ethminer-0.9.41-genoil-1.1 - page 75.

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: JuanHungLo on April 13, 2016, 05:16:00 AM

Genoil, I am trying but I can't get it to work. What would be the config for using stratum if the following?

Quote

# Host and port for your workers
HOST = "192.168.1.101"
PORT = 8080

# Coin address where money goes
WALLET = ""

# Main pool
POOL_HOST = "eth-us.dwarfpool.com"
POOL_PORT = 8008

# Failover pool
POOL_FAILOVER_ENABLE = True
POOL_HOST_FAILOVER = "eth-eu.dwarfpool.com"
POOL_PORT_FAILOVER = 8008

Currently my miners uses the following:

Quote

@echo off
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 95
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 95
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
ethminer.exe --farm-recheck 200 -t 2 -G -F http://192.168.1.101:8080/myMiner --cl-extragpu-mem 0 --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 16384

Thanks, in advance.

My miner does't support dwarfpool with native stratum. I'm not going to implement a proprietary protocol that is confusing the hell out of devs because it's called stratum, while in fact it isn't following the protocol spec. Unless I get paid to do it of course Wink

JuanHungLo

hero member

Activity: 935

Merit: 1001

I don't always drink...

Genoil, I am trying but I can't get it to work. What would be the config for using stratum if the following?

Quote

# Host and port for your workers
HOST = "192.168.1.101"
PORT = 8080

# Coin address where money goes
WALLET = ""

# Main pool
POOL_HOST = "eth-us.dwarfpool.com"
POOL_PORT = 8008

# Failover pool
POOL_FAILOVER_ENABLE = True
POOL_HOST_FAILOVER = "eth-eu.dwarfpool.com"
POOL_PORT_FAILOVER = 8008

Currently my miners uses the following:

Quote

@echo off
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 95
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 95
setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
ethminer.exe --farm-recheck 200 -t 2 -G -F http://192.168.1.101:8080/myMiner --cl-extragpu-mem 0 --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 16384

Thanks, in advance.

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: maxvall on April 13, 2016, 04:33:02 AM

Quote from: Genoil on April 11, 2016, 04:59:28 PM

Anyone not busy trying out dual-mining ETH/DCR with Claymore's new toy, please test a new 1.0.7 feature in the "107" branch: stratum failover.

1. Building without ETH_STRATUM fails (because usage of undefined m_fport)
2. IMO you broke farm failover functionality
3. IMO farm/stratum failover mixing makes confusing

Code:

else if ((arg == "-FF" || arg == "-FS" || arg == "--farm-failover" || arg == "--stratum-failover") && i + 1 < argc)
{
string url = argv[++i];
if (mode == OperationMode::Stratum) //!!! m_farmFailOverURL is initialised only in stratum mode
{
size_t p = url.find_last_of(":");
if (p > 0)
{
m_farmFailOverURL = url.substr(0, p);
if (p + 1 <= url.length())
m_fport = url.substr(p + 1); //!!! m_fport is not defined without ETH_STRATUM
}
else
{
m_farmFailOverURL = url;
}
}
}

P.S. I perform 24h+ testing of 1.0.6 + "added mutex to stratum pending calls" + "disable farm stop on reconnect", ALL OK

Thanks for testing. God it's an awful mess isn't it

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ayers on April 13, 2016, 01:47:50 AM

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: Casdinyard on April 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 12:40:28 PM

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Is your 1.0.7 faster than the previous versions of 1.0.6 or 1.0.4? Do they use the same mining kernel?

It's a different kernel but not faster on AMD. I had a stab at trying to bring VGRPS usage down to 64 but didn't succeed. As a nice side-effect though, I managed to make it faster on Nvidia GPUs, almost as fast as the CUDA kernel. That can be useful for people who have issue compiling the CUDA kernel (i.e. OSX, Fedora).

it's the 1.07 version private or you will make it public? we need to pay for it?

No, I just need a few people to test it and confirm the new stratum failover feature works. Also, somebody taking the chance to use the native stratum miner with a serious production rig for a longer period to confirm stability would be awesome. I just don't have that hardware

I just pushed a win64 binary here: https://github.com/Genoil/cpp-ethereum/blob/107/releases/ethminer-0.9.41-genoil-1.0.7b1.zip?raw=true

Quote from: Marvell1 on April 13, 2016, 01:57:35 AM

so is 1.0.7 faster on gtx 970s ?

No it isn't in CUDA mode (-U), although I relaxed the restrictions on block size. They used to be 32/64/128, but now you get just use any multiple of 8. Even not a multiple of 8 but that won't give you any share. Useful block sizes that you could try are 32,64,128, 224, 288, 448 and 896. In my experience it doesn't do that much, although combined with differetn global work sizes, it may yield a bit better results.

In OpenCL mode however (-G), all NVidia GPUs should expect a big boost. Still not on the level of native CUDA, but close.

-- edit-- oh just missed @maxvalls reply. I guess I'll have to look into these issues! Thanks!
-- edit2-- i think i fixed it. binary also updated

maxvall

sr. member

Activity: 268

Merit: 250

Quote from: Genoil on April 11, 2016, 04:59:28 PM

Anyone not busy trying out dual-mining ETH/DCR with Claymore's new toy, please test a new 1.0.7 feature in the "107" branch: stratum failover.

1. Building without ETH_STRATUM fails (because usage of undefined m_fport)
2. IMO you broke farm failover functionality
3. IMO farm/stratum failover mixing makes confusing

Code:

else if ((arg == "-FF" || arg == "-FS" || arg == "--farm-failover" || arg == "--stratum-failover") && i + 1 < argc)
{
string url = argv[++i];
if (mode == OperationMode::Stratum) //!!! m_farmFailOverURL is initialised only in stratum mode
{
size_t p = url.find_last_of(":");
if (p > 0)
{
m_farmFailOverURL = url.substr(0, p);
if (p + 1 <= url.length())
m_fport = url.substr(p + 1); //!!! m_fport is not defined without ETH_STRATUM
}
else
{
m_farmFailOverURL = url;
}
}
}

P.S. I perform 24h+ testing of 1.0.6 + "added mutex to stratum pending calls" + "disable farm stop on reconnect", ALL OK

Marvell1

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1102

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: Casdinyard on April 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 12:40:28 PM

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Is your 1.0.7 faster than the previous versions of 1.0.6 or 1.0.4? Do they use the same mining kernel?

It's a different kernel but not faster on AMD. I had a stab at trying to bring VGRPS usage down to 64 but didn't succeed. As a nice side-effect though, I managed to make it faster on Nvidia GPUs, almost as fast as the CUDA kernel. That can be useful for people who have issue compiling the CUDA kernel (i.e. OSX, Fedora).

so is 1.0.7 faster on gtx 970s ?

Ayers

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 1022

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: Casdinyard on April 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 12:40:28 PM

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Is your 1.0.7 faster than the previous versions of 1.0.6 or 1.0.4? Do they use the same mining kernel?

It's a different kernel but not faster on AMD. I had a stab at trying to bring VGRPS usage down to 64 but didn't succeed. As a nice side-effect though, I managed to make it faster on Nvidia GPUs, almost as fast as the CUDA kernel. That can be useful for people who have issue compiling the CUDA kernel (i.e. OSX, Fedora).

it's the 1.07 version private or you will make it public? we need to pay for it?

genuin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 251

cool performance for this,but i cant coding so i'will try to help my friend Wink

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: Casdinyard on April 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 12:40:28 PM

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Is your 1.0.7 faster than the previous versions of 1.0.6 or 1.0.4? Do they use the same mining kernel?

It's a different kernel but not faster on AMD. I had a stab at trying to bring VGRPS usage down to 64 but didn't succeed. As a nice side-effect though, I managed to make it faster on Nvidia GPUs, almost as fast as the CUDA kernel. That can be useful for people who have issue compiling the CUDA kernel (i.e. OSX, Fedora).

Casdinyard

hero member

Activity: 2184

Merit: 891

Leading Crypto Sports Betting and Casino Platform

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 12:40:28 PM

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Is your 1.0.7 faster than the previous versions of 1.0.6 or 1.0.4? Do they use the same mining kernel?

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I have only tested 1.0.7 against claymore's on a 7950 in ETH only mode. 1.0.7 has a different kernel but shouldn't affect speed on AMD that much. My miner showed slightly higher hash rates but that could be due to a different way of calculation.

Marvell1

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1102

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: virasog on April 12, 2016, 10:09:18 AM

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

I dont know if its verifed that this is for sure 5% faster unless mining pure eth ? also it does not work with stratum and worker name password so keep that in mind

virasog

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 1174

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

The Claymore new eth miner is about 3-5% faster than the ethminer. Is that also faster than 1.0.6?

maxvall

sr. member

Activity: 268

Merit: 250

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:44:48 AM

I find it strange that so many people seem to end up with corrupt DAG files. Never in one year of development have I encountered a corrupt DAG. What is it that guys you do?

May be termination/crash of miner in time of new DAG creation. As I know miner only verify existence of DAG, not the validity.

Quote from: sp_ on April 12, 2016, 06:20:32 AM

You get it when you the power is cut while the program is writing to the disk, or you kill the miner before it is finished to create the dag file.

+1

Quote from: Genoil on April 11, 2016, 04:59:28 PM

Anyone not busy trying out dual-mining ETH/DCR with Claymore's new toy, please test a new 1.0.7 feature in the "107" branch: stratum failover.

Cool, I'll try it! But how about switching back to main pool if it back alive?

sp_

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1087

Team Black developer

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:44:48 AM

Quote from: Vaccinus on April 12, 2016, 12:43:50 AM

i was right it was the dag file, no more unknown error now

I find it strange that so many people seem to end up with corrupt DAG files. Never in one year of development have I encountered a corrupt DAG. What is it that guys you do?

You get it when you the power is cut while the program is writing to the disk, or you kill the miner before it is finished to create the dag file.

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: Termie on April 12, 2016, 05:04:03 AM

Hello,

since I switched from ethminer+proxy to stratum-direct with 1.0.6, I notice with almost every new job 1-2 "zero-hashes".
Is this normal or can I configure anything better? My 24h average hashrate seems ok.
ethminer.exe -S eu1.ethermine.org:4444 --userpass (ethaddress).(miner) -G --farm-recheck 250 --opencl-device 0 --opencl-platform 1 --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 16384

Nothing to worry about. In fact, if you use the native stratum, you an safely increase --farm-recheck to 2000 or higher. You'll get more accurate hashrate display.

Vaccinus

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Genoil on April 12, 2016, 02:44:48 AM

Quote from: Vaccinus on April 12, 2016, 12:43:50 AM

i was right it was the dag file, no more unknown error now

I find it strange that so many people seem to end up with corrupt DAG files. Never in one year of development have I encountered a corrupt DAG. What is it that guys you do?

it's because i'm mining numerous dag hashimoto coins, and mixing it with other algo, and the gpu don't work good with the same clock with other algo, so some time these problem occur, but not sure

Termie

sr. member

Activity: 642

Merit: 292

Hello,

since I switched from ethminer+proxy to stratum-direct with 1.0.6, I notice with almost every new job 1-2 "zero-hashes".
Is this normal or can I configure anything better? My 24h average hashrate seems ok.
ethminer.exe -S eu1.ethermine.org:4444 --userpass (ethaddress).(miner) -G --farm-recheck 250 --opencl-device 0 --opencl-platform 1 --cl-local-work 256 --cl-global-work 16384

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vaccinus on April 12, 2016, 12:43:50 AM

i was right it was the dag file, no more unknown error now

I find it strange that so many people seem to end up with corrupt DAG files. Never in one year of development have I encountered a corrupt DAG. What is it that guys you do?

Genoil

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 250

Quote from: adaseb on April 11, 2016, 06:17:08 PM

Where can I find 1.0.7?

It's still source only, no binaries yet. I've stopped releasing beta binaries since a buggy beta was republished and spread. Moreover, I found a strong correlation between people that can build from source and trace bugs Wink

. you can find the source in the "107" branch on github.

Topic: ethminer-0.9.41-genoil-1.1 - page 75. (Read 397387 times)