OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 494.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: hahahafr on September 19, 2012, 07:55:22 AM

It was just some little details, not meaningful. But still, why can't they work together to improve CGMiner? Losing a lot of man-hours with these 2 forks.

I guess he got extra upset about my post regarding his getblocktemplate so went on a wiki rampage

He seemed rather irate when he contacted me about it in IRC ... and being childish changing wiki web pages like that is not only very in character for him, it's not the first time.

He gets upset about posting his IRC comments (due to the fact he doesn't want people to know what he says) so I won't post the PM IRC conversation - it wasn't in #cgminer

Bottom line is, he is extremely difficult to deal with as a programmer and he thinks he is ALWAYS right.

Almost every code change I had an argument about with him, he has since implemented or has said he will implement ... at a much later date ... after the reason I gave originally showed up (been good examples of that)

If you read his thread on getblocktemplate you should see, showing clearly through that, his controlling and thinking he always right attitude:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralized-mining-protocol-standard-getblocktemplate-asic-ready-108854

His problem was, after all the shit I had to go through with him, he then directed it at ckolivas.
Bad move - end of story.
ckolivas own his own git, no one else Tongue

Edit: a few days later ... he also got his pissy little lapdog gmaxwell to delete my post ...

hahahafr

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 501

It was just some little details, not meaningful. But still, why can't they work together to improve CGMiner? Losing a lot of man-hours with these 2 forks.

The00Dustin

hero member

Activity: 807

Merit: 500

Quote from: crazyates on September 19, 2012, 07:39:37 AM

Quote from: hahahafr on September 19, 2012, 07:28:34 AM

Quick question: Luke-Jr just undone changes I made in the P2Pool wiki page, saying:

Quote

cgminer is pretty much deprecated at this point

Why would he say that?

Cuz he's a troll? He's been known to bash CGMiner to advocate more people to use his BFGMiner.

Sadly, people like Luke actually think they're right most of the time (and I'm not by any means taking sides in Luke vs Con+Kano regarding who is right on anything). In this case, I would guess he thinks claiming cgminer is deprecated is justified because con has taken a week plus off and for whatever reason he thinks he would never need to do that (assuming I am correct, I will disagree with Luke on this point). Nonetheless, what may be more important is what was originally posted and who administers the wiki in question (if wikis can be administered to the extent that forums can, I'm actually not familiar with the internal workings of wikis). As I am not in the know on any of that, I can't provide any helpful suggestions for dealing with that.

crazyates

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hahahafr on September 19, 2012, 07:28:34 AM

Quick question: Luke-Jr just undone changes I made in the P2Pool wiki page, saying:

Quote

cgminer is pretty much deprecated at this point

Why would he say that?

Cuz he's a troll? He's been known to bash CGMiner to advocate more people to use his BFGMiner.

hahahafr

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 501

Quick question: Luke-Jr just undone changes I made in the P2Pool wiki page, saying:

Quote

cgminer is pretty much deprecated at this point

Why would he say that?

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: PandaMiner on September 19, 2012, 01:38:53 AM

Update: The first "screen" still does not change, but I know it is mining correctly. I temporarily used a pool and the pool was receiving my shares. It's just disconcerting that I get no "header" in the window, and which does not allow me to use the menu system.

Other possibilities I can think of are:
1) Some problem with your curses library
2) Some default cgminer.conf file setting some unexpected setting
3) Different version of windows
Otherwise - no idea.

PandaMiner

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Update: The first "screen" still does not change, but I know it is mining correctly. I temporarily used a pool and the pool was receiving my shares. It's just disconcerting that I get no "header" in the window, and which does not allow me to use the menu system.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: PandaMiner on September 18, 2012, 10:29:20 PM

Quote from: kano on September 18, 2012, 09:57:03 PM

That says it is mining LTC
Since you are mining to litecoind you will not see anything until you find a block.
The 'share' difficulty of litecoind and bitcoind is of course block difficulty
(Currently: LTC: ~8.54)
litecoind also does not supply LP so that message makes sense also.
So ... basically it's working normally

But shouldn't I be able to see the header stuff like on my other computer?

Example, on PC 1:

Code:

 cgminer version 2.6.4 - Started [2012-09-17 13:09:24]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s): 152.0 (avg):205.6kh/s | Q:7281  A:1  R:7  HW:0  E:0%  V:0.0/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 2  SS: 0  DW: 3710  NB: 721   LW: 0  GF: 4  RF:0
 Connected to http://localhost:9332 without LP as user panda
 Block: 7a83cee745eed77fba20be33ff5afa13... Started: [22:26:41]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  80.0C 1785RPM | 151.3/205.5kh/s | A:1 R:7 HW:0 V:0.00/m I:12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I don't see that on PC 2, just the first "screen."

Then run (as the README FAQ says) in debug and see what is happening.
-D -T --verbose
also add
2> debug.log
on the end if you want to actually look at the log

I don't mine litecoin on GPU coz I've never got that to work on my old 11.04 xubuntu - ckolivas scrypt GPU requires a recent ATI driver and SDK, but 11.04 only has 11.6 driver + 2.4 SDK.
I do know the current scrypt works on CPU however, coz I tested that to see that the difficulty code in my git (2.7.5n) was working with both scrypt and sha256 and that was OK

From your previous post, I just presumed you had a header above that - and in that case that is all you'd normally see until you find a block.

iopq

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: hahahafr on September 18, 2012, 09:52:02 AM

Quote from: iopq on September 18, 2012, 12:38:32 AM

Quote from: os2sam on September 17, 2012, 07:45:06 PM

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 05:33:16 PM

I was trying 11.12 and 2.1 (I don't know why, I thought I read something about it).

That's probably the best performance for 5xxx series cards.
Sam

I'm running 11.6 and 2.1, underclocking VRAM to 275 and using worksize 256 on my 5850

this seems to be ideal and doesn't have the 100% cpu bug

What 100% cpu bug are you talking about? On the 11.12 + 2.1?

other combinations of drivers gave me 100% of one core used constantly

PandaMiner

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: kano on September 18, 2012, 09:57:03 PM

That says it is mining LTC
Since you are mining to litecoind you will not see anything until you find a block.
The 'share' difficulty of litecoind and bitcoind is of course block difficulty
(Currently: LTC: ~8.54)
litecoind also does not supply LP so that message makes sense also.
So ... basically it's working normally

But shouldn't I be able to see the header stuff like on my other computer?

Example, on PC 1:

Code:

 cgminer version 2.6.4 - Started [2012-09-17 13:09:24]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s): 152.0 (avg):205.6kh/s | Q:7281  A:1  R:7  HW:0  E:0%  V:0.0/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 2  SS: 0  DW: 3710  NB: 721   LW: 0  GF: 4  RF:0
 Connected to http://localhost:9332 without LP as user panda
 Block: 7a83cee745eed77fba20be33ff5afa13... Started: [22:26:41]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  80.0C 1785RPM | 151.3/205.5kh/s | A:1 R:7 HW:0 V:0.00/m I:12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I don't see that on PC 2, just the first "screen."

Cranky4u

hero member

Activity: 810

Merit: 1000

randomish question...with BTC difficulty going through the roof, can cgminer mine LTC using -scrypt on CM1 FPGAs?

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: PandaMiner on September 18, 2012, 09:18:14 PM

...
Batch file:

Code:

cgminer --scrypt -o 192.168.1.27:9332 -u panda -p miner --shaders 800 --intensity 12 --worksize 256 -g 1

Code:

[2012-09-18 21:09:31] Started cgminer 2.7.5

[2012-09-18 21:09:31] Started cgminer 2.7.5
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] Probing for an alive pool
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] No suitable long-poll found for pool http://192.168.1.27:9332
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] Pool 0 http://192.168.1.27:9332 alive

...

That says it is mining LTC
Since you are mining to litecoind you will not see anything until you find a block.
The 'share' difficulty of litecoind and bitcoind is of course block difficulty
(Currently: LTC: ~8.54)
litecoind also does not supply LP so that message makes sense also.
So ... basically it's working normally

PandaMiner

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Hello. I tried searching this thread but I don't know how to find what I am seeking. The README doesn't say either. And at the time of this post, there are 357 pages, too long to browse. So here is my question.

Is cgMiner able to solo mine from one computer to another computer in the same home network?

I can solo GPU mine litecoins on PC 1. (which is running litecoin-qt)
I can't solo GPU mine anything on PC 2 w/o freezing, bsod, etc. The problem is running litecoin in the background.
I am trying to use PC 2 to solo mine, connecting to PC 1.

PC 1's ip address is 192.168.1.27.
PC 1 has 1 GPU, a 6870, and is used during the day by someone, so aggression is 12. At night, I set it to 16.
PC 1's litecoin.conf (in the roaming folder) has two RPCIPALLOW= lines, one for 127.0.0.1, and one for 192.168.1.x.

Just in case, on my Netgear router, I have forwarded port 9332 to PC 1's IP address. I don't think it is needed for internal routes, but I wanted to be sure.

PC 2 has two physical graphic cards, and I use it for personal things, and I run 3 monitors. Device 0 is a Radeon 6790 I believe, and device 1 is ATi46xx.

On PC 2, I run cgminer with -o 192.168.1.27:9332, but after finding an "alive" pool, it doesn't do anything. It doesn't necessarily hang, as I can press Ctrl+C and it quits, or clicking the close X button. It doesn't affect the computer in any other way.

Batch file:

Code:

cgminer --scrypt -o 192.168.1.27:9332 -u panda -p miner --shaders 800 --intensity 12 --worksize 256 -g 1

Code:

[2012-09-18 21:09:31] Started cgminer 2.7.5

[2012-09-18 21:09:31] Started cgminer 2.7.5
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] Probing for an alive pool
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] No suitable long-poll found for pool http://192.168.1.27:9332
[2012-09-18 21:09:32] Pool 0 http://192.168.1.27:9332 alive

If anyone needs to know, with both PC's, I can safely run GUIMiner for bitcoins with a pool.

Running the switch "-n" on PC 2 results with this:

Code:

[...date...] CL Platform 0 vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
[...date...] CL Platform 0  name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
[...date...] CL Platform 0 version: OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP (831.4)

[...date...] Platform 0 devices: 2
[...date...]  0          Barts
[...date...]  1          ATI RV730
[...date...] GPU 0 AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[...date...] GPU 1 ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series hardware monitoring enabled
[...date...] Failed to ADL_Overdrive5_FanSpeedInfo_Get
[...date...] 2 GPU devices max detected

If anyone can help me out, I can donate my first LTC block found (already found one, and it has matured). Thanks.

Dave

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: eleuthria on September 11, 2012, 08:45:16 PM

Quote from: kano on September 11, 2012, 08:41:11 PM

Ah OK, so you are dramatically increasing the amount of data sent - whenever there is a need to send it - the diagonal line of the merkle tree?

As I mentioned - wouldn't the amount of getworks still not be insignificant?
You want miners to change their work whenever a txn change is appropriate (new transactions or high fee transactions)
Otherwise the result of this will be to slow down transaction confirm times - transactions will increase their chance of missing going into the current block?

So it's either increase transaction times, or dramatically increase the amount of data sent in fewer gerworks?

By default, my pool sends new work once every 60 seconds. That is not significantly different than how often many miners get new work (especially when nTime rolling is involved).

They payload of new work is ~1 KB. It's sent over an always-open asynchronous TCP connection. No HTTP overhead, no opening new connections either. This is roughly equivalent to a single getwork today. That 1 KB is enough to include ~1,000 transactions (which only requires 10 merklebranches to be sent), and provides enough work 18 Exahash/s. Add an extra 65 bytes to the work push to double that to 1,025-2,047 transactions. Another 65 for 2,048-4,096. As you can see, this means that even at astronomical network size where a block would contain hundreds of thousands of transactions, the payload for the mining protocol will never exceed 2 KB.

Work submissions take only a few bytes. The new protocol drastically reduces bandwith to the point that a 56k modem provides enough bandwidth to run a mining farm more than 1 billion times the size of the current network.

Additionally, the 18 Exahash uses a local ExtraNonce adjustment size of 4 bytes. That can be increased to 8 bytes quite easily (the protocol defines the ExtraNonce size as variable, and provided by the pool server). If the ExtraNonce size was increased to 8 bytes, you can run 4.2 billion times more work per push, and the only increase in bandwidth is it will require 8 more bytes to submit a share to the server.

OK had a think about this over the last week (and still no ckolivas back)

My main disagreement with it (the miner doing the transaction work) is of course wrong as we've already worked out

That work is only being done by Apollyon's getblocktemplate which most of my argument about pool changes is directed at.
Yeah gotta love the way he tries to steal the show and tries to make it seem like he's the boss - very funny

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralized-mining-protocol-standard-getblocktemplate-asic-ready-108854

Anyway, slush and eleuthria, since this version of the change is indeed for your pools and you two profit from your pools - feel free to contact me via PM or IRC to discuss getting this implemented in cgminer if you want it in the near future ... and be willing to bribe me appropriately if you want it done

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Meanwhile, anyone bored and looking for some cgminer excitement

My current git is 2.7.5n (at the moment - but it keeps going up)
It's got 37 commits so far (over the last 3 weeks) awaiting to go into ckolivas git.

The main points of interest are:

Hardware Error detection working and handled the same by all devices except ztex (ztex original code looks like it still works so I'll avoid touching it for now)
Full reporting of variable difficulty shares in the exit summary and the API (no screen change yet)
Debug setting control via the API
API report and change queue,scantime,expiry
A new WorkTime debug option that just displays a LOT of details with every Accepted and Rejected share
BFL throttle counter visible in the API 'notify' command
API FPGA Identify command (only for BFL Single so far) to make the led flash, for those having difficulty identifying which of their 100 BFL Singles is which

Individual proxy per pool if required
--default-config to define the default configuration file
FPGA - allow long or short device names in detect code (e.g. ICA:/dev/ttyUSB0 or Icarus:/dev/ttyUSB0 - yay)

Source in my git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
Pull request to ckolivas: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/310

Feedback most welcome

hahahafr

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 501

Quote from: iopq on September 18, 2012, 12:38:32 AM

Quote from: os2sam on September 17, 2012, 07:45:06 PM

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 05:33:16 PM

I was trying 11.12 and 2.1 (I don't know why, I thought I read something about it).

That's probably the best performance for 5xxx series cards.
Sam

I'm running 11.6 and 2.1, underclocking VRAM to 275 and using worksize 256 on my 5850

this seems to be ideal and doesn't have the 100% cpu bug

What 100% cpu bug are you talking about? On the 11.12 + 2.1?

iopq

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: os2sam on September 17, 2012, 07:45:06 PM

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 05:33:16 PM

I was trying 11.12 and 2.1 (I don't know why, I thought I read something about it).

That's probably the best performance for 5xxx series cards.
Sam

I'm running 11.6 and 2.1, underclocking VRAM to 275 and using worksize 256 on my 5850

this seems to be ideal and doesn't have the 100% cpu bug

os2sam

legendary

Activity: 3583

Merit: 1094

Think for yourself

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 05:33:16 PM

I was trying 11.12 and 2.1 (I don't know why, I thought I read something about it).

That's probably the best performance for 5xxx series cards.
Sam

ditchmagnet

newbie

Activity: 61

Merit: 0

Quote from: kano on September 17, 2012, 04:51:05 PM

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 12:35:47 PM

I changed my driver and sdk and am now getting "All devices disabled"

what can I do to fix this? Trying sdk 2.1 came from 12.8 cat

EDIT:

I got it working again. I installed 2.7 SDK. Does 2.1 not work? I am using a 6950 and just trying out different settings.

Removed everything with ATIman and just re-installed fresh 12.8 package then just used "-I 14 -k diablo -v 2 -w 128" and after about 10 minutes, the average seems better than I have ever done. Why is it that cgminer speeds seem to fluctuate so much? With phoenix/phatk it always seems so steady? Just wondering.

No idea, I don't use their software.
There are a number of difficulties comparing software.
The main one being that the U: value is what actually matters when comparing, but U: is random and takes a long time to converge towards it's expected value.
U: is also affected (minorly) by the bitcoin network performance before large difficulty changes.

Meanwhile, running newer drivers and SDK's will not improve performance on the 6xxx hardware.
In the past this has usually lead to more crashes.
Again, as I said before, with a 6xxx card you will get best performance with the old 11.6 driver with the old 2.4 SDK

Oddly, I recently found that clocking my 2x6950 at 895 instead of 900 improved performance by 2MH/s but also uses a few watts each extra Sad

Ok, I will try to track down 11.6 and 2.4. I was trying 11.12 and 2.1 (I don't know why, I thought I read something about it). At 880 core I was averaging around 400mhash/s after about 10 minutes. What are you getting at 895 core? I'm trying to gauge what I should be aiming for.

EDIT:

I've got 11.6 downloaded, but cant find a working 2.4 link. Someone got a link?

EDIT:

I see it comes in the 11.6 package, so nevermind. Roll Eyes

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: ditchmagnet on September 17, 2012, 12:35:47 PM

I changed my driver and sdk and am now getting "All devices disabled"

what can I do to fix this? Trying sdk 2.1 came from 12.8 cat

EDIT:

I got it working again. I installed 2.7 SDK. Does 2.1 not work? I am using a 6950 and just trying out different settings.

Removed everything with ATIman and just re-installed fresh 12.8 package then just used "-I 14 -k diablo -v 2 -w 128" and after about 10 minutes, the average seems better than I have ever done. Why is it that cgminer speeds seem to fluctuate so much? With phoenix/phatk it always seems so steady? Just wondering.

No idea, I don't use their software.
There are a number of difficulties comparing software.
The main one being that the U: value is what actually matters when comparing, but U: is random and takes a long time to converge towards it's expected value.
U: is also affected (minorly) by the bitcoin network performance before large difficulty changes.

Meanwhile, running newer drivers and SDK's will not improve performance on the 6xxx hardware.
In the past this has usually lead to more crashes.
Again, as I said before, with a 6xxx card you will get best performance with the old 11.6 driver with the old 2.4 SDK

Oddly, I recently found that clocking my 2x6950 at 895 instead of 900 improved performance by 2MH/s but also uses a few watts each extra Sad

Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 494. (Read 5805728 times)