Author

Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 462. (Read 5806004 times)

-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/

Even better would be a custom debug build running in gdb but I doubt any of you are up for that  Undecided I'm trying that on my laptop which is the only thing that has windows. Hopefully I don't fry it in the process, but at 10MH/s I also doubt it will recreate the problem.

Sigh. I wish it were only linux...

How do you do that? I tried something a while back but didn't get it working.

What I want to do is run under gdb, save the environment when it crashes, then continue running so that it's not sitting all day locked up.
When you build it, build it without optimisations in the CFLAGS and with the -g option, i.e. CFLAGS="-g -Wall -W" only. Then
gdb cgminer
run [usual cgminer parameters] -T
Running it with -T is a good idea cause gdb spews out other information and corrupts the display when you're using the curses display.

Here's a debug build in case someone is willing to try it:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer.exe
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
"Scrypt will now not fail when setting high thread concurrency values that still return some ram even if opencl returns an error on that ram allocation."

what exactly is considered "high"? I still cant get 2.8.4 to run on a 7950 with anything over 8192 (look-up gap2) unless i raise the look-up gap to 3 and go to 12224 (which i could do pre-2.8.4). Which allows intensity of 20 without HW errors. 3 vs 2 makes you lose some performance at the same concurrencies, but high intensities MORE than makes up for it. ( 3 @ 12224 @ 19 = ~400kh/s vs 2 @ 8192 @ 13 ~330kh/s)

Also... would you know why starting Cgminer @ 12 and raising to 13 gives HW errors, and using the -I 13 flag in my shortcut doesnt?

Thanks for your time.
I didn't say it would magically work, just that I relaxed one of the checks. And no I can't answer the second part about HW errors either. The scrypt opencl code remains a mystery to me. EDIT: Actually with the HW error scenario, it might be that because you're setting the kernel/memory size to intensity 13 on the first pass, that it allocates enough pinned system ram for that amount and continues working, whereas it doesn't like being increased after the fact. Magical scrypt pixie dust...
legendary
Activity: 1795
Merit: 1208
This is not OK.

Even better would be a custom debug build running in gdb but I doubt any of you are up for that  Undecided I'm trying that on my laptop which is the only thing that has windows. Hopefully I don't fry it in the process, but at 10MH/s I also doubt it will recreate the problem.

Sigh. I wish it were only linux...

How do you do that? I tried something a while back but didn't get it working.

What I want to do is run under gdb, save the environment when it crashes, then continue running so that it's not sitting all day locked up.
member
Activity: 100
Merit: 10
Support the bitcoin economy, use BTC merchants
Can anyone offer a suggestion for why a BFL single in the same physical environment (cooling, etc) is only getting ~430MH on cgminer but when plugged into a windows box with bitminter it gets >800?

It doesn't appear to be throttling and the operating temperature is the same on both platforms.

 BFL 0:  48.3C         | 429.2/425.7Mh/s | A:11393 R:54 HW:0 U: 11.69/m
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
it seems that 2.8.4 uses gpu more aggressive...
Some of my radeon 7970 (1170/1050/65C) work well with 2.7.7 but with 2.8.4 are sick after 2-3 min btc mining.

dunno about getting sick, but my 6950 now able to run with I=12, whereas in 2.7.x and all previous versions anything above 9 was causing cgminer to use 100% of CPU. So, now I'm able to squeeze 400Mhs from 6950 with AMD APP 2.4 and catalyst 12.8 drivers, running at 965Mhz  Grin and almost 440Mhs from 6970.

Holy shit thanks for telling me this! I hated that 100% CPU problem, and now in 2.8 its gone! I'm pulling 220Mh/s out of a 5770 now.
newbie
Activity: 57
Merit: 0
"Scrypt will now not fail when setting high thread concurrency values that still return some ram even if opencl returns an error on that ram allocation."

what exactly is considered "high"? I still cant get 2.8.4 to run on a 7950 with anything over 8192 (look-up gap2) unless i raise the look-up gap to 3 and go to 12224 (which i could do pre-2.8.4). Which allows intensity of 20 without HW errors. 3 vs 2 makes you lose some performance at the same concurrencies, but high intensities MORE than makes up for it. ( 3 @ 12224 @ 19 = ~400kh/s vs 2 @ 8192 @ 13 ~330kh/s)

Also... would you know why starting Cgminer @ 12 and raising to 13 gives HW errors, and using the -I 13 flag in my shortcut doesnt?

Thanks for your time.
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
Cgminer 2.8.4 crashes again on windows 7.

Same here.

2.8.3 and 2.8.4 crash after approx 2 days.

Have only tried Stratum (on BTCGuild) so far.

Host: OS: Win7x64, GPU: 1 x 6970.

@ckolivas: what information can I provide to help you fix this bug?
This is painful since the mode of failure on windows is really a mystery. The best thing you can do for now is run in debug mode to give me even more indication of where the problem lies. Run it with "--verbose -D -T -P" and see what the last messages are before it crashes.

Even better would be a custom debug build running in gdb but I doubt any of you are up for that  Undecided I'm trying that on my laptop which is the only thing that has windows. Hopefully I don't fry it in the process, but at 10MH/s I also doubt it will recreate the problem.

Sigh. I wish it were only linux...
hero member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 500
Cgminer 2.8.4 crashes again on windows 7.

Same here.

2.8.3 and 2.8.4 crash after approx 2 days.

Have only tried Stratum (on BTCGuild) so far.

Host: OS: Win7x64, GPU: 1 x 6970.

@ckolivas: what information can I provide to help you fix this bug?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
Cgminer 2.8.4 crashes again on windows 7.
The funny thing is, that i am running some machines with 2.8.3 and some with 2.8.4.
All Machines are using Stratum.
the 2.8.4 machine crashes 80 Minutes later than the 2.8.3 Machines.

I have experienced similar, that's why my rigs have stratum proxy 1.1.1 running with 2.7.6, flawless for days without interruption, on a shaky DSL that disconnects ten times a day.
Also, higher hashrates than on 2.8.x.
I have that proxy as pool one, the pool the proxy points to as pool two and two other non-stratum pools as pool 3 and 4.
To my surprise, 98% of the work go to the proxy or the direct pool, 1% each to my reserve pools.
I have seen that after a DSL reconnect the proxy sometimes is a little picky, then after a few minutes all work resumes to it.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
I've ran into "CGminer has suddenly stopped" crash error message on my rigs the past few days.  I've had to restart CGminer over a dozen times so far.  Please help.  Thanks.  Cgminer is currently running on a W7 64 bit OS system with 4x7970 and a BFL Single.

Post cgminer version, the error message (WER report) along with your configuration.  I don't think anyone will be able to help you when you only say "cgminer has suddenly stopped".
newbie
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
Cgminer 2.8.4 crashes again on windows 7.
The funny thing is, that i am running some machines with 2.8.3 and some with 2.8.4.
All Machines are using Stratum.
the 2.8.4 machine crashes 80 Minutes later than the 2.8.3 Machines.
member
Activity: 136
Merit: 10
tester
Bug I guess. It's extraordinarily hard balancing things out when there are vastly different ways of getting the same amount of work and handing out depending on pool configuration.
If you strictly want a fixed proportion to each pool only the rotate strategy can guarantee that.
yes i use the rotate strategy.
just report what I saw for the record.  Cool
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
2.8.4 crashed under Windows 7 32Bit, would I have more luck running CGMiner from XP Mode within Windows 7 ?
I assume this is mining with stratum? Darn... the cause of this crash remains a mystery then. Perhaps someone with some windows debugging skills that can reproduce it (cause I can't reproduce it) can build a debug version and see.

As for XP mode helping? I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. Probably disabling stratum is the only way to guarantee it not crashing since it's a stratum error (give it regular server details and --fix-protocol)

It was stratum connection to BTC Guild. Would it help posting the crash error log ? or are they of limited use ?
Limited yes, useless no.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
2.8.4 crashed under Windows 7 32Bit, would I have more luck running CGMiner from XP Mode within Windows 7 ?
I assume this is mining with stratum? Darn... the cause of this crash remains a mystery then. Perhaps someone with some windows debugging skills that can reproduce it (cause I can't reproduce it) can build a debug version and see.

As for XP mode helping? I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. Probably disabling stratum is the only way to guarantee it not crashing since it's a stratum error (give it regular server details and --fix-protocol)

It was stratum connection to BTC Guild. Would it help posting the crash error log ? or are they of limited use ?
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
2.8.4 crashed under Windows 7 32Bit, would I have more luck running CGMiner from XP Mode within Windows 7 ?
I assume this is mining with stratum? Darn... the cause of this crash remains a mystery then. Perhaps someone with some windows debugging skills that can reproduce it (cause I can't reproduce it) can build a debug version and see.

As for XP mode helping? I doubt it, but it's worth a shot. Probably disabling stratum is the only way to guarantee it not crashing since it's a stratum error (give it regular server details and --fix-protocol)
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
2.8.4 crashed under Windows 7 32Bit, would I have more luck running CGMiner from XP Mode within Windows 7 ?
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
Con, I'll give the new build a whirl tomorrow since I was one of the ones that was having issues with dynamic difficulty.  2.7.6 is what I've been running, and has been rock solid for me, although it seems a few others still had problems.  The only thing I did notice is that if I loose my network, the queued value (Q:) shoots through the roof and then drives the efficiency (E:) down through the floor.  But it doesn't actually effect anything since those are just displayed values, and I know the queued work isn't actually increasing like a rocket ship because it can't get the work if the network is down.   Roll Eyes

Okay, not seeing any issues with dynamic difficulty with 2.8.4, so hopefully that issue is dead and truly buried.  I'm still seeing the weird behavior with queued work after a network loss, though this is clearly a  very minor issue as it does not truly affect anything except displayed stats.
Great thanks Smiley

I wouldn't worry about the Q value... hopefully the old getwork queue thing will be a thing of the past as pools move to better protocols like stratum.
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
something strange whit MULTIPOOL and LOAD BALANCE and BALANCE.

a try to mining on 3 pools whit LOAD BALANCE or BALANCE strategy and the result is the same
first : http://pool.50btc.com
second : http://pool2.50btc.com
third : http://pool.coinlab.com

result for LOAD BALANCE after several hours
first pool : 227 shares
second pool : 168 shares
third pool : 1412 shares

result for BALANCE after several hours
first pool : 213 shares
second pool : 191 shares
third pool : 1624 shares

it is a bug something ?
or i don't get right the value of BALANCE and LOAD BALANCE strategy.
why is there such a big difference between shares count ?
Bug I guess. It's extraordinarily hard balancing things out when there are vastly different ways of getting the same amount of work and handing out depending on pool configuration.
If you strictly want a fixed proportion to each pool only the rotate strategy can guarantee that.
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
C. Kolivas

I am having trouble compiling cgminer 2.8.4 on MinGW 32 (Windows 7 x64). The last version I compiled was 2.7.5 and that version had no problems.

Compiling from "cgminer-2.8.4.tar.bz2" on your site.

Configure complains about not having any GPU/CL support.

If I remark out the following lines in configure.ac

#if test "x$ATISTREAMSDKROOT" != x; then
#   OPENCL_FLAGS="-I$ATISTREAMSDKROOT/include $OPENCL_FLAGS"
#   OPENCL_LIBS="-L$ATISTREAMSDKROOT/lib/$ARCH_DIR $OPENCL_LIBS"
#fi

#if test "x$AMDAPPSDKROOT" != x; then
#   OPENCL_FLAGS="-I$AMDAPPSDKROOT/include $OPENCL_FLAGS"
#   OPENCL_LIBS="-L$AMDAPPSDKROOT/lib/$ARCH_DIR $OPENCL_LIBS"
#fi

and then type:
autoreconf -fvi
  and then
CFLAGS="-O2 -msse2" ./configure
  and then
make

And now, cgminer 2.8.4 compiles just fine with AMD GPU support.

$ATISTREAMSDKROOT = Empty; Does not exist on MinGW 32
$AMDAPPSDKROOT = C:\Program Files (x86)\AMD APP\ and is a valid directory.
$ARCH_DIR = Empty; Does not exist on MinGW 32

There is a $PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE environment variable and it is set to "x86" but using this variable could be problematic as the two AMD directories are "x86" and "x86_64" and the possible settings for the variable are "x86", "AMD64", and "IA64".

I'm sure windows users that compile on MinGW will have problems with this and it should probably be fixed.

 Smiley
Yes you're not the only one to report this. Curious. I guess I can just ignore those defines on anything but linux.
member
Activity: 136
Merit: 10
tester
something strange whit MULTIPOOL and LOAD BALANCE and BALANCE.

a try to mining on 3 pools whit LOAD BALANCE or BALANCE strategy and the result is the same
first : http://pool.50btc.com
second : http://pool2.50btc.com
third : http://pool.coinlab.com

result for LOAD BALANCE after several hours
first pool : 227 shares
second pool : 168 shares
third pool : 1412 shares

result for BALANCE after several hours
first pool : 213 shares
second pool : 191 shares
third pool : 1624 shares

it is a bug something ?
or i don't get right the value of BALANCE and LOAD BALANCE strategy.
why is there such a big difference between shares count ?
Jump to: