Topic: Claymore's CryptoNote AMD GPU Miner v11.3 - page 153. (Read 2145058 times)

"-powlim x" option does not work! - unknown option.

Please don't report issues if you mine on Dwarfpool, today this pool has some problems.


I don't have any ideas, sorry.

[off]
Everyone - stop mining on this freak dwarfpool please and stop spamming this thread with this pool!!!
[/off]

I made that test, first computer 5 gpus with -h 1024, second computer 5 gpus without -h, usually 3 out 10 gpus reach highest hashrate values, others will need to be tuned via console with "m" keyboard key and then "-" and then "+".

Ok, but this not happens with previous version of miner 9.6

Edit:
I will sent you my log...

Have you noticed any major difference between 9.7 an 9.6 in hashrates on RX cards?
I would like to updated my miners, but on my mule it seems that it's useless

Dwarfpool goes crazy, as you can see it sends empty job:

15:08:05:089   ebc   buf: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"job","params":{"blob":"","job_id":"","target":""}}

It's not miner issue.


Use "-h" option, read Readme for details.

@Claymore, another question, using tuning usually gets my ip banned, first of all, gpu is not overclocked, however, hashrates shown differs on multiples same gpu model, for example, rx 480 8gb, card 1, shows 690 h/s, rx 480 8gb, card 2, shows 660 h/s, the only way for card 2 to reach card speeds is to tune -h values, up and down -h 1024 to -h 992 and back to -h 1024, is there a way you can make highest values stable, i mean, all gpus reach highest possible hashrate?

Ah I see make sense and also for improvements to support the other 2 coins.

The ethman, IMHO is very good and useful - thanks for making a "universal" ethman for all your miners.

An auto discovery for all Claymore miners in the active network feature will be much appreciated for future version.

Can you PM complete log so I can check this issue?

15:08:03:552   ebc   Share accepted (47 ms)!
15:08:03:554   ebc   new buf size: 0
15:08:03:811   ebc   got 253 bytes
15:08:03:812   ebc   buf: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"job","params":{"blob":"0305b18ab9c305bd445849f96d802717976bad3a8b963a375708165dd14e7ba72c265651e2d1fa0 00000009cd03fa3310789f936b610b107779382ae28cc6878446bf1d91027f8fae2bcda17","job_id":"737135642999783","target":"b88d0600"}}

15:08:03:813   ebc   parse packet: 253
15:08:03:814   ebc   new buf size: 0
15:08:03:817   ebc   01/05/17-15:08:03 - New job received from xmr-eu.dwarfpool.com:8005
15:08:03:819   ebc   Speed: 680 h/s, Total Shares: 705, Rejected: 0, Mining time:
15:08:03:821   ebc   03:45
15:08:03:823   ebc   TotalHashes: 6597K, DevHashes: 163K, DevFee rate is 1:39
15:08:04:252   b2c   Job changed, drop current round
15:08:04:254   b2c   Round
15:08:04:255   4dc   Round
15:08:05:088   ebc   got 78 bytes
15:08:05:089   ebc   buf: {"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"job","params":{"blob":"","job_id":"","target":""}}

15:08:05:090   ebc   parse packet: 78
15:08:05:092   ebc   cannot convert blob data
15:08:05:094   ebc   new buf size: 0
15:08:05:802   b2c   GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 1503 ms, hashrate = 681 h/s
15:08:05:818   b2c   Round
15:08:07:340   4dc   GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 1502 ms, hashrate = 681 h/s
15:08:07:355   4dc   Dev round
15:08:08:879   b2c   GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 1501 ms, hashrate = 682 h/s
15:08:08:895   b2c   Round
15:08:10:418   4dc   GPU 0: HashCnt = 1024, time = 1502 ms, hashrate = 681 h/s
15:08:10:434   4dc   dev round found 1 shares
15:08:10:435   f84   DevFee: 01/05/17-15:08:10 - SHARE FOUND (target 2000) - (GPU 0 of 1)

what is this error about?

Somehow i get windows crash with 0x000000ea which is thread stuck in device driver.
Using win10 pro, rx 470 4gb nitro.
System crashes always after a few hours.

Can confirm. I am also getting the share rejected on Dwarfpool with 9.7. 9.6 Is still good for me so using that now.

Thanks!

@Claymore, with ssl, is my ip less likely to be banned? because this is getting stupid, one share is rejected and then the ip is banned, mostly happens when i tune a specific gpu concerning hashrate.

Hello, the same issue with 9.7 on Dwarf after 1 hr. normal mining.
buf: {"id":4,"jsonrpc":"2.0","error":{"code":-1,"message":"Unauthenticated"}}
On other hand, on other rigs with different service providers networks, no such issues.

I just care about backward compatibility.
As soon as I break it, everyone will have to update all miners and EthMan. Also, in this case I will have to update all miners at once.
So I don't think it's a good idea to change format. Though of course I can add new fields to json data, it's not a problem.
About changing "9.3 - CN" to "9.3/CN" - what are benefits?

Ha, ye, he probably gets a lot of people suggesting things.
Nice to throw it out there anyhow.

I totally agreed with you. Also the semicolon-separated format is not quite good as a JSON even if easy parsed.

But I try do not suggest a lot of changes. Once I suggested in PM to rework a bit config file format, so it could contain both common and instance (rig) specific options. Claymore rejected that first, then said he will consider, and then I have not heard from him about that. And this was not implemented, so you can't have a single config file for all rigs that unlike epools.txt needs more than just an individual rig name.

As a result, I understand that he is not willing to make massive refactoring of his miners. The change I suggested is easy to implement and it will look better I think. I really don't understand why he did that this way instead of another extra field.

In the end I don't think that it ever will be changed at all

same issue on Dwarf with 9.7 , after a while im getting banned IP error , 9.6 is unstable with nitro+ rx480 (works ok couple hours , then reboots for no visible reason) , 9.5 is rock stable with -a 4

Is there any advantage of changing that?

The miner name would probably be better in it's own field rather than in the version number.
Also, the API could just list the hash rate consistently as simply 'hash per second' across all the miners. Scaling and formatting should really be done on the front end.

TRUNC(LOG(hashrate, 1000)) can get the correct scale.