Pages:
Author

Topic: hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap - page 6. (Read 30774 times)

newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses

if he uses open source parts from ccminer in his closed software he must open his code, too.
Not only binary, then he must give the source for all.
just my two cents...
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
Damn, it works, but only 5-10 mins, after that i always get this error...
https://imgur.com/a/5GRuN
newbie
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
asus mining p104-4g it's not working
 INFO : [02:20:03] : GPU #3: Asus P104-100, flags: 0, 0, 0
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
OK, i'm just dumb. Increased pagefile.sys to 64gb and it works.
member
Activity: 133
Merit: 11

Anyone have same problem? Only on my 70TI rigs, 80 works perfectly

I believe it could be that you do not have enough memory from RAM+PageFile >= Total RAM of all your GPUs.
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
https://imgur.com/a/ImRWF
Anyone have same problem? Only on my 70TI rigs, 80 works perfectly
jr. member
Activity: 213
Merit: 3
for two days testing the miner with GTX 1070
i found its giving fake hashrate number
i get 1300 for neoscrypt with my GTX 1070
CCminer Klaust  1250
but still the profit from nicehash if i use ccminer higher then hsrminer
i test one card for one hour with both software and the winner is ccminer Klaust
three hour also ccminer
two card for one hour and three hours also ccminer better
anyone agree with me ?
come on its close source software


Again, you can't compare miners by comparing coins mined because the difficulty can be set at 20 for one hour while using one miner and set to 2000 while using the other. Comparing miners by coins mined at different times is useless..
newbie
Activity: 82
Merit: 0
There is a bug in shr miner.
It does not support multi gpu mining, when gpu's more than 15
Example: i've choosen to mine with device number 10 but miner understood 10 as devic enumber 0
https://s9.postimg.org/l2ncemztr/10-0.png
https://s9.postimg.org/l2ncemztr/10-0.png
jr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 3
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses

I second this
newbie
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
we really need API but exacly as ccminer, when we will run 40 rigs with this miner
plz copy API from ccminer git sourses
member
Activity: 133
Merit: 11
So, I did the test I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I created a QBIC wallet and picked up two different send addresses. I picked QBIC as it would generate a fair number of blocks per hour based on the history for that coin.

I have two 1080Ti cards of the same brand/spec (Gigabyte). They are exactly the same.
Both are overclocked with the same settings: +100/+400 80%

I created two batch files one using hsr_miner and one of the addresses, and one using CC-miner-Klaust and the other address. Both were directed at the same port in BSOD pool.

I started both batch jobs at the same time and let it run for 80 minutes roughly then paused for the night and carried on for another 120 minutes this morning.
Both miners behaved well although KlausT had two rejections (99.22% efficiency). There was one pool disconnect (that I noticed) but both miners experienced this and it was only during 10 seconds

The reported hash rates from each miner were :

KlausT :       1480 kH/s
hsrminer:     1790 kH/s


During these periods 58 QBIC blocks were found, and the results in earned coins were:

KlausT:       0.07451398  QBIC
hsrminer:     0.07188344 QBIC


One interesting fact is that the pool for some reason reported a somewhat higher hashrate from hsrminer during the tests, but the results were more or less at par.
I pulled out my google docs skills (quite limited Smiley ) and created the graph below.
The red line is KlausT and the blue line is hsrminer.



While luck certainly is a factor in these matters it seems as if the promised edge just isn't there, but perhaps a longer test is needed.
Feel free to post any objections to this test and how it can be improved.


I'm sorry but there is a VITAL piece of information you are missing. QBIC is completely unreliable source to try to benchmark against because it is always under nicehash attacks. Hashrates can go from 1ghs on a pool to 20/30 even 160 I have seen.
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
for two days testing the miner with GTX 1070
i found its giving fake hashrate number
i get 1300 for neoscrypt with my GTX 1070
CCminer Klaust  1250
but still the profit from nicehash if i use ccminer higher then hsrminer
i test one card for one hour with both software and the winner is ccminer Klaust
three hour also ccminer
two card for one hour and three hours also ccminer better
anyone agree with me ?
come on its close source software
jr. member
Activity: 210
Merit: 6
Пpи зaпycкe пишeт, чтo нeт дpaйвepoв пoд CUDA.
Кaкиe нyжны вepcии дpaйвepoв?

Bидeoкapты - 1060 3Гб
Oпepaциoнкa - Win 8.1
Дpaйвepa - 22.21.13.8233 oт 17.05.2017
Фaйл пoдкaчки - 50Гб

388.71
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en-uk
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
Пpи зaпycкe пишeт, чтo нeт дpaйвepoв пoд CUDA.
Кaкиe нyжны вepcии дpaйвepoв?

Bидeoкapты - 1060 3Гб
Oпepaциoнкa - Win 8.1
Дpaйвepa - 22.21.13.8233 oт 17.05.2017
Фaйл пoдкaчки - 50Гб
jr. member
Activity: 213
Merit: 3
@Zorday , great job on the testing but yes, a much larger testing window would be better. If a baseball batter got up to bat 3times and got 2 hits you'd think he was the greatest baseball player in history by looking at his average. As the batter got more at bats the natural average would kick in and you'd see he's only batting .230 and now we're dumping him back into the minor leagues Wink A slightly higher hashrate with higher shares submitted should produce better results over the long haul but because the increase is so minor, we're talking 5-8% at most, a much longer time period would be best to flesh out this very minor increase.

Definitely on the right path though for testing the two and I appreciate the info.

Agreed and I will do more tests... I have to restart though as one of the miners got disconnected yesterday and I was not paying attention.
Yes I am well aware that the stats are a bit scarce, but still I would expect to see a slightly different angle on the slope. Isn't the difference more like 20%?
1480kH/s compared to 1790kH/s reported?

Isn't really 1790 with a rig.. On single cards, yeah, I can get above 1800kh/s with 90%tdp but in a group of cards my range is 1650-1750kh/s. I'd guess it was closer to 5-8% hashrate gains, no where near 20%.
newbie
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
What W10 build / NVIDIA drivers combo are you using to run this miner?. I keep getting error 43 on some cards
full member
Activity: 420
Merit: 184
The results are in from the concurrently run comparison between hsrminer and ccminer KlausT v8.19 on the TZC pool at Altminer.net and this time hsrminer won. Average hashrate reported by ccminer was 1010 kH/s while hsrminer claimed 1230 kH/s, or about 22% more. The difference in earnings, however, were not quite as different, with ccminer earning 24.497 TZC while hsrminer brought in 27.264 TZC, or about 11% more.

So my results are similar, but not identical, to what @zorday found. Hsrminer is faster, but it also lies about just how fast it is.

I should also note that hsrminer is much more difficult to stabilize, especially with regards to GPU core overclocking, usually manifesting in a mysterious drop in hashrate of 10-20% after 1-3 hours of continuous operation. That did not occur during this test because I've dialed in the -i and -c settings on each my rigs, but it took a lot of iterations to get there.

newbie
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
@Zorday , great job on the testing but yes, a much larger testing window would be better. If a baseball batter got up to bat 3times and got 2 hits you'd think he was the greatest baseball player in history by looking at his average. As the batter got more at bats the natural average would kick in and you'd see he's only batting .230 and now we're dumping him back into the minor leagues Wink A slightly higher hashrate with higher shares submitted should produce better results over the long haul but because the increase is so minor, we're talking 5-8% at most, a much longer time period would be best to flesh out this very minor increase.

Definitely on the right path though for testing the two and I appreciate the info.

Agreed and I will do more tests... I have to restart though as one of the miners got disconnected yesterday and I was not paying attention.
Yes I am well aware that the stats are a bit scarce, but still I would expect to see a slightly different angle on the slope. Isn't the difference more like 20%?
1480kH/s compared to 1790kH/s reported?
jr. member
Activity: 213
Merit: 3
@Zorday , great job on the testing but yes, a much larger testing window would be better. If a baseball batter got up to bat 3times and got 2 hits you'd think he was the greatest baseball player in history by looking at his average. As the batter got more at bats the natural average would kick in and you'd see he's only batting .230 and now we're dumping him back into the minor leagues Wink A slightly higher hashrate with higher shares submitted should produce better results over the long haul but because the increase is so minor, we're talking 5-8% at most, a much longer time period would be best to flesh out this very minor increase.

Definitely on the right path though for testing the two and I appreciate the info.
newbie
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
GPU#0 - MSI GTX 1060 3GB, Temp is 69C, Fans at 52%, Power consumption 128W

I think we need temp limit on hsrminer - neoscript


I see so big diffirence in power consumption. 124W - 144W
no oc - it is at stock settings.

GTX1060 3GB power needs is 120W.
Why your miner needs more power ?

This is the same with my Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB, what is the problem?
Pages:
Jump to: