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.
Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 563. (Read 5805728 times)
June 04, 2012, 08:39:37 PM
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
June 03, 2012, 07:17:13 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
June 03, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
It also behaves differently when Singles go offline; 2.3.6 just exited (which was good) but 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 just mark them as 'OFF' and do not exit (bad).
This was requested, and seemed logical. Would it be more acceptable to you, if it automatically reenabled the devices when they're plugged back in?:loop
cgminer
waitfor xx seconds
goto loop
Because cgminer is re-run automatically by the scrpt, it re-enables all the Singles. This was the behavior with 2.3.6, and worked well.
I suppose I can look into automatic recovery for people with power glitches anyway tho
June 03, 2012, 07:04:29 PM
It also behaves differently when Singles go offline; 2.3.6 just exited (which was good) but 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 just mark them as 'OFF' and do not exit (bad).
This was requested, and seemed logical. Would it be more acceptable to you, if it automatically reenabled the devices when they're plugged back in?:loop
cgminer
waitfor xx seconds
goto loop
Because cgminer is re-run automatically by the scrpt, it re-enables all the Singles. This was the behavior with 2.3.6, and worked well.
June 03, 2012, 07:00:05 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. June 03, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
cgminer 2.6.2's display worked very well with 15 devices under Windows. 2.4.1 does not. I don't know if this change was intentional or an accidental side-effect, but it certainly is frustrating to find that something which *used* to work before is suddenly broken without notice.
I have a PC with a 'bucketload' of devices. Under Windows I can conveniently remotely connect to it via Remote Desktop, or VNC, or Live Mesh, or TeamViewer ... I don't use the API because I've no need for it. If cgminer's display remains broken for 'bucketloads' of devices, at least I can run multiple instances. Inefficient and inelegant, but we're not in an aesthetics contest here.
So in the 'grand scheme' of things, it doesn't really matter.
I have a PC with a 'bucketload' of devices. Under Windows I can conveniently remotely connect to it via Remote Desktop, or VNC, or Live Mesh, or TeamViewer ... I don't use the API because I've no need for it. If cgminer's display remains broken for 'bucketloads' of devices, at least I can run multiple instances. Inefficient and inelegant, but we're not in an aesthetics contest here.
So in the 'grand scheme' of things, it doesn't really matter.
I don't disagree, but the problem is it does different things on different operating systems and different shells. Working with curses is painful on a scale that almost puts it on par with working with Luke-jr as it never does something predictable or logical. I fixed stuff after that old cgminer and yeah it broke other stuff. It's an endless tirade of one piece of shit after another and I'm sick of fighting with it, like Luke-jr.
June 03, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
It also behaves differently when Singles go offline; 2.3.6 just exited (which was good) but 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 just mark them as 'OFF' and do not exit (bad).
This was requested, and seemed logical. Would it be more acceptable to you, if it automatically reenabled the devices when they're plugged back in?:loop
cgminer
waitfor xx seconds
goto loop
Because cgminer is re-run automatically by the scrpt, it re-enables all the Singles. This was the behavior with 2.3.6, and worked well.
Jump to: