DiabloMiner GPU Miner - page 78. | Bitcointalksearch.org

racerx

jr. member

Activity: 37

Merit: 2

Just read thru this thread and am still a little confuse on versions required.

1. What version of stream is required? 2.1 only?
2. Does stream need to be V2.1 for linux too?
3. 10.11 catalyst driver needed for windows?
4. What ati drivers are needed for linux?

Im finding it hard to find a clear walkthru or setup options for this miner... can anyone help?

Thanks!

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: pmw on February 13, 2011, 06:31:43 PM

If you figure out what, tell me. Wink

Nope, no flaw. But my miner drives hardware and drivers harder than m0's, so its probably tripping a bug in the driver somewhere. You're not the first person to see that happen, but it should be rare. Going the whole way back to 10.11 has solved it for the people who saw this.

pmw

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 12, 2011, 10:27:29 PM

Somethings very wrong with your box. If you figure out what, tell me.

I guess we'll never know, but FYI, m0mchil's GPU miner works like a charm for me with its default settings. I am getting 155 Mhash/sec with default settings, and 177 Mhash/sec with some tuning -- without any crashing. There must be some flaw with your implementation. If you figure out what, tell me. Wink

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: pmw on February 12, 2011, 11:06:50 AM

Diablo, I had Catalyst 11.1 installed. I did a complete uninstall and installed Catalyst 10.12. There is no change to the miner's behavior. The speed remains the same, and it continues to crash within minutes when using the default worksize of 256.

When I override worksize to 64, the speed drops from 13200 khash/sec to 4700 khash/sec, and it still crashes.

Somethings very wrong with your box. If you figure out what, tell me.

pmw

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

Diablo, I had Catalyst 11.1 installed. I did a complete uninstall and installed Catalyst 10.12. There is no change to the miner's behavior. The speed remains the same, and it continues to crash within minutes when using the default worksize of 256.

When I override worksize to 64, the speed drops from 13200 khash/sec to 4700 khash/sec, and it still crashes.

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

pmw, tryptamine, make sure both of you aren't using Catalyst 11.1. It doesn't work right. Also make sure you're using SDK 2.1. Also, for some users you absolutely need to use -w 64, the hw default (256 on ATI) doesn't like Art's kernel.

tryptamine

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

In the last version the meter shows this:

Code:

13924/13239 khash/sec

I usually got 110000-140000, is this normal?

pmw

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

DiabloD3, thank you for the great miner. It works out of the box on my 64-bit Windows 7 machine with a Radeon HD 6800 card. I am getting about 13.5 mhash/s -- and I can continue to run four threads of CPU miner without any noticeable effect on the GPU miner. Life is great.

The only problem is -- the GPU miner crashes after a few minutes of running. Windows informs me that Java has crashed. I am running the 64-bit JRE 1.6.0.23. The choice of worksize seems to have no effect. So far your GPU miner hasn't been able to run more than about 10 minutes. Windows itself remains stable; I can simply restart the GPU miner.

I'd love to get you a stack trace or something, but I don't see how. Any thoughts on this?

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: djinfected on February 10, 2011, 11:41:50 AM

Also, when I get messages like Block 1 found, Block 2 found, does that mean I generated a block...?

edit: it looks like this.
[2/10/11 11:52:36 AM] Block 1 found on GeForce 9600 GT (#1)

Yup, unless you're on a pool, then thats a pool share.

djinfected

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 10, 2011, 11:24:02 AM

Quote from: djinfected on February 10, 2011, 10:54:39 AM

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 150k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

Nvidia handles -w weird. Some cards have a minimum of 32, some have 64, and there is no way to query this and there doesn't seem to be a list out there. If -w 32 is extremely slow, don't use it.

And yes, -v has been removed. It doesn't increase speed on properly functioning OpenCL compilers.

Ah, thanks for the protips. The difference between 32 and 64 is between 8600k and 13500k! (Compared to 15000k for 512, pardon the typo in my above post.)

Also, when I get messages like Block 1 found, Block 2 found, does that mean I generated a block...?

edit: it looks like this.
[2/10/11 11:52:36 AM] Block 1 found on GeForce 9600 GT (#1)

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: djinfected on February 10, 2011, 10:54:39 AM

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 150k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

Nvidia handles -w weird. Some cards have a minimum of 32, some have 64, and there is no way to query this and there doesn't seem to be a list out there. If -w 32 is extremely slow, don't use it.

And yes, -v has been removed. It doesn't increase speed on properly functioning OpenCL compilers.

djinfected

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 15000k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4000k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: gusti on February 05, 2011, 08:06:55 PM

Quote from: humble on January 06, 2011, 04:07:30 PM

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/humble/warez/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference
   at java.lang.ClassLoader$NativeLibrary.load(Native Method)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary0(ClassLoader.java:1803)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary(ClassLoader.java:1728)
   at java.lang.Runtime.loadLibrary0(Runtime.java:823)
   at java.lang.System.loadLibrary(System.java:1028)

Anybody found an always effective workaround for this problem ?
I'm finding it hard to fix it, though only certain machines have the issue
Display already set to :0. Will using openjdk-6-jre-headless solve it ?
Using FC14 at this time, thinking on switching to Ubuntu, not sure if that will help.

The only way to get that issue is if you don't have X running. Just setting DISPLAY isn't enough and using headless makes it worse. This is an unfortunate bug in Java triggered by how LWJGL works; it shouldn't happen.

On ATI you need X running anyhow, on Nvidia you can run a dummy X (such as xvfb).

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

Quote from: humble on January 06, 2011, 04:07:30 PM

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/humble/warez/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference
   at java.lang.ClassLoader$NativeLibrary.load(Native Method)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary0(ClassLoader.java:1803)
   at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary(ClassLoader.java:1728)
   at java.lang.Runtime.loadLibrary0(Runtime.java:823)
   at java.lang.System.loadLibrary(System.java:1028)

Anybody found an always effective workaround for this problem ?
I'm finding it hard to fix it, though only certain machines have the issue
Display already set to :0. Will using openjdk-6-jre-headless solve it ?
Using FC14 at this time, thinking on switching to Ubuntu, not sure if that will help.

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: Cdecker on February 05, 2011, 09:13:35 AM

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 05, 2011, 08:45:20 AM

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.

My bad, the meter is fluctuating a bit more, I'll check if it stabilizes.

The first meter measures whats going on now, the second meter measures the performance since the start of the miner. If you intend on benchmarking, do -f 1 and read the second meter after 15 minutes.

Cdecker

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 505

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 05, 2011, 08:45:20 AM

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.

My bad, the meter is fluctuating a bit more, I'll check if it stabilizes.

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: Cdecker on February 05, 2011, 08:34:05 AM

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 05, 2011, 08:01:57 AM

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping

Does this justify a 3% performance increase? I'm not sure how precise the hash meter is.

Looping doesn't cause the 3% performance boost if thats what you're asking. I see it on my 4xxx, and looping isn't enabled on 4xxx. Looping is probably another, eh, half a percent or so.

Cdecker

hero member

Activity: 489

Merit: 505

Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 05, 2011, 08:01:57 AM

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping

Does this justify a 3% performance increase? I'm not sure how precise the hash meter is.

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Update: Fix bug on Radeon 5xxx looping

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Update: Use multiple buckets on output to reduce lost pool shares

Roughly 3.5% of shares are lost (due to bucket cramming) on a 5870 on -f 1... its far less for slower cards or high -f values. It is now 256 times less. I can live with 0.02% lost.

Topic: DiabloMiner GPU Miner - page 78. (Read 866572 times)