* Better mode detection 3GB cards. (150,5)
Can you give more details? Does this mean automatic --mode=3 even when flag not included in command line?
That was the ideia... did it work for you?
Cheers
Topic: miniZ v2.0a Equihash 144,5 125,4 210,9 150,5 192,7 BeamHash3 ProgPoW Ethash CFX - page 52. (Read 59767 times)
May 04, 2019, 11:43:53 AM
Can you give more details? Does this mean automatic --mode=3 even when flag not included in command line?
That was the ideia... did it work for you?
Cheers
May 04, 2019, 03:57:49 AM
What does the —oc1 and —oc2 do? I’m mining Beam on Hiveos with 1080Ti’s. Allready applied oc and pl within hiveos. Do I still use -oc1 or —oc2?
Love miniz by the way 💪
Love miniz by the way 💪
May 04, 2019, 03:34:13 AM
* Better mode detection 3GB cards. (150,5)
Can you give more details? Does this mean automatic --mode=3 even when flag not included in command line?
May 03, 2019, 08:02:07 PM
Hi everyone,
Thanks for your feedback!
We made available new files for both Windows and Linux, miniZ v1.3n5 with a few more fixes.
* Improved stale shares.
* Fixed GTX 1060 settings without oc1/2. (144,5)
* Better mode detection 3GB cards. (150,5)
* Fixed templimit in configuration file.
You can find the miniZ v1.3n5 on our website https://miniz.ch/download/
For those who use Hive OS check here.
Thank you for using miniZ!
Cheers
Thanks for your feedback!
We made available new files for both Windows and Linux, miniZ v1.3n5 with a few more fixes.
* Improved stale shares.
* Fixed GTX 1060 settings without oc1/2. (144,5)
* Better mode detection 3GB cards. (150,5)
* Fixed templimit in configuration file.
You can find the miniZ v1.3n5 on our website https://miniz.ch/download/
For those who use Hive OS check here.
Thank you for using miniZ!
Cheers
May 03, 2019, 08:00:35 PM
miniZ v1.3n4 "beam" W10 rig 6x1080ti rig 6x1060 6GB stable nice work thanks "better than gminer, who mysteriously released the update"
Hi stzcze,Thank you for your message.
It is great to know that our work is appreciated!
We have just released v1.3n5 with a few fixes.
Cheers
May 03, 2019, 04:11:16 PM
miniZ v1.3n4 "beam" W10 rig 6x1080ti rig 6x1060 6GB stable nice work thanks "better than gminer, who mysteriously released the update"
May 03, 2019, 05:54:37 AM
Thanks for explanation. Looks like you are right - most rejects are shown in red (stale). In this pic starting from 1.5 i was testing other miner with same algo 150,5, that is why reject rate is much lower, but 29.4 is what i had when i was testing first revision of n (does not look very good, many rejects in orange too). 30.4 i was runnig n2, n3 versions and graphic is much better.
Hi somaton, Thank you for sharing this information.
The stale shares may look a bit high in your case. We are looking into it to further check if we can improve this.
Cheers
May 02, 2019, 04:58:25 PM
Thanks for explanation. Looks like you are right - most rejects are shown in red (stale). In this pic starting from 1.5 i was testing other miner with same algo 150,5, that is why reject rate is much lower, but 29.4 is what i had when i was testing first revision of n (does not look very good, many rejects in orange too). 30.4 i was runnig n2, n3 versions and graphic is much better.
May 02, 2019, 01:45:15 PM
I see same story on my rigs, when i'm using other 150,5 miner (to compare with n3) there is almost no rejects when checking nicehash site, but with n3 % of rejects is always higher.
Hi somaton,When you have a stale share you just get a yellow star on the miner console, the efficiency only accounts for the number of accepted and invalid shares. To see the other shares you have to look at the telemetry, it would be the middle value on the shares column.
We can see that nicehash, after sending a new job, does not accept submissions from previous jobs. Some pools still accept it, others like nicehash do not. We've tested and managed to see that when the miner receives a new job, just before submiting a solution from a previous work, this results in a rejected share from that submission.
(edit) If we remove this submission the miners will not gain anything from it. You'll get better efficiency on the pool, but you will earn the same (since nicehash does not accept it anyway). As we said before, some pools still accept these submissions.
Can you let us know what reason for rejection does nicehash report. You can check your graphic. It can say rejected (target), rejected (stale), rejected (duplicate)...
Cheers
May 02, 2019, 01:36:00 PM
I see same story on my rigs, when i'm using other 150,5 miner (to compare with n3) there is almost no rejects when checking nicehash site, but with n3 % of rejects is always higher.
May 02, 2019, 01:33:20 PM
Hi everyone,
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
We made available miniZ v1.3n4 with a few fixes, for you to download.
* Fixed ssl connection fault.
* Improved CPU load.
* Display NA for temperature when not available.
* Improved 1080 hashrate with --oc1.
You can download here https://miniz.ch/download/
For those who use Hive OS there is a new link for you:
http://miniz.ch/hiveos/miniZ-1.3n4.tar.gz
Thank you for helping us improve miniZ.
Cheers
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
We made available miniZ v1.3n4 with a few fixes, for you to download.
* Fixed ssl connection fault.
* Improved CPU load.
* Display NA for temperature when not available.
* Improved 1080 hashrate with --oc1.
You can download here https://miniz.ch/download/
For those who use Hive OS there is a new link for you:
http://miniz.ch/hiveos/miniZ-1.3n4.tar.gz
Thank you for helping us improve miniZ.
Cheers
May 02, 2019, 12:55:24 PM
I see rejects on pool side, but no one reject on miner
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Code:
[ 0d19h10m36s] S:4627/0 288(287.8)Sol/s 1639(1628.4)W [eu-beam.ss.btc.com,Beam-PoW]- 44ms (98.0%) (2.0%)
https://imgur.com/kiV83PkHi topteam,
thank you for reporting this.
It may be the case that the server is not reporting invalid shares, or that these are stale shares and in this case they show up in telemetry.
Just to confirm, are you are using miniZ v1.3n3?
Cheers
May 02, 2019, 12:53:51 PM
I see rejects on pool side, but no one reject on miner
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Code:
[ 0d19h10m36s] S:4627/0 288(287.8)Sol/s 1639(1628.4)W [eu-beam.ss.btc.com,Beam-PoW]- 44ms (98.0%) (2.0%)
Hi topteam,
thank you for reporting this.
It may be the case that the server is not reporting invalid shares, or that these are stale shares and in this case they show up in telemetry.
Just to confirm, are you are using miniZ v1.3n3?
Cheers
May 02, 2019, 12:25:31 PM
I see rejects on pool side, but no one reject on miner
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Can you check (beam, pool btc.com)?
Code:
[ 0d19h10m36s] S:4627/0 288(287.8)Sol/s 1639(1628.4)W [eu-beam.ss.btc.com,Beam-PoW]- 44ms (98.0%) (2.0%)
https://imgur.com/kiV83Pk May 02, 2019, 08:24:34 AM
It happens sometimes, after long run.
And I think it can be connected to sudden crush when mining on fee.server,
it happens to me once.
This error I saw few times already.
And I think it can be connected to sudden crush when mining on fee.server,
it happens to me once.
This error I saw few times already.
miniZ,
I also had the miner crash once last night. I'm glad I had asked for that runtime/local time modification because that made it very simple to spot it and then find it in the log. You can see that it was on the dev fee and then the miner started up again (I have it in a loop in the bat file). I am guessing no errors were written to the log because the miner just crashed. Thanks again for your great work...
Hi DanGB, hogwash.89m,I also had the miner crash once last night. I'm glad I had asked for that runtime/local time modification because that made it very simple to spot it and then find it in the log. You can see that it was on the dev fee and then the miner started up again (I have it in a loop in the bat file). I am guessing no errors were written to the log because the miner just crashed. Thanks again for your great work...
We have been looking into this and we managed to replicate the error. It is fixed now and will be included in the next build. We are testing a few things still but should be out soon.
Thanks for helping us to track the problem!
Cheers
May 01, 2019, 07:21:49 PM
Error when mining on dev [fee.server].
Hi hogwash.89m,thanks for reporting this. We never had that error.
We are looking into this.
Cheers
It happens sometimes, after long run.
And I think it can be connected to sudden crush when mining on fee.server,
it happens to me once.
This error I saw few times already.
miniZ,
I also had the miner crash once last night. I'm glad I had asked for that runtime/local time modification because that made it very simple to spot it and then find it in the log. You can see that it was on the dev fee and then the miner started up again (I have it in a loop in the bat file). I am guessing no errors were written to the log because the miner just crashed. Thanks again for your great work...
Code:
[ 0d 5h55m22s|00:48:25 01/05/2019] S:1592/0 199(197.9)Sol/s 979(980.4)W [fee.server]- 137ms (97.9%) (2.1%)
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S:212/0 [47øC/59%] 12.33 I/s 24.0(24.5)Sol/s 121(123.4)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S:187/0 [53øC/69%]*12.47 I/s 24.6(24.7)Sol/s 124(122.5)W clk=1417MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S:185/0 [50øC/64%]*12.51 I/s 25.1(24.9)Sol/s 115(122.2)W clk=1544MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S:200/0 [52øC/67%]*12.43 I/s 25.0(24.7)Sol/s 130(122.6)W clk=1468MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S:217/0 [53øC/68%]*12.43 I/s 25.0(24.7)Sol/s 121(121.1)W clk=1506MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S:211/0 [53øC/68%] 12.30 I/s 24.7(24.4)Sol/s 124(121.9)W clk=1455MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S:157/0 [51øC/65%]*12.54 I/s 24.8(24.9)Sol/s 122(122.9)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S:182/0 [54øC/70%]*12.71 I/s 25.1(25.2)Sol/s 123(122.2)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.21
[ 0d 5h55m33s|00:48:37 01/05/2019] S:1599/0 199(197.9)Sol/s 993(980.9)W [fee.server]- 134ms (97.9%) (2.1%)
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S:212/0 [47øC/59%] 12.32 I/s 24.1(24.5)Sol/s 126(123.4)W clk=1556MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S:187/0 [53øC/68%] 12.48 I/s 24.9(24.7)Sol/s 127(122.5)W clk=1480MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S:185/0 [50øC/64%] 12.51 I/s 25.1(24.9)Sol/s 118(122.2)W clk=1506MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S:200/0 [52øC/67%] 12.43 I/s 25.1(24.7)Sol/s 125(122.6)W clk=1430MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S:217/0 [53øC/68%] 12.43 I/s 24.8(24.6)Sol/s 124(121.1)W clk=1531MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S:211/0 [53øC/68%] 12.30 I/s 24.6(24.4)Sol/s 127(121.9)W clk=1379MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S:157/0 [51øC/67%] 12.54 I/s 24.7(24.9)Sol/s 126(122.9)W clk=1354MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S:182/0 [54øC/70%] 12.71 I/s 25.1(25.2)Sol/s 122(122.2)W clk=1569MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.21
Number of CUDA devices found: 8
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#0[0] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#1[1] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#2[2] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#3[3] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#4[4] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#5[5] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#6[6] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#7[7] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
Algo: EQ[150,5]
Pool#0: user[0480437dc7c1c92f2e2b992b5b33cfb2483e9f827ca8eb5bcddd880a6feeb92e.C_G_1070Ti]
server[beam.sunpool.top] port[3334] ssl[yes] pers[Beam-PoW]
Logging:: file[miniZ.log] period[10] delay[0]
Temp. limit: [70øC]
[ 0d 0h 0m09s|00:48:53 01/05/2019] S: 1/0 168(168.2)Sol/s 483(482.6)W [beam.sunpool.top]- 128ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [41øC/52%] 10.38 I/s 19.5(19.5)Sol/s 37( 37.1)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.53
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [47øC/61%] 10.47 I/s 19.7(19.7)Sol/s 38( 38.0)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.52
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [45øC/56%] 11.14 I/s 23.5(23.5)Sol/s 126(125.6)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.19
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [46øC/60%] 10.46 I/s 17.6(17.6)Sol/s 41( 41.4)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.43
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [46øC/60%] 10.28 I/s 18.0(18.0)Sol/s 38( 38.1)W clk=1620MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.47
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [49øC/59%] 10.94 I/s 19.9(19.9)Sol/s 123(122.9)W clk=1480MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.16
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [44øC/57%] 10.50 I/s 23.0(23.0)Sol/s 40( 39.5)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.58
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [49øC/65%] 10.35 I/s 16.8(16.8)Sol/s 40( 40.1)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.42
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S:212/0 [47øC/59%] 12.33 I/s 24.0(24.5)Sol/s 121(123.4)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S:187/0 [53øC/69%]*12.47 I/s 24.6(24.7)Sol/s 124(122.5)W clk=1417MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S:185/0 [50øC/64%]*12.51 I/s 25.1(24.9)Sol/s 115(122.2)W clk=1544MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S:200/0 [52øC/67%]*12.43 I/s 25.0(24.7)Sol/s 130(122.6)W clk=1468MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S:217/0 [53øC/68%]*12.43 I/s 25.0(24.7)Sol/s 121(121.1)W clk=1506MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S:211/0 [53øC/68%] 12.30 I/s 24.7(24.4)Sol/s 124(121.9)W clk=1455MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S:157/0 [51øC/65%]*12.54 I/s 24.8(24.9)Sol/s 122(122.9)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S:182/0 [54øC/70%]*12.71 I/s 25.1(25.2)Sol/s 123(122.2)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.21
[ 0d 5h55m33s|00:48:37 01/05/2019] S:1599/0 199(197.9)Sol/s 993(980.9)W [fee.server]- 134ms (97.9%) (2.1%)
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S:212/0 [47øC/59%] 12.32 I/s 24.1(24.5)Sol/s 126(123.4)W clk=1556MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S:187/0 [53øC/68%] 12.48 I/s 24.9(24.7)Sol/s 127(122.5)W clk=1480MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S:185/0 [50øC/64%] 12.51 I/s 25.1(24.9)Sol/s 118(122.2)W clk=1506MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S:200/0 [52øC/67%] 12.43 I/s 25.1(24.7)Sol/s 125(122.6)W clk=1430MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S:217/0 [53øC/68%] 12.43 I/s 24.8(24.6)Sol/s 124(121.1)W clk=1531MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S:211/0 [53øC/68%] 12.30 I/s 24.6(24.4)Sol/s 127(121.9)W clk=1379MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S:157/0 [51øC/67%] 12.54 I/s 24.7(24.9)Sol/s 126(122.9)W clk=1354MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.20
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S:182/0 [54øC/70%] 12.71 I/s 25.1(25.2)Sol/s 122(122.2)W clk=1569MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.21
Number of CUDA devices found: 8
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#0[0] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#1[1] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#2[2] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#3[3] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#4[4] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#5[5] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#6[6] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
