OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 532.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: dave3 on August 01, 2012, 02:47:50 AM

I was just about to post how I've been running 2.6.1 with my BFL singles for 2 days straight without problem, and then I caught these errors. I restarted cgminer and it's working again for now.

This is almost certainly caused by Kano's reduction of the timeout from 30 seconds to 0.1 second... I skimmed over this one and assumed it was 1 second (which is at least reasonable). Bet this is what was causing the other problems people reported too... thanks for the tip

I'll fix it for the next BFGMiner.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

One direct cause of the above error is something else sending data on the serial line to the BFL (by accident?)
I've done exactly that and had exactly that error (in my case it never recovered I had to restart cgminer)
I have 2 cgminers running on my desktop, one that mines the BFL and the other mines my 2xIcarus
My Icarus miner does an ident test on all 3 serial port (by my choice) and once (when BFL was running) I got that problem.

The other possibility is that it did in fact timeout (took longer than 0.1s to reply) and thus the actual BFL/serial in now messed up (out of sync) with messages and replies

I'd guess the first one though.

dave3

sr. member

Activity: 344

Merit: 250

I was just about to post how I've been running 2.6.1 with my BFL singles for 2 days straight without problem, and then I caught these errors. I restarted cgminer and it's working again for now.

Code:

 cgminer version 2.6.1 - Started: [2012-07-30 13:39:23]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):676.7 (avg):1608.9 Mh/s | Q:4593  A:66056  R:459  HW:0  E:1438%  U:22.4/m
 TQ: 3  ST: 3  SS: 9  DW: 365  NB: 285  LW: 65155  GF: 291  RF: 14
 Connected to http://us2.eclipsemc.com:8337 with LP as user ---
 Block: 000002f8bafdadac36c5a7432645b005...  Started: [14:42:44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 BFL 0:  56.7C         |   9.5/804.4Mh/s | A:32864 R:233 HW:0 U:11.16/m
 BFL 1:  58.2C         | 695.7/804.5Mh/s | A:33192 R:226 HW:0 U:11.28/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [2012-08-01 14:41:46] Accepted e739af43.9733a4ee BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:46] Accepted 1408b949.40bb64ba BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:46] Accepted ba0677af.8ba676b3 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:46] Accepted 2af13e5f.ada5ec4d BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:51] Accepted 83c05b44.9db665b3 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:51] Accepted c476a165.697a09cd BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:41:56] Accepted f7ad3a83.c549c20f BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:02] Accepted ff6bca72.427f2e0f BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:02] Accepted adf8b4e8.8e00c928 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:07] Accepted a0cad834.a94bcf66 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:12] Accepted f2259814.f6f93b99 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:12] Accepted 82ada705.4552a4bd BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:18] Accepted 749a8969.4d83e3b2 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:18] Accepted 3f0c4df2.106594de BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:20] BFL0: Error: Get temp returned empty string/timed out
 [2012-08-01 14:42:23] BFL0: Error: Get result reports: Temperature (celcius): 57.9
 [2012-08-01 14:42:23] BFL0: Error: Send block data reports: ERR:UNKNOWN!!!
 [2012-08-01 14:42:23] Accepted 662b77a6.f98154b0 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:23] Accepted c2280535.ade77eb7 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:28] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: Temperature (celcius): 57.8
 [2012-08-01 14:42:33] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: ERR:INVALID DATA, i_read = 3
 [2012-08-01 14:42:39] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: ERR:UNKNOWN!!!
 [2012-08-01 14:42:44] LONGPOLL from pool 0 detected new block
 [2012-08-01 14:42:44] Pool 0 not providing work fast enough
 [2012-08-01 14:42:44] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: Temperature (celcius): 54.6
 [2012-08-01 14:42:49] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: ERR:INVALID DATA, i_read = 3
 [2012-08-01 14:42:49] Accepted 2a02dca0.a9f0ed3e BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-08-01 14:42:54] BFL0: Error: Send work reports: ERR:INVALID DATA, i_read = 3
 [2012-08-01 14:42:54] Accepted f396c897.814b1228 BFL 1 pool 0

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: -ck on July 31, 2012, 06:32:54 AM

(...)
Summary:
Jesusminer
(...)

Priceless! Cheesy

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 11:37:00 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 31, 2012, 11:31:58 AM

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 06:25:14 AM

Here are the results I've got for both miners running around 45k shares across 3 longpolls both:

Unfortunately, I've found even using the same device for even more shares does not produce comparable U results, even with the same exact software. Feel free to confirm this yourself by doing the same test over.

Well, I didn't comment the results, since I don't really know that much about the output data it gives. All I can say, is that U fluctuated in both miners from 716 to 722, but in general cgminer shows higher U, and bfgminer shows higher average Ghs speed.

Human pattern analysis is always suspect Wink

Also, you're comparing cg2.6.1 with bfg2.5.1. At the very least, it'd be better to compare equivalent versions. But first, it'd be wise to try to find some way to reproduce consistent results with the same software - until then, there's really no good way to compare. Sad

BlackPrapor

hero member

Activity: 628

Merit: 504

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 31, 2012, 11:31:58 AM

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 06:25:14 AM

Here are the results I've got for both miners running around 45k shares across 3 longpolls both:

Unfortunately, I've found even using the same device for even more shares does not produce comparable U results, even with the same exact software. Feel free to confirm this yourself by doing the same test over.

Well, I didn't comment the results, since I don't really know that much about the output data it gives. All I can say, is that U fluctuated in both miners from 716 to 722, but in general cgminer shows higher U, and bfgminer shows higher average Ghs speed.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 06:25:14 AM

Here are the results I've got for both miners running around 45k shares across 3 longpolls both:

Unfortunately, I've found even using the same device for even more shares does not produce comparable U results, even with the same exact software. Feel free to confirm this yourself by doing the same test over.

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Quote from: ?? on ??

When I run it, for some reason it duplicates the pools and shows 6 instead of 3 (each one twice). It also says BFL0 Hit thermal cutoff limit, disabling. Any idea why it is doing this in 2.6.1 but not 2.5?

It duplicates because you have config file saved, and cgminer is adding them to your command line options.
Delete config file if you are using full command line option.

P_Shep

legendary

Activity: 1795

Merit: 1208

This is not OK.

Quote from: farfie on July 31, 2012, 08:32:20 AM

Quote from: farfie on July 30, 2012, 11:41:33 PM

Half an hour so far with no problems on either machine. Going to bed soon, so I'll just lettem do their thing and report in the morning.

Following up on this, everything seems to be great. Across 11 Singles nothing has hung over night, and all measurements seem to be up to par or better. Excellent work.

So, sabotage? Wink

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: ddd1 on July 31, 2012, 08:52:28 AM

I'm on windows 7 and cgminer 2.5.0

Should I update to a newer cgminer?

Only if you don't have any BFLs at this stage.

ddd1

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

I'm on windows 7 and cgminer 2.5.0

Should I update to a newer cgminer?

farfie

newbie

Activity: 63

Merit: 0

Quote from: -ck on July 31, 2012, 08:33:43 AM

Thanks for the feedback. I'm quite sure other bugs for BFL have crept in since 2.5.0 as well, but at least one major one was quashed.

I will keep a steady eye on the miners, and they will also be introduced to a couple mini rigs later today as well Cheesy

The timing is almost kind of creepy, but here's hoping to a smooth experience.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: farfie on July 31, 2012, 08:32:20 AM

Quote from: farfie on July 30, 2012, 11:41:33 PM

Half an hour so far with no problems on either machine. Going to bed soon, so I'll just lettem do their thing and report in the morning.

Following up on this, everything seems to be great. Across 11 Singles nothing has hung over night, and all measurements seem to be up to par or better. Excellent work.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm quite sure other bugs for BFL have crept in since 2.5.0 as well, but at least one major one was quashed.

farfie

newbie

Activity: 63

Merit: 0

Quote from: farfie on July 30, 2012, 11:41:33 PM

Half an hour so far with no problems on either machine. Going to bed soon, so I'll just lettem do their thing and report in the morning.

Following up on this, everything seems to be great. Across 11 Singles nothing has hung over night, and all measurements seem to be up to par or better. Excellent work.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 06:25:14 AM

Here are the results I've got for both miners running around 45k shares across 3 longpolls both:

Unfortunately this is ONLY over 2 longpolls as can be seen by NB being 3, but that's enough to tell there's a difference. The more longpolls, the greater the difference.

Summary:
Jesusminer
Hashrate 51.8GH (51.4U recognised)
Rejects: 85
U: 718.3

cgminer
Hashrate 51.8GH
Rejects: 30
U:719.5

PLONK
FUD DEBUNKED

The fact is that cgminer discards half a work item on average across longpolls with BFL, and it does NOT count that half a work item artificially. So the reject rate is lower by not working on useless work and then submitting it. But the REAL KICKER is that it also does half a useful work item MORE at the same time which is why the utility was actually higher on cgminer.

Now once again, luke-jr fuck off with your fud and seriously stay the fuck out of my thread with your horseshit.

BlackPrapor

hero member

Activity: 628

Merit: 504

Here are the results I've got for both miners running around 45k shares across 3 longpolls both:

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 04:52:54 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 31, 2012, 04:37:40 AM

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 12:13:04 AM

I've got mini rigs hanging after some time with cgminer 2.6.1 so I switched back to bfgminer 2.5.1. It does produce almost 1% more rejects (cgminer had almost none 0.07%), but at least it works Roll Eyes

.

No, CGMiner has them - it just hides them from you, along with other shares that would have been accepted...

So, you're saying that I should see a difference in U or shares accepted between cgminer and bfgminer? I'll check it. Atm I'm having 51.7Ghs very stable speed with cgminer 2.6.1b. Do you mind telling me how to update bfgminer from 2.5.1, so I can make a fair comparison of both up to date miners?

His 2.5.1 should be enough to tell...

BlackPrapor

hero member

Activity: 628

Merit: 504

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 31, 2012, 04:37:40 AM

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 12:13:04 AM

I've got mini rigs hanging after some time with cgminer 2.6.1 so I switched back to bfgminer 2.5.1. It does produce almost 1% more rejects (cgminer had almost none 0.07%), but at least it works Roll Eyes

.

No, CGMiner has them - it just hides them from you, along with other shares that would have been accepted...

So, you're saying that I should see a difference in U or shares accepted between cgminer and bfgminer? I'll check it. Atm I'm having 51.7Ghs very stable speed with cgminer 2.6.1b. Do you mind telling me how to update bfgminer from 2.5.1, so I can make a fair comparison of both up to date miners?

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: BlackPrapor on July 31, 2012, 12:13:04 AM

I've got mini rigs hanging after some time with cgminer 2.6.1 so I switched back to bfgminer 2.5.1. It does produce almost 1% more rejects (cgminer had almost none 0.07%), but at least it works Roll Eyes

.

No, CGMiner has them - it just hides them from you, along with other shares that would have been accepted...

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Anyone who got 2.6.1a from my git downloads - I've made a 2.6.1b that has the problematic BFL commit removed
(and deleted 2.6.1a)

https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer/downloads

cgminer-2.6.1b — cgminer-2.6.1b = Distro cgminer 2.6.1 executable file compiled on Xubuntu 11.04 with all device + scrypt support included - and the BFL bug removed

Edit: FYI 2.6.1a didn't ever fail on my BFL (25.5 hours) - which is rather odd considering the problems with my BFL

Anyway, I'm running 2.6.1b on all my 3 setups.

Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 532. (Read 5805546 times)