Author

Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 955. (Read 2347664 times)

sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
T Nelson are you there?

Seems to be an error in the latest builds, the miner won't exit without pressing ctrl+c

This was working fine in release 52

Code:
@ECHO OFF
TITLE -AUTO SWITCHING BACKGROUND GPU MINING-
:start

Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x11 -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:3533 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x13 -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:3633 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a lyra2 -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:4433 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:4233 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a quark -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:4033 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
Miner\ccminer.exe -r 0 -a qubit -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:4733 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit

TIMEOUT /t 3
GOTO start

ccminer.exe -r 0 -i 11 -a x11 -o stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:3533 -u X -p x11,x13,lyra2,neoscrypt,quark,qubit
*** ccminer 1.5.65-git(SP-MOD) for nVidia GPUs by sp-hash@github ***
        Built with VC++ 2013 and nVidia CUDA SDK 6.5

  Based on pooler cpuminer 2.3.2 and the tpruvot@github fork
   CUDA support by Christian Buchner, Christian H. and DJM34
  Includes optimizations implemented by sp , klaust, tpruvot,tsiv and pallas.

[2015-09-07 22:56:40] Intensity set to 11.0, 2048 cuda threads
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://ffpool.net:3533
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] 1 miner thread started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0 (mask 1)
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] Stratum subscribe answer id is not correct!
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] stratum_recv_line failed
[2015-09-07 22:56:41] ...terminating workio thread

And here it hangs and then the user have to click ctrl c to exit

[2015-09-07 22:58:16] CTRL_C_EVENT received, exiting once miner jobs complete.  Ctrl+C again to abort miner jobs

sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
hero member
Activity: 677
Merit: 500
Yes, v2. Ok. -X works separately for cards (-X 10,9,8)?
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
with git 1051 i have 28Mh on 2x980+1x960. git 1052 take not more then 23.8 Mh for me...

Is this lyra2v2? You need to find the correct intensity for your cards. Try -X 26 on the 980 and -X 16 on the 960'

And in the file cuda_lyra2v2.cu you can try different values for TPB52. It is set to 9. try all values from 1 to 32  compile test and keep the best one.
hero member
Activity: 677
Merit: 500
with git 1051 i have 28Mh on 2x980+1x960. git 1052 take not more then 23.8 Mh for me...
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
Another binary:

- Faster lyra2v2 on gtx 750ti (+5%)
- Faster quark. (Pallas)
- Fixed crash in the whirlpoolx algo on linux(T Nelson)
- Other stability fixes by T Nelson.
- Fixed broken hash in cuda 7.0 (x11) (but cuda 7 is slower)

1.5.66(sp-MOD) is available here: (07-09-2015)

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

The sourcecode is available here:

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


will need to try this soon ...

#crysx
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
i think its time to step up to a 980ti and have a look at how this thing works .. is it better? ...  and im not asking about the hashrate Tongue ...
#crysx

Looking at the BIOS of that card it has an absolute maximum of 366W power consumption limit if I'm reading it correctly which aligns perfectly with a techpowerup review.
Of course that's with some crazy synthetic test like FurMark and the usual peak consumption is about 300W. But even that is a lot.

I think these bigger cards are all about scaling; they get somewhat inefficient hash per watt at full speed but get pretty great if you decrease the power target like I found with the 970 a while back (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11636995).
With downvolting it could be much more significant but I haven't tried it. So on one hand low profit margins warrants efficiency with lower power target but then the initial card price is too much but from another point of view if the profit margins were to increase in the future pushing the cards to hash as fast as they can would be more profitable. Also, different prices; in my case with the prices I'm presented with it doesn't worth it for me to go for anything above 970s.

Yup you can gain efficiency by lowering the TDP slider. However you lose hashrate and clockspeed doing it to the point where it's not even worth buying the bigger cards anymore. Running a 970 at 960 speeds is kinda pointless.

I wouldn't use wood near any electronic equipment, unless the insurance agent is a friend of yours ;-)
(In event of fire, regardless how much care you took, the insurance will not pay if they know you used wood)

To each his own I guess but I'm absolutely confident the wood wouldn't make any difference that aluminum would in case of major failure.

Yeah I use wood too. Wood has a pretty high point of catching fire. It's a great insulator against electricity and heat up till that point.

unless your cards throw out sparks ( like 7 of the gigabyte 7970 oc cards did ) when they decided to go faulty when i first started out ...

turns out they had a leak in the cooling fluid in the heat pipes and it was dripping onto the board - which shorted a few components and sparks started flying evrywhere - eventually killing the board ...

7 of them in a single batch with the same problem ...

wood maybe a good heat insulator - and bad conductor of eletricity - but there is no protection to raw sparks ...

wood? ... no tanx ...

#crysx
full member
Activity: 231
Merit: 150
Personally this rack is what I use and can be picked up at almost any hardware store. "Lowes/Homedepot"
I think could easily be modded for such a cause as these "even tho I haven't myself yet" but my needs where different at the time.
This unit: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Edsal-36-in-W-x-18-in-D-x-72-in-H-Steel-Commercial-Shelving-Unit-UR185L-BLK/202995256?MERCH=REC-_-NavPLPHorizontal1_rr-_-NA-_-202995256-_-N
which can be setup into two units one with 3 shelves the other will only have two shelves. Instead of one tall 5 shelve unit.
It splits in the middle and is part of the reason for odd number of shelves. The center shelve interlocks the two together.
In case you can't make that out in the store picture. But for under 60 bucks its a quick solution for muti card rigs or just rigs in general.
Open air and easy to keep cool. Could even easily set up a box fan on each end if heat becomes a problem. Push + Pull & enclose it with Plexiglas.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1024


I wouldn't use wood near any electronic equipment, unless the insurance agent is a friend of yours ;-)
(In event of fire, regardless how much care you took, the insurance will not pay if they know you used wood)

To each his own I guess but I'm absolutely confident the wood wouldn't make any difference that aluminum would in case of major failure.

Yeah I use wood too. Wood has a pretty high point of catching fire. It's a great insulator against electricity and heat up till that point.
Wood rack here too and no problems. Had 4x280x on it for almost a year before converting it to 6x 750ti, the 280x ran hot as hell and the wood barely got warm let alone hot enough to catch on fire. 750 ti obviously no problems, cool quit and efficent  Grin

I'm pretty sure the concerns around wood are with regard to PC components failing catastrophically, not auto-ignition.  The auto-ignition point of white pine is like 400C...

Yeah, you're going to have other problems other then a wooden frame if you have an electrical fire. Silicon burns too as do the plastic most motherboards and heatsink fans are made out of.

This is why you invest in a good PSU that will auto shut off if such a thing happens. And second the smoke alarm.
hero member
Activity: 687
Merit: 502

I am running all my stuff in alu frames. These +five more where stacked with 5 x 280x cards until two years ago when i stopped mining. I have a total of ten frames but i think i will stop when these are filled up because i promised myself to not go full retard again Cheesy

In total there will be 20 x 750Ti and 5 x 280x cards.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10


I wouldn't use wood near any electronic equipment, unless the insurance agent is a friend of yours ;-)
(In event of fire, regardless how much care you took, the insurance will not pay if they know you used wood)

To each his own I guess but I'm absolutely confident the wood wouldn't make any difference that aluminum would in case of major failure.

Yeah I use wood too. Wood has a pretty high point of catching fire. It's a great insulator against electricity and heat up till that point.
Wood rack here too and no problems. Had 4x280x on it for almost a year before converting it to 6x 750ti, the 280x ran hot as hell and the wood barely got warm let alone hot enough to catch on fire. 750 ti obviously no problems, cool quit and efficent  Grin

I'm pretty sure the concerns around wood are with regard to PC components failing catastrophically, not auto-ignition.  The auto-ignition point of white pine is like 400C...
hero member
Activity: 835
Merit: 1000
There is NO Freedom without Privacy


I wouldn't use wood near any electronic equipment, unless the insurance agent is a friend of yours ;-)
(In event of fire, regardless how much care you took, the insurance will not pay if they know you used wood)

To each his own I guess but I'm absolutely confident the wood wouldn't make any difference that aluminum would in case of major failure.

Yeah I use wood too. Wood has a pretty high point of catching fire. It's a great insulator against electricity and heat up till that point.
Wood rack here too and no problems. Had 4x280x on it for almost a year before converting it to 6x 750ti, the 280x ran hot as hell and the wood barely got warm let alone hot enough to catch on fire. 750 ti obviously no problems, cool quit and efficent  Grin
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
I have a 200KHASH lyra improvement ready for the 750ti. (+5%)
but it is slower on the 970. Need to tweak it some more
Great!
If i can help, just ask.
In the optimalization i use half of the registers and more level1 cache. Will submit soon.
I bet the 970 has also a cut down level 1 cache. (It's level 2 cache is cut down and actually smaller than that of a 750ti)
Each maxwell SMM has its own level 1 cache which is actually larger (96 kByte to 64 kByte) compared to the 750ti SMM. So nothing is cut in that regard it seems.

Thanks. I reduced intensity and set the threads per block to 9. And now I get +100-150kHASH in lyra2v2 with the reduced register version.

Default intensity for the gtx970 is now -X 18. (used to be -X 26)

gtx 970: 9950KHASH now (submitted to github)


If you can help me find the best intensities on the different models that would be great. (scryptr, are you there?) Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 506
Merit: 252
I know - but it's not good enough. There's two or three different methods I have thought of to optimize this - looks like this one is just all right.
280X is doing in excess of 7.6MH/s.

My 970 is doing 9.85MHASH with the opensource kernal. And the 980 around 12 I think. Not tested. And I have removed the shfl instruction from the djm34's implementation, so you can try to convert it to opencl. he-he

the public sgminer is already the "converted" lyra.
Actually that shuffle instruction was there just here to try something, it has no impact (positive or negative) on lyra kernel hashrate

I wonder about the performance of the fury/fiji gpus in even higher memory intensive algos like cryptonight.
With HBM tech the fury must shine there, wouldn't it?
sr. member
Activity: 506
Merit: 252
Actually the 970 is great for mining cuz each SMM costs about the same as in a 750ti. The 980 and 980ti charge 30%+ for the same SMM.

The memory and cache is gimped tho so that sucks for memory intensive algos but for compute intensive algos (eg. x11) the 970 is the ideal buy.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
I have a 200KHASH lyra improvement ready for the 750ti. (+5%)
but it is slower on the 970. Need to tweak it some more
Great!
If i can help, just ask.

In the optimalization i use half of the registers and more level1 cache. Will submit soon.

I bet the 970 has also a cut down level 1 cache. (It's level 2 cache is cut down and actually smaller than that of a 750ti)

Weird performance on the 970? Nah... http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

I'm staying away from ass-hattery on that scale. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1050
I know - but it's not good enough. There's two or three different methods I have thought of to optimize this - looks like this one is just all right.
280X is doing in excess of 7.6MH/s.

My 970 is doing 9.85MHASH with the opensource kernal. And the 980 around 12 I think. Not tested. And I have removed the shfl instruction from the djm34's implementation, so you can try to convert it to opencl. he-he

the public sgminer is already the "converted" lyra.
Actually that shuffle instruction was there just here to try something, it has no impact (positive or negative) on lyra kernel hashrate
sr. member
Activity: 506
Merit: 252
I have a 200KHASH lyra improvement ready for the 750ti. (+5%)
but it is slower on the 970. Need to tweak it some more
Great!
If i can help, just ask.

In the optimalization i use half of the registers and more level1 cache. Will submit soon.

I bet the 970 has also a cut down level 1 cache. (It's level 2 cache is cut down and actually smaller than that of a 750ti)

Each maxwell SMM has its own level 1 cache which is actually larger (96 kByte to 64 kByte) compared to the 750ti SMM. So nothing is cut in that regard it seems.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1114
Hijacking SP_'s thread again (sorry), but you guys started it ;-)

I just finished filling my rig up with 750Tis (Gigabyte, 4 windforce OC, 2 LP) and I'm starting to see interesting heat patterns: the cards on the left suck air from the back of their neighbor and are significantly hotter. I can guess which card is where just by looking at the temperatures and fan speeds... The windforce are handling it like champs (hottest at 57°C), but the LP are struggling (hottest at 68°). I put some case fans I had laying around on top of the cards, which brought them to 50/60, but I'd like a cleaner solution.

I'm contemplating 3 options and I'd like your input on which you think is the best one, or even a different one:
- Build a larger rig so I can spread the cards more (3cm between cards on the current one) - not sure it would change much: the cards don't dissipate enough to create a real convection movement between them
- Put a big dumb house fan in front of it and blow on the entire rig - simple, efficient, really ugly
- Encase the rig and control the air movement by letting air enter at the bottom and extracting it at the top with standard computer fans (I'm thinking 5*140mm, directly above the cards) - interesting from an engineering standpoint, would even allow me to filter the intakes to limit dust buildup. But aerodynamics are hard, especially when there's a big mess of cables in the middle...

What do you think?

Probably not a useful suggestion given you already have the cards but the reference cooler blows the hot
air out the back of the case. It might cool better in a multi card rig.

I presume you already modified the default fan curve but that probably won't help much if it's sucking
hot air.
sp_
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1087
Team Black developer
Keep on the good work!
Transaction ID: f1d3e7bd537cb79fc454cca016e9877c5b4c32223d657a8e8cd26a6c0bf04c51-000

Thanks alot. PM me with your email if you want the private spreadcoinminer version 9
Jump to: