What's the fee?
1.5
Topic: Funakoshi Cuda miner is fast and clean from viruses (windows, ubuntu, fedora) - page 3. (Read 2414 times)
March 01, 2018, 12:41:46 AM
February 28, 2018, 06:58:12 PM
What's the fee?
February 28, 2018, 11:37:03 AM
In a few days from now I am going
to publish release v1.0 of Funakoshi-Miner.
It will include a performance boost
to publish release v1.0 of Funakoshi-Miner.
It will include a performance boost
February 26, 2018, 11:04:07 AM
miner crashed 3 times in 24h, window just shut down. worked about 5-6 hours and ....
has a potential, but there is some bug, add log file
has a potential, but there is some bug, add log file
Have you re-downloaded the miner after I have uploaded the bug fix an hour ago?
I will add logfile soon.
New version works much better and faster, runs stable for more than 12h, no of shares is little less than Bminer and DSTM, Good work.
Added log-file as promised.
Checkout release v0.9 for using log-file
-f fileName (in command-line args).
Also fixed some bugs, and reduce %cpu.
It will take me a few more days to add api.
February 25, 2018, 01:47:33 PM
Tomorrow I am planning to release version 0.9 of Funakoshi-Miner.
This release will include the following benefits:
1. Reduced CPU usage (both on Linux and on Windows).
2. Support for log-file (a new -f command-line argument).
A few days afterwards I will also add API support.
February 25, 2018, 06:28:49 AM
Hi,
so, I ran a 24h test on flypool with one GTX 1070 ti on Ubuntu 16.04 with OC (GPU +200, MEM +700).
The miner (Funakoshi) shows between 505-519 Sol/s in the console. Flypool reports different:
Flypool
In reality pool reports average of around 415 (+/-5) Sol/s. For comparison DSTM reports an average
of 485 (+/- 5) Sol/s with the same settings. Roughly +20% speed for DSTM...
Funakoshi needs another speed bump to be on par with the current Equihash miners.
What I really do like very much with Funakoshi miner is its "SSL only" approach. That is really a big
plus.
From my point of view, Funakoshi miner is missing:
I'm sure, Funakoshi is already hard at work, addressing above list ;-)
We are all looking forward with what Funakoshi is coming up!
Cheers,
Andy
so, I ran a 24h test on flypool with one GTX 1070 ti on Ubuntu 16.04 with OC (GPU +200, MEM +700).
The miner (Funakoshi) shows between 505-519 Sol/s in the console. Flypool reports different:
Flypool
In reality pool reports average of around 415 (+/-5) Sol/s. For comparison DSTM reports an average
of 485 (+/- 5) Sol/s with the same settings. Roughly +20% speed for DSTM...
Funakoshi needs another speed bump to be on par with the current Equihash miners.
What I really do like very much with Funakoshi miner is its "SSL only" approach. That is really a big
plus.
From my point of view, Funakoshi miner is missing:
- better speed
- telemetry/api
- increased stability
I'm sure, Funakoshi is already hard at work, addressing above list ;-)
We are all looking forward with what Funakoshi is coming up!
Cheers,
Andy
February 24, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
To mine zclassic you should use the domain
equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com instead of
ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
See the examples in https://zclassic.miningpoolhub.com/
Disregard the server names and read the examples.
Read examples of command-line arguments to Funakoshi-Miner:
https://github.com/funakoshi2718/funakoshi-miner
Any plan for new update?
Funakoshi Miner supports miningpoolhub.com.
Miners should use domain equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
For mining equihash coins like zcash.
What is the speed in comparison to EWBF?
You are welcome to check for yourself.
Don't belive me and don't belive others.
Many of the posted benchmarks are not objective.
If you ask for my non objective opinion:
I think that it depends on the specific computer & gpu model.
On windows-7 & gtx 1080 I have measured that Funakoshi
has more sol/s (but not much more).
I am currently working on some performance improvements.
I will upload them soon.
February 24, 2018, 01:12:55 PM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
To mine zclassic you should use the domain
equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com instead of
ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
See the examples in https://zclassic.miningpoolhub.com/
Disregard the server names and read the examples.
Read examples of command-line arguments to Funakoshi-Miner:
https://github.com/funakoshi2718/funakoshi-miner
Any plan for new update?
Funakoshi Miner supports miningpoolhub.com.
Miners should use domain equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
For mining equihash coins like zcash.
What is the speed in comparison to EWBF?
February 24, 2018, 11:04:09 AM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
To mine zclassic you should use the domain
equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com instead of
ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
See the examples in https://zclassic.miningpoolhub.com/
Disregard the server names and read the examples.
Read examples of command-line arguments to Funakoshi-Miner:
https://github.com/funakoshi2718/funakoshi-miner
Any plan for new update?
Funakoshi Miner supports miningpoolhub.com.
Miners should use domain equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
For mining equihash coins like zcash.
February 24, 2018, 07:09:28 AM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
To mine zclassic you should use the domain
equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com instead of
ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
See the examples in https://zclassic.miningpoolhub.com/
Disregard the server names and read the examples.
Read examples of command-line arguments to Funakoshi-Miner:
https://github.com/funakoshi2718/funakoshi-miner
Any plan for new update?
February 23, 2018, 04:53:40 PM
Andy, I did another comparison of Funakoshi vs Dstm-0.6
on a Ubuntu 16 cloud server with gtx 1070 GPU.
First I run Dstm for 2 hours and after that Funakoshi for 2 hours.
2 hours is too short time (but I wanted to test both solvers in
as close as possible period of time).
Dstm:
cpu: 6%
I/s: 237
Sol/s avg: 442 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 399
Funakoshi:
cpu: 16%
I/s: 240
Sol/s avg: 446 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 401
In the following graph from flypool,
Dstm 2 hours recording is on the left-side
and Funakoshi 2 hours recording is on the right:
In this configuration both solvers seams to have similar
performance. I also noticed that there are many large
jumps in flypool graph in both directions.
Maybe different configurations gives completely different results.
Maybe different hours of day in flypool gives different results.
However I will continue to try to find ways to improve the performance.
Thanks for sharing your experience with me.
on a Ubuntu 16 cloud server with gtx 1070 GPU.
First I run Dstm for 2 hours and after that Funakoshi for 2 hours.
2 hours is too short time (but I wanted to test both solvers in
as close as possible period of time).
Dstm:
cpu: 6%
I/s: 237
Sol/s avg: 442 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 399
Funakoshi:
cpu: 16%
I/s: 240
Sol/s avg: 446 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 401
In the following graph from flypool,
Dstm 2 hours recording is on the left-side
and Funakoshi 2 hours recording is on the right:
In this configuration both solvers seams to have similar
performance. I also noticed that there are many large
jumps in flypool graph in both directions.
Maybe different configurations gives completely different results.
Maybe different hours of day in flypool gives different results.
However I will continue to try to find ways to improve the performance.
Thanks for sharing your experience with me.
Funakoshi,
Okay, let me try to run (unfortunately not in parallel) two more 24 hour test.
One with your miner, and one with DSTM, both on flypool with Zcash.
Will report back.
Cheers,
Andy
February 22, 2018, 06:04:43 PM
that was my mistake, I just took the green server names… instead of reading further.
MPM should fix this
thnx for the quick answer
MPM should fix this
thnx for the quick answer February 22, 2018, 05:43:41 PM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
To mine zclassic you should use the domain
equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com instead of
ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com
See the examples in https://zclassic.miningpoolhub.com/
Disregard the server names and read the examples.
Read examples of command-line arguments to Funakoshi-Miner:
https://github.com/funakoshi2718/funakoshi-miner
February 22, 2018, 03:25:23 PM
thanks for the miner, but its crashing when I want to use this pool:
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
europe.ethash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575
can you help out?
February 22, 2018, 08:51:21 AM
I will do it. However it may take a few days (maybe less).
Please be patient.
I have added support of LuckPool and updated the current release v0.8
February 22, 2018, 07:26:00 AM
Andy, I did another comparison of Funakoshi vs Dstm-0.6
on a Ubuntu 16 cloud server with gtx 1070 GPU.
First I run Dstm for 2 hours and after that Funakoshi for 2 hours.
2 hours is too short time (but I wanted to test both solvers in
as close as possible period of time).
Dstm:
cpu: 6%
I/s: 237
Sol/s avg: 442 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 399
Funakoshi:
cpu: 16%
I/s: 240
Sol/s avg: 446 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 401
In the following graph from flypool,
Dstm 2 hours recording is on the left-side
and Funakoshi 2 hours recording is on the right:
In this configuration both solvers seams to have similar
performance. I also noticed that there are many large
jumps in flypool graph in both directions.
Maybe different configurations gives completely different results.
Maybe different hours of day in flypool gives different results.
However I will continue to try to find ways to improve the performance.
Thanks for sharing your experience with me.
on a Ubuntu 16 cloud server with gtx 1070 GPU.
First I run Dstm for 2 hours and after that Funakoshi for 2 hours.
2 hours is too short time (but I wanted to test both solvers in
as close as possible period of time).
Dstm:
cpu: 6%
I/s: 237
Sol/s avg: 442 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 399
Funakoshi:
cpu: 16%
I/s: 240
Sol/s avg: 446 (reported by miner)
Flypool avg sol/s: 401
In the following graph from flypool,
Dstm 2 hours recording is on the left-side
and Funakoshi 2 hours recording is on the right:
In this configuration both solvers seams to have similar
performance. I also noticed that there are many large
jumps in flypool graph in both directions.
Maybe different configurations gives completely different results.
Maybe different hours of day in flypool gives different results.
However I will continue to try to find ways to improve the performance.
Thanks for sharing your experience with me.
February 22, 2018, 02:19:25 AM
I will do it. However it may take a few days (maybe less).
Please be patient.
February 22, 2018, 02:11:32 AM
February 22, 2018, 12:53:24 AM
Small update on my testing:
on pool side I'm not getting more than 420 Sol/s for 1070 Ti. Funakoshi reports 510-520 Sol/s.
DSTM reports 495 Sol/s and 480-485 Sol/s on pool.
Cheers,
Andy
on pool side I'm not getting more than 420 Sol/s for 1070 Ti. Funakoshi reports 510-520 Sol/s.
DSTM reports 495 Sol/s and 480-485 Sol/s on pool.
Cheers,
Andy
Before the performance improvement the pool said 437
and after the improvement the pool says 420
It seams that I will have to do some research.
Thanks Andy
February 21, 2018, 06:03:38 PM
Small update on my testing:
on pool side I'm not getting more than 420 Sol/s for 1070 Ti. Funakoshi reports 510-520 Sol/s.
DSTM reports 495 Sol/s and 480-485 Sol/s on pool.
Cheers,
Andy
on pool side I'm not getting more than 420 Sol/s for 1070 Ti. Funakoshi reports 510-520 Sol/s.
DSTM reports 495 Sol/s and 480-485 Sol/s on pool.
Cheers,
Andy
Jump to: