Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 561. (Read 5806088 times)
June 06, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
Boy aVast sure doesn't like this update. Have not had it complain about my current version but it doesn't even want me to download this one saying it's Malware. Reported as False like that will make a difference.
June 06, 2012, 12:00:56 AM
Just installed 2.4.2 and received a strange message:
Edit: My mistake, I typoed the script to run.
Code:
No login credentials for pool 0 http://p2pool:9332 -u bitcoinaddress -u <-imadummy
Edit: My mistake, I typoed the script to run.
June 05, 2012, 06:11:12 AM
As each pool has a different idea about when the block changes, if I choose the first pool's block change to discard all work from all pools then there can be quite a long period across block changes where cgminer throws out lots of work because it will continue to consider it from the old block. I had to relax the stale testing for load balance to prevent this work from being thrown out. On the other hand it's almost certainly what's leading to higher stales at every longpoll/block change. People generally get scared when they see a huge dip in hashrate across longpoll and start blaming cgminer for not keeping the devices busy. It probably makes more sense to throw out the work and accept the dip in hashrate so I can do that next version, but no matter what I choose, someone will complain 
I was wondering if something like this was the case. Looking at the log that seemed to me what was happening, but I was having difficulty translating what was going on... (for one, the specific pool/device the message is about is rarely referenced in the logs!).
If there's not much you can do, there's not much you can do! I'll just stick to fail-over then
I'd say taking the dip in hashrate would be better option though. I prefer not to start work than throw away work done...
1. You won't waste power calculated hashes you know will be stale.
2. You don't get stales appearing in the stats.
Absolute genius !
And now each 10 minutes / new block found my GPUs will go to no load / very low temps and then to high load / very high temps in a timeframe of 1 minute.
This hot -> cold -> hot cycle is not good for the fans or for the GPU itself. Same with FPGAs if you have that junk.
Brilliant, I tell you !
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
June 04, 2012, 11:00:16 PM
I cannot seem to get (--real-quiet) to run. Is there a way to make it run from the config file?
Kindest Regards
Kindest Regards
June 04, 2012, 08:43:06 PM
As each pool has a different idea about when the block changes, if I choose the first pool's block change to discard all work from all pools then there can be quite a long period across block changes where cgminer throws out lots of work because it will continue to consider it from the old block. I had to relax the stale testing for load balance to prevent this work from being thrown out. On the other hand it's almost certainly what's leading to higher stales at every longpoll/block change. People generally get scared when they see a huge dip in hashrate across longpoll and start blaming cgminer for not keeping the devices busy. It probably makes more sense to throw out the work and accept the dip in hashrate so I can do that next version, but no matter what I choose, someone will complain
you don't want to break p2pool + other pool combinations because p2pool is unique in how it does most things June 04, 2012, 08:40:46 PM
I think I might have found what's been causing my high stales, though not specifically...
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
As each pool has a different idea about when the block changes, if I choose the first pool's block change to discard all work from all pools then there can be quite a long period across block changes where cgminer throws out lots of work because it will continue to consider it from the old block. I had to relax the stale testing for load balance to prevent this work from being thrown out. On the other hand it's almost certainly what's leading to higher stales at every longpoll/block change. People generally get scared when they see a huge dip in hashrate across longpoll and start blaming cgminer for not keeping the devices busy. It probably makes more sense to throw out the work and accept the dip in hashrate so I can do that next version, but no matter what I choose, someone will complain It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
June 04, 2012, 08:39:37 PM
You can use "--rotate" and get similar results to "--load-balance". The miner works on one pool for the time you specify and then rotates to the next.
Yeah, I was thinking about that.
June 04, 2012, 08:38:45 PM
You can use "--rotate" and get similar results to "--load-balance". The miner works on one pool for the time you specify and then rotates to the next.
Yeah, I was thinking about that.
June 04, 2012, 08:35:22 PM
You can use "--rotate" and get similar results to "--load-balance". The miner works on one pool for the time you specify and then rotates to the next.
June 04, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
I think I might have found what's been causing my high stales, though not specifically...
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
Would that possibly explain the dips every now and then my hashrate as reported by the pool (i.e. Eclipse) takes (really short and then it comes up again) while my cgminer seems to be working at a constant rate?
June 04, 2012, 08:19:12 PM
I think I might have found what's been causing my high stales, though not specifically...
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
Would that possibly explain the dips every now and then my hashrate as reported by the pool (i.e. Eclipse) takes (really short and then it comes up again) while my cgminer seems to be working at a constant rate?
June 04, 2012, 07:38:04 PM
As each pool has a different idea about when the block changes, if I choose the first pool's block change to discard all work from all pools then there can be quite a long period across block changes where cgminer throws out lots of work because it will continue to consider it from the old block. I had to relax the stale testing for load balance to prevent this work from being thrown out. On the other hand it's almost certainly what's leading to higher stales at every longpoll/block change. People generally get scared when they see a huge dip in hashrate across longpoll and start blaming cgminer for not keeping the devices busy. It probably makes more sense to throw out the work and accept the dip in hashrate so I can do that next version, but no matter what I choose, someone will complain
I was wondering if something like this was the case. Looking at the log that seemed to me what was happening, but I was having difficulty translating what was going on... (for one, the specific pool/device the message is about is rarely referenced in the logs!).
If there's not much you can do, there's not much you can do! I'll just stick to fail-over then
I'd say taking the dip in hashrate would be better option though. I prefer not to start work than throw away work done...
1. You won't waste power calculated hashes you know will be stale.
2. You don't get stales appearing in the stats.
June 04, 2012, 07:31:06 PM
I think I might have found what's been causing my high stales, though not specifically...
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
As each pool has a different idea about when the block changes, if I choose the first pool's block change to discard all work from all pools then there can be quite a long period across block changes where cgminer throws out lots of work because it will continue to consider it from the old block. I had to relax the stale testing for load balance to prevent this work from being thrown out. On the other hand it's almost certainly what's leading to higher stales at every longpoll/block change. People generally get scared when they see a huge dip in hashrate across longpoll and start blaming cgminer for not keeping the devices busy. It probably makes more sense to throw out the work and accept the dip in hashrate so I can do that next version, but no matter what I choose, someone will complain It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
June 04, 2012, 07:16:15 PM
I think I might have found what's been causing my high stales, though not specifically...
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
It seems with load-balance I get very a poor stale rate, which seems to get worse the more pools involved. with 3 pools I get around 1.5% stale, with 5 it's up to 3-4%. When it's fail-over-only I'm looking at < 0.5%
Trouble is, the CGminer reported stats are not the same as the pools report. it seems the pools (some more than others) often report a share as valid to cgminer, then decide in it's own stats that it's stale.
I have a 10Mb debug log file taken over 1.5hrs if it'll be useful to diagnose anything.
June 04, 2012, 07:11:52 PM
Making a windows based GUI front end to monitor (and control) my miners is on my list of things to do. That would help the windows guys (yes, we still exist, and aren't likely going anywhere anytime soon).
M
M
Many web stats display/monitors are available. Nice charts and all. So I'd not waste time on this.
My take on this is that charts are nice to look at but they don't make money. Your miner does.
If you interested in something that would actively control your miner process, you might take a look at my akbash.
It can be set to monitor many miner, Windows and GPU hardware statistics. When triggers (hash rates, hw errors, process handle count or working set, GPU H/W temp, utilization, faulty fans etc) are met, miner (or OS) is restarted, email notifications are sent. Most importantly, driver crashes and werfault conditions are detected.
I'm not looking for charts, or a web interface. Frankly, I detest web interfaces. I like GUIs and databases.
Thanks for the info though.
M
June 04, 2012, 04:16:38 PM
Hey, just compiled 2.4.2 for OSX, here:
http://bitcoin.phraust.com/CGMINER_2.4.2.zip
Using:
./configure CFLAGS="-O2" --enable-bitforce --enable-icarus --enable-ztex
Just in case anyone needs it.
http://bitcoin.phraust.com/CGMINER_2.4.2.zip
Using:
./configure CFLAGS="-O2" --enable-bitforce --enable-icarus --enable-ztex
Just in case anyone needs it.
June 03, 2012, 11:58:19 PM
With Intensity (that is in the OP) It warns of the futility of going over I:9, is this still the case or would I be able to go higher with my 6870HD?
I use 2 6870s at dynamic and 9 for intensity. I definitely wouldn't recommend putting it above 9 because it sends your rejects through the roof. 
Thanks for the update! I thought maybe it had been answered before, but gods only know how many rejected I would waste while wading through almost 300 pages
Sent you a small donation for your trouble
Worked like a dream, even got a little hashrate boost!
June 03, 2012, 09:44:24 PM
By the way, windows virus software must have reached an all time new record for false positives. When I was compiling the 2.4.2 version for release on a windows xp virtual machine, microsoft security essentials detected the cgminer executable as a potential threat as soon as it was created. Of course I just told MSE to ignore it, but that was impressive...
June 03, 2012, 07:28:55 PM
If your Single is crashing, you should probably use the warranty while you can to get it replaced with one that works...
I suppose I can look into automatic recovery for people with power glitches anyway tho
The Singles I have work properly with their stock hardware ... I've been making hardware mods which take them closer to their limits, so I've experienced the odd lockup and have seen cgminer's response to that. 2.3.6 behaved differently than 2.4.1, which is essentially all I'm trying to say. I can work with either one but, given a choice, I'd prefer 2.3.6's behavior under this condition (which was simply to stop execution and exit).I suppose I can look into automatic recovery for people with power glitches anyway tho
Automatic recovery would be welcome, though it may not address all possible error conditions. An external software watchdog polling the API would likely be more robust and there is already at least one solution in that vein.
June 03, 2012, 07:23:21 PM
Agreed. Having to support multiple OS's is a pain. And there will be casualties. I can accept that.
A most enlightened response. Thanks. All I can do is try my best within reasonable effort.This is all display related, right? The under the hood engine still works, it's all about the display, correct?
If so, is all this information available via the API?
Making a windows based GUI front end to monitor (and control) my miners is on my list of things to do. That would help the windows guys (yes, we still exist, and aren't likely going anywhere anytime soon).
M
Jump to: