executable "ccminer" left in the directory. I am still running v26, which appears very stable. It went over 4000 accepts on each rig with less than 1% rejects. --scryptr

To fix this edit cuda_myriadgroestl.cu (in ccminer's root folder).
On line eleven add: extern
the line should read: extern uint2 *d_resultNonce[8];

I made that edit, compiled without issue, and have been hashing away 2 hours without issue.

(This line was changed to its current iteration of lacking "extern" 1/5/14 via commit: 462dd9bc99a255e4b593f82b1237ce152d55cb59)

scryptr

legendary

Activity: 1797

Merit: 1028

Quote from: sp_ on January 09, 2015, 06:43:17 PM

- merged with klaust fork
- improved blake,keccak and skein

The 28th public beta(windows executable) is available here: (10-jan-2015)

http://www.filedropper.com/release28

The sourcecode is available here:

https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer

SP_ v28 beta-

Sorry to report this, but on both of my rigs I got the following error when attempting to compile v28:

"cuda_myriadgroestl.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `d_resultNonce'
Algo256/cuda_fugue256.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [ccminer] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/borqd/spminer'
make: *** [all] Error 2"

There was no executable "ccminer" left in the directory. I am still running v26, which appears very stable. It went over 4000 accepts on each rig with less than 1% rejects. --scryptr

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: go6ooo1212 on January 09, 2015, 07:15:13 PM

I expect couple of testing samples of GTX960 next week. Would be interesting what could they do

Thats early.. Could you send me one? Wink

go6ooo1212

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

quarkchain.io

I expect couple of testing samples of GTX960 next week. Would be interesting what could they do

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

If you compiling yourself on 970 and 980 cards, remember to add compute_52 and sm_52 in the project file. Default on github is compute 5.0 only (750ti)

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

my numbers. Rigs are running at standard clocks mining quark

testrig 1: 6 750ti(non powered)

release 24
31500

release 28
32100

testrig 2: 4 cards. (1 gtx980, 1gtx970, 2 750ti.)

release 24
38500

release 28
39500

flipclip

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 09, 2015, 05:44:10 PM

Quote from: italeffect on January 09, 2015, 05:34:44 PM

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 09, 2015, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: flipclip on January 09, 2015, 01:39:03 PM

I believe quark consumes roughly (less then a watt difference) the same as x11. I haven't noticed any power fluctuations from my kill-a-watt from recent version updates.

x14 can be profitable but it is pretty short lived (as you noticed).

Yeah I don't think so. Quark uses about 50 more watts on a 6 card rig. When mine switches to quark it's around 425w and x11 is 375w.

That's not my experience. Are you changing clocks or something?

My 6x 750ti rig uses about 400-405 watts on x11 or Quark. I just switched it back and forth to double-check. There is barely a change in the wattage. Cards are all running at max stable overclock.
I'm getting 36,360 kh/s on Quark with v27 btw

Nope. Same watt meter as I've had on my control rig since the beginning. Maybe since they're evga FTW cards they're different, but all past miners and algos they've been consistent and only used slightly more than my gigabyte Ti's. H81 btc board, gold psu, i3 cpu.

With v28 I just switched between quark and x11, no watt change.

2 750 Ti's v28= Quark ~11,160 kh/s , x11 ~5,750 kh/s

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

- merged with klaust fork
- improved blake,keccak and skein

The 28th public beta(windows executable) is available here: (10-jan-2015)

http://www.filedropper.com/release28

The sourcecode is available here:

https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer

Dotcommie

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: italeffect on January 09, 2015, 05:34:44 PM

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 09, 2015, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: flipclip on January 09, 2015, 01:39:03 PM

I believe quark consumes roughly (less then a watt difference) the same as x11. I haven't noticed any power fluctuations from my kill-a-watt from recent version updates.

x14 can be profitable but it is pretty short lived (as you noticed).

Yeah I don't think so. Quark uses about 50 more watts on a 6 card rig. When mine switches to quark it's around 425w and x11 is 375w.

That's not my experience. Are you changing clocks or something?

My 6x 750ti rig uses about 400-405 watts on x11 or Quark. I just switched it back and forth to double-check. There is barely a change in the wattage. Cards are all running at max stable overclock.
I'm getting 36,360 kh/s on Quark with v27 btw

Nope. Same watt meter as I've had on my control rig since the beginning. Maybe since they're evga FTW cards they're different, but all past miners and algos they've been consistent and only used slightly more than my gigabyte Ti's. H81 btc board, gold psu, i3 cpu.

italeffect

sr. member

Activity: 255

Merit: 250

Quote from: Dotcommie on January 09, 2015, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: flipclip on January 09, 2015, 01:39:03 PM

Quote from: scryptr on January 09, 2015, 01:06:03 PM

SP_ v26-

This build is running smoothly on both of my rigs for more than a day. Mining quark, my slower rig gets 34,710kh/s, my faster rig gets 35,930kh/s. Both are nearing 3,000 accepts at less than 1% rejects.

I'd try v27 but the author is negative about it in his posts. I think that the git code may be less-than-stable from his remarks.

Excuse me, does quark consume more or less energy than x11?

Another note, I mined x14 for about an hour yesterday on both rigs. Individual cards clocked at 2350kh/s-2450kh/s, but for a brief while x14 was worth it.

--scryptr

I believe quark consumes roughly (less then a watt difference) the same as x11. I haven't noticed any power fluctuations from my kill-a-watt from recent version updates.

x14 can be profitable but it is pretty short lived (as you noticed).

Yeah I don't think so. Quark uses about 50 more watts on a 6 card rig. When mine switches to quark it's around 425w and x11 is 375w.

That's not my experience. Are you changing clocks or something?

My 6x 750ti rig uses about 400-405 watts on x11 or Quark. I just switched it back and forth to double-check. There is barely a change in the wattage. Cards are all running at max stable overclock.
I'm getting 36,360 kh/s on Quark with v27 btw

Dotcommie

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: flipclip on January 09, 2015, 01:39:03 PM

Quote from: scryptr on January 09, 2015, 01:06:03 PM

SP_ v26-

This build is running smoothly on both of my rigs for more than a day. Mining quark, my slower rig gets 34,710kh/s, my faster rig gets 35,930kh/s. Both are nearing 3,000 accepts at less than 1% rejects.

I'd try v27 but the author is negative about it in his posts. I think that the git code may be less-than-stable from his remarks.

Excuse me, does quark consume more or less energy than x11?

Another note, I mined x14 for about an hour yesterday on both rigs. Individual cards clocked at 2350kh/s-2450kh/s, but for a brief while x14 was worth it.

--scryptr

I believe quark consumes roughly (less then a watt difference) the same as x11. I haven't noticed any power fluctuations from my kill-a-watt from recent version updates.

x14 can be profitable but it is pretty short lived (as you noticed).

Yeah I don't think so. Quark uses about 50 more watts on a 6 card rig. When mine switches to quark it's around 425w and x11 is 375w.

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I have submitted the faster blake to github. quark got a boost. x11 is still around 9MHASH (gtx 980) on standard clocks

I Reduced the codesize(ptx) and improved the uint2 implementation-

flipclip

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Quote from: neonman on January 08, 2015, 05:25:45 PM

does not compile on linux with gcc 4.8 from latest git pull:

cuda_myriadgroestl.o:(.bss+0x40): multiple definition of `d_resultNonce'
Algo256/cuda_fugue256.o:(.bss+0x40): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

also error on git clone from KlausT fork

I submitted a patch (which allows it to compile. you'll see the pull request in sp_'s git), but it may be unnecessary with the work sp_ is undertaking now.

flipclip

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Quote from: scryptr on January 09, 2015, 01:06:03 PM

SP_ v26-

This build is running smoothly on both of my rigs for more than a day. Mining quark, my slower rig gets 34,710kh/s, my faster rig gets 35,930kh/s. Both are nearing 3,000 accepts at less than 1% rejects.

I'd try v27 but the author is negative about it in his posts. I think that the git code may be less-than-stable from his remarks.

Excuse me, does quark consume more or less energy than x11?

Another note, I mined x14 for about an hour yesterday on both rigs. Individual cards clocked at 2350kh/s-2450kh/s, but for a brief while x14 was worth it.

--scryptr

I believe quark consumes roughly (less then a watt difference) the same as x11. I haven't noticed any power fluctuations from my kill-a-watt from recent version updates.

x14 can be profitable but it is pretty short lived (as you noticed).

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I have fixed it. Working on more hash . Will submit more changes to the blake algo today.

scryptr

legendary

Activity: 1797

Merit: 1028

SP_ v26-

This build is running smoothly on both of my rigs for more than a day. Mining quark, my slower rig gets 34,710kh/s, my faster rig gets 35,930kh/s. Both are nearing 3,000 accepts at less than 1% rejects.

I'd try v27 but the author is negative about it in his posts. I think that the git code may be less-than-stable from his remarks.

Excuse me, does quark consume more or less energy than x11?

Another note, I mined x14 for about an hour yesterday on both rigs. Individual cards clocked at 2350kh/s-2450kh/s, but for a brief while x14 was worth it.

--scryptr

Epsylon3

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1082

ccminer/cpuminer developer

Quote from: sp_ on January 08, 2015, 06:02:59 PM

I fixed the pool bug some days ago in release 25. CCminer didn't submit all the solutions to the pool. Only for some some pools though.
The bug introduced in the tvpruvot release 1.5.0. and fixed in 1.5.24(sp-hash)

release<9 and release >23 is works on Coinmine.pl,suchpool.pw, Coinotron.com etc.

its not a bug but a work around for buggy pools

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I think I need to rollback the klausT merge, and merge 1 kernal at a time. The hashrate has dropped, quark is broken @ head..

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

I fixed the pool bug some days ago in release 25. CCminer didn't submit all the solutions to the pool. Only for some some pools though.
The bug introduced in the tvpruvot release 1.5.0. and fixed in 1.5.24(sp-hash)

release<9 and release >23 is works on Coinmine.pl,suchpool.pw, Coinotron.com etc.

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 1190. (Read 2347597 times)