miniZ,150,5[1:0:00]: Selecting GPU#7[7] GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
Algo: EQ[150,5]
Pool#0: user[0480437dc7c1c92f2e2b992b5b33cfb2483e9f827ca8eb5bcddd880a6feeb92e.C_G_1070Ti]
server[beam.sunpool.top] port[3334] ssl[yes] pers[Beam-PoW]
Logging:: file[miniZ.log] period[10] delay[0]
Temp. limit: [70øC]
[ 0d 0h 0m09s|00:48:53 01/05/2019] S: 1/0 168(168.2)Sol/s 483(482.6)W [beam.sunpool.top]- 128ms (100.0%) (0.0%)
0>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [41øC/52%] 10.38 I/s 19.5(19.5)Sol/s 37( 37.1)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.53
1>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [47øC/61%] 10.47 I/s 19.7(19.7)Sol/s 38( 38.0)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.52
2>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [45øC/56%] 11.14 I/s 23.5(23.5)Sol/s 126(125.6)W clk=1594MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.19
3>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [46øC/60%] 10.46 I/s 17.6(17.6)Sol/s 41( 41.4)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.43
4>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [46øC/60%] 10.28 I/s 18.0(18.0)Sol/s 38( 38.1)W clk=1620MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.47
5>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [49øC/59%] 10.94 I/s 19.9(19.9)Sol/s 123(122.9)W clk=1480MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.16
6>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [44øC/57%] 10.50 I/s 23.0(23.0)Sol/s 40( 39.5)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.58
7>GTX 1070 Ti `S: 0/0 [49øC/65%] 10.35 I/s 16.8(16.8)Sol/s 40( 40.1)W clk=1607MHz mclk=3553MHz Sol/W=0.42
May 01, 2019, 06:34:03 PM
Error when mining on dev [fee.server].
Hi hogwash.89m,Code:
5>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.32 I/s 24.4(24.4)Sol/s 128(129.3)W clk=1518MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
[ 0d 3h34m14s] S:1990/0 159(159.6)Sol/s 825(824.0)W [fee.server]
0>GTX 1080 Ti ` 100% [61°C/51%] 18.70 I/s 36.7(37.5)Sol/s 182(179.8)W clk=1493MHz mclk=5899MHz Sol/W=0.21
1>GTX 1080 ` 100% [61°C/51%] 12.14 I/s 24.0(24.1)Sol/s 128(128.6)W clk=1379MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
2>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.15 I/s 24.3(24.2)Sol/s 125(129.1)W clk=1468MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
3>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.43 I/s 24.8(24.7)Sol/s 130(128.9)W clk=1493MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
4>GTX 1080 ` 100% [54°C/45%] 12.43 I/s 25.2(24.6)Sol/s 133(129.2)W clk=1531MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
5>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.32 I/s 23.9(24.4)Sol/s 127(129.3)W clk=1404MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
0:error:1408F10B:SSL routines:ssl3_get_record:wrong version number:..\..\openssl-1.1.0f\ssl\record\ssl3_record.c:210:
[ 0d 3h34m14s] S:1990/0 159(159.6)Sol/s 825(824.0)W [fee.server]
0>GTX 1080 Ti ` 100% [61°C/51%] 18.70 I/s 36.7(37.5)Sol/s 182(179.8)W clk=1493MHz mclk=5899MHz Sol/W=0.21
1>GTX 1080 ` 100% [61°C/51%] 12.14 I/s 24.0(24.1)Sol/s 128(128.6)W clk=1379MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
2>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.15 I/s 24.3(24.2)Sol/s 125(129.1)W clk=1468MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
3>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.43 I/s 24.8(24.7)Sol/s 130(128.9)W clk=1493MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
4>GTX 1080 ` 100% [54°C/45%] 12.43 I/s 25.2(24.6)Sol/s 133(129.2)W clk=1531MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
5>GTX 1080 ` 100% [60°C/49%] 12.32 I/s 23.9(24.4)Sol/s 127(129.3)W clk=1404MHz mclk=5355MHz Sol/W=0.19
0:error:1408F10B:SSL routines:ssl3_get_record:wrong version number:..\..\openssl-1.1.0f\ssl\record\ssl3_record.c:210:
thanks for reporting this. We never had that error.
We are looking into this.
Cheers
It happens sometimes, after long run.
And I think it can be connected to sudden crush when mining on fee.server,
it happens to me once.
This error I saw few times already.
May 01, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
Hi MineOrDie,
It should run as it looks like there is enough memory to run it (3019-25=2994), but
maybe it is still too tight...
You still can try two things:
1. --mode=3 (it will be a bit slow, but just to see if it works)
2. exclude the first GPU (that has less free memory) with -cde 0
Then we can try to workout a solution for you :-)
Cheers
It should run as it looks like there is enough memory to run it (3019-25=2994), but
maybe it is still too tight...
You still can try two things:
1. --mode=3 (it will be a bit slow, but just to see if it works)
2. exclude the first GPU (that has less free memory) with -cde 0
Then we can try to workout a solution for you :-)
Cheers
Tested beam in miniZ_v1.3n3_win-x64 on a gigabyte 1060 3g G1 gaming
Mode 3 is working on windows 7/windows 8.1 on 10603gb cards. using 2831 MB memory.
+500 mem
+100 core
70% tdp
~12.7 sol.
Windows 10 is not working...
Windows will reserve some of the gpu memory so you will never be able to utilize all of it.
thank you for this clarification.
Indeed there is not enough memory on windows 10 to run our solver.
Cheers
May 01, 2019, 06:00:32 PM
Hey there great Miner , thanks for adding Beam . My testing so far (feedback ) workers going offline seems to be different , when I ran 1.3n (cpu usage 80%), my miner ran for 2 days 23 hours then I have the same issue , miner somehow get stuck and goes offline.
Now I'm on 1.3n2 been running for 2 days haven't see any issue (cpu usage 50%) but I see you have a new release v1.3n3 so I will give it a try
My system below:
i5 6400
16gb ram
Asus mining pro
4 gtx1080
2 rtx2070
3 rx580 running other miner.
Windows 10 Pro
Hi CuChO,Now I'm on 1.3n2 been running for 2 days haven't see any issue (cpu usage 50%) but I see you have a new release v1.3n3 so I will give it a try
My system below:
i5 6400
16gb ram
Asus mining pro
4 gtx1080
2 rtx2070
3 rx580 running other miner.
Windows 10 Pro
Thank you for your feedback.
Let us know if it keeps running nicely
Cheers
May 01, 2019, 05:57:40 PM
A bunch of this in the newest version (v1.3n3)
algo 150,5
1070ti
Win7
algo 150,5
1060 3gb (mode=3)
Win7
Hi ltxminer, stzcze,algo 150,5
1070ti
Win7
Code:
[WARNING] GPU[0]: CUDA error 'an illegal memory access was encountered' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
[WARNING] GPU[1]: CUDA error 'an illegal memory access was encountered' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
[WARNING] GPU[1]: CUDA error 'an illegal memory access was encountered' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
algo 150,5
1060 3gb (mode=3)
Win7
Code:
[WARNING] GPU[0]: CUDA error 'unknown error' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
[WARNING] GPU[1]: CUDA error 'unknown error' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
[WARNING] GPU[1]: CUDA error 'unknown error' in func 'eq_00.8[dx][[2;ba8<51B, SM, PS2>::solve' line 971
thank you for the log.
This CUDA warning/error might be related to your OC settings.
The miner now outputs these errors. We suggest you to modify a bit the OCs and check if it helps.
But we would like to know whether the miner exits. Could you let us know if it exits or just keeps going?
Cheers
I am using exact same OC settings as when i use n+ and n++
No crash in previous versions. A lot of crashing in n3
we did not change anything from n++ to v3n3 that could cause that. This CUDA error really looks like it is related to the OC settings.
Maybe you can try to adjust a little bit your OCs. There is always the chance the it would work with those settings on our next build.
Let us know if this helps.
Cheers
Jump to: