OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 671.

QuantumFoam

full member

Activity: 200

Merit: 100

|Quantum|World's First Cloud Management Platform

Quote from: cablepair on February 04, 2012, 07:10:45 PM

what SDK are you using and what speeds are you getting with 950/300 ?

v2.4 sdk. That's probably the issue, thought I had 2.1 installed. I'll see if I can remove 2.4 and install 2.1, hopefully that will make a difference. Currently getting ~430mh at 950/300 setting, that drops to 425 when going to 950/180.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Oh yeah that reminds me

Anyone who takes notice of that last column (Intensity) and ever changes them to different values per GPU - I posted a fix (ckolivas pull request) for that yesterday since it was always showing only the first GPU value for all GPUs
I'd guess no one ever changes it like that so no one noticed it (me neither of course)
(I was testing the new modified miner.php that's in there as well to change different values using the recent options that were added when I found that one)

cablepair

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Buy this account on March-2019. New Owner here!!

Quote from: QuantumFoam on February 04, 2012, 02:21:14 PM

Quote from: cablepair on February 03, 2012, 01:24:15 PM

I just want to say in regards to 5870

I consider myself a bit of an expert when it comes to mining with theses cards as I have been doing so for almost a year now and have about 20 of them, they are excellent mining cards very efficient and stable , I have a 5870 that's been mining 11 months straight without any Problems no joke

In any case in regards to drivers and speed I have tested them all fairly extensively and ccc 11.9 with the Sdk 2.5.xx it comes with gives 430-445 mhash depending on the card with 950/180 clocks and the latest cgminer with stock kernel and 9 intensity

If any can prove me wrong (or right) I would love to see it, and would gladly give donation to anyone that provides a detailed benchmark

I'm running 5870s in my mining machine and gave your 180 memory clock setting a try. I found the difference between 300 and 180 to be about a 5mh loss per card @ 180, and negligible difference in power consumption as measured by kill a watt. It could be that you're running some other settings in cgminer that I'm not? I have worksize set to 256, otherwise all defaults. Engine clocks are 950. This is v2.2.1 on a xubuntu 11.04 machine.

what SDK are you using and what speeds are you getting with 950/300 ? Also I am using default worksize and vectors, I have tested and never seen any increase only decrease and stay the same by changing what is default for worksize and vectors with cgminer

let me show you a snap shot from my anubis console of one of the 4 rigs I have with 5870s each.

this rig has 3 x 2 gb models and 2 x 1 gb model thats why your seeing some variance in the fan speeds and voltages
yes the amount of electricity and heat difference between 300/180 may be negligible however IMO when your running 20 gpus every bit counts, even if you save 1 kwhr a day it adds up over time and I see no speed increase what so ever by changing mem clocks from 180 to 300

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: QuantumFoam on February 04, 2012, 02:21:14 PM

Quote from: cablepair on February 03, 2012, 01:24:15 PM

I just want to say in regards to 5870

I consider myself a bit of an expert when it comes to mining with theses cards as I have been doing so for almost a year now and have about 20 of them, they are excellent mining cards very efficient and stable , I have a 5870 that's been mining 11 months straight without any Problems no joke

In any case in regards to drivers and speed I have tested them all fairly extensively and ccc 11.9 with the Sdk 2.5.xx it comes with gives 430-445 mhash depending on the card with 950/180 clocks and the latest cgminer with stock kernel and 9 intensity

If any can prove me wrong (or right) I would love to see it, and would gladly give donation to anyone that provides a detailed benchmark

I'm running 5870s in my mining machine and gave your 180 memory clock setting a try. I found the difference between 300 and 180 to be about a 5mh loss per card @ 180, and negligible difference in power consumption as measured by kill a watt. It could be that you're running some other settings in cgminer that I'm not? I have worksize set to 256, otherwise all defaults. Engine clocks are 950. This is v2.2.1 on a xubuntu 11.04 machine.

There are more options to it that just cgminer version and OS version, that can make a difference.
The two of you would also have to compare the output of cgminer -n
(and also be sure that you generated the *.bin with the same OpenCL versions - at the time you generated it)
The name of the *.bin will tell you some of the options you are using also.

QuantumFoam

full member

Activity: 200

Merit: 100

|Quantum|World's First Cloud Management Platform

Quote from: cablepair on February 03, 2012, 01:24:15 PM

I just want to say in regards to 5870

I consider myself a bit of an expert when it comes to mining with theses cards as I have been doing so for almost a year now and have about 20 of them, they are excellent mining cards very efficient and stable , I have a 5870 that's been mining 11 months straight without any Problems no joke

In any case in regards to drivers and speed I have tested them all fairly extensively and ccc 11.9 with the Sdk 2.5.xx it comes with gives 430-445 mhash depending on the card with 950/180 clocks and the latest cgminer with stock kernel and 9 intensity

If any can prove me wrong (or right) I would love to see it, and would gladly give donation to anyone that provides a detailed benchmark

I'm running 5870s in my mining machine and gave your 180 memory clock setting a try. I found the difference between 300 and 180 to be about a 5mh loss per card @ 180, and negligible difference in power consumption as measured by kill a watt. It could be that you're running some other settings in cgminer that I'm not? I have worksize set to 256, otherwise all defaults. Engine clocks are 950. This is v2.2.1 on a xubuntu 11.04 machine.

cablepair

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Buy this account on March-2019. New Owner here!!

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 10:57:25 AM

Managed to get my 447 Mhash/s with my 5870s !

Will post updated stats and details soon. Testing for stability for now.

Hopefully some can appreciate my work and give me some love over at

1Ahbp2y64JFSQu1D6N5rkhw4PtaY9oXtE3

Thanks !

as I said earlier I would gladly give a donation for detailed benchmarking information, specifically what SDKs and which addon flags like vectors and work size, if all you did was push the core clock way up to 990 or something that is not going to be stable for long.

waiting to see what you got...

jake262144

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 10:57:25 AM

Hopefully some can appreciate my work and give me some love over at ...

Your work on optimizing your own miners?? No offense meant but give me a break.
So far you've been requesting help for the most part, it feels awkward that you should request donations.

Show us the results of your hard work!
Do some serious benchmarking across different kernels, compile a spreadsheet and post it, perhaps then you'll see some bitcoin love.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Managed to get my 447 Mhash/s with my 5870s !

Will post updated stats and details soon. Testing for stability for now.

Hopefully some can appreciate my work and give me some love over at

1Ahbp2y64JFSQu1D6N5rkhw4PtaY9oXtE3

Thanks !

jake262144

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: kano on February 04, 2012, 07:31:06 AM

http://tradebtc.net/SLEEP.EXE

No need, I wrote my own.
1996? That's Win95 stuff, positively ancient Grin

That particular API call seems to have made it to XP.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: jake262144 on February 04, 2012, 07:11:38 AM

Quote from: kano on February 03, 2012, 06:41:45 PM

In windows you need some command for sleep ... not sure what or where to get one.

You'll get a kick out of that - if you don't want to write your own sleep command from scratch, a quick-and-dirty fix is pinging your own machine n number of times using one second intervals Tongue

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? At least in Redmond it does...

I remembered I did have a windows one years ago ... so searched my hard drive and found:

28432 Jul 25 1996 SLEEP.EXE

It just calls the windows Sleep function with the number of seconds supplied
(well that's what the function the binary has in it if you look at it directly)
It works on WinXP 32 bit - no idea about anything else.

http://tradebtc.net/SLEEP.EXE

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 07:18:45 AM

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 07:03:15 AM

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 06:47:53 AM

What phatk kernel and poclbm kernel does this use ?

Where can I see detailed output ?

Thanks !

Both custom ones unique for cgminer. Phatk is something like ~phatk2.2. poclbm, not sure. The current development versions are updated slightly to work with GCN, but are not the fastest GCN kernels.

edit: exactly what detailed output are you after?

Where can I see what values cgminer chooses for the worksize and vectors with each kernel etc. ?

Thanks !

Start with --verbose -T
But basically it uses -v 2 -w 128 unless you specify otherwise

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 07:03:15 AM

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 06:47:53 AM

What phatk kernel and poclbm kernel does this use ?

Where can I see detailed output ?

Thanks !

Both custom ones unique for cgminer. Phatk is something like ~phatk2.2. poclbm, not sure. The current development versions are updated slightly to work with GCN, but are not the fastest GCN kernels.

edit: exactly what detailed output are you after?

Where can I see what values cgminer chooses for the worksize and vectors with each kernel etc. ?

Thanks !

jake262144

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: kano on February 03, 2012, 06:41:45 PM

In windows you need some command for sleep ... not sure what or where to get one.

You'll get a kick out of that - if you don't want to write your own sleep command from scratch, a quick-and-dirty fix is pinging your own machine n number of times using one second intervals Tongue

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? At least in Redmond it does...

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: bulanula on February 04, 2012, 06:47:53 AM

What phatk kernel and poclbm kernel does this use ?

Where can I see detailed output ?

Thanks !

Both custom ones unique for cgminer. Phatk is something like ~phatk2.2. poclbm, not sure. The current development versions are updated slightly to work with GCN, but are not the fastest GCN kernels.

edit: exactly what detailed output are you after?

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

What phatk kernel and poclbm kernel does this use ?

Where can I see detailed output ?

Thanks !

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Found it. While the kernel init problem proved to be a red herring, the rejects was not. Fixed in git now, thanks for your debugging.

Proofer

member

Activity: 266

Merit: 36

Quote from: kano on February 04, 2012, 03:54:14 AM

Quote from: Proofer on February 04, 2012, 03:38:07 AM

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 03:31:11 AM

I think the rejects were coincidence. Lots of rejects are not uncommon in p2pool if I'm not mistaken? Unless the blockchain is very different on p2pool and donation breaks it (but I didn't think it would do that). So that leaves no bug as far as I can tell.

Naw... with the current commit, not only all rejects (I just tried again), but no longpoll. With the 2.2.1 version change commit, no such problems.

Now, it's entirely possible that I omitted some other prerequisite (as I had previously omitted the new .cl) required by the recent changes.

I'm running the current commit (+ the extra api.c change waiting to go in) and it works fine getting LPs and shares ... on a pair of 6950's

With Eclipse I still have the "No long-poll found on any pool server" but not the all-rejects problem. I have both problems with p2pool. That is with the current (Allow the OpenCL platform ID to be chosen with --gpu-platform.) commit. With the 2.2.1 version number commit, I have neither problem.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: Proofer on February 04, 2012, 03:38:07 AM

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 03:31:11 AM

I think the rejects were coincidence. Lots of rejects are not uncommon in p2pool if I'm not mistaken? Unless the blockchain is very different on p2pool and donation breaks it (but I didn't think it would do that). So that leaves no bug as far as I can tell.

Naw... with the current commit, not only all rejects (I just tried again), but no longpoll. With the 2.2.1 version change commit, no such problems.

Now, it's entirely possible that I omitted some other prerequisite (as I had previously omitted the new .cl) required by the recent changes.

I'm running the current commit (+ the extra api.c change waiting to go in) and it works fine getting LPs and shares ... on a pair of 6950's

Edit: I lie - I actually wasn't getting LPs - my testing of LP was so slow that it was just working out the LP's before getting any shares ...

Proofer

member

Activity: 266

Merit: 36

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 03:31:11 AM

I think the rejects were coincidence. Lots of rejects are not uncommon in p2pool if I'm not mistaken? Unless the blockchain is very different on p2pool and donation breaks it (but I didn't think it would do that). So that leaves no bug as far as I can tell.

Naw... with the current commit, not only all rejects (I just tried again), but no longpoll. With the 2.2.1 version change commit, no such problems.

Now, it's entirely possible that I omitted some other prerequisite (as I had previously omitted the new .cl) required by the recent changes.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: Proofer on February 04, 2012, 03:25:51 AM

Quote from: -ck on February 04, 2012, 03:15:16 AM

Quote from: Proofer on February 04, 2012, 03:03:10 AM

Code:

[2012-02-03 23:28:22] Unable to open phatk120203.cl or ./phatk120203.cl for reading

phatk110817.cl was present but not phatk120203.cl.

Wait wait wait... they should be pulled into your local git directory by git pull... Something fishy is going on and I don't think it's my code or my git repo Undecided

They were pulled, but I hadn't copied them from the source/git directory to the working/running directory that I use. After copying them, as previously reported it ran but without LP (p2pool) and with all rejects after the donation acknowledgement.

I think the rejects were coincidence. Lots of rejects are not uncommon in p2pool if I'm not mistaken? Unless the blockchain is very different on p2pool and donation breaks it (but I didn't think it would do that). So that leaves no bug as far as I can tell.

Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 671. (Read 5805728 times)