Author

Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 813. (Read 5805740 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Any ETA on the windows binaries getting updated?

I too would like to see the latest version of cgminer for windows. I will offer up a 1 BTC bounty for the build.

I'll throw 1 BTC bounty in as well for the latest version of CGMiner in a windows build.
vip
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
Any ETA on the windows binaries getting updated?

I too would like to see the latest version of cgminer for windows. I will offer up a 1 BTC bounty for the build.
newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0


Looks like there's a new and improved version of the original
phatk kernel that outperforms diapolo's version, at least for
5XXX series ... maybe worth integrating into cgminer as an
option ?

Thread is here (download latest version from first msg):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25135.0;all



I'm guessing you didn't read it thoroughly:

Info: A version of this kernel is now used as the basic kernel in the new CGMINER, have a look here:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=28402
legendary
Activity: 4634
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
How to setup a cgminer using xubuntu 11.04 live on a USB


This is an awesome post which, imho, deserves its own thread.


Reported to mods allready, nice post but just not useful in here.

(how to setup any ubuntu-on-a-pendrive has 100s of howtos in the internets... setting up a miner on pendrives is nothing else than on a normally installed system; although there are some limits with pendrives as you just should never hit apt-get upgrade if it is installed from a live-cd)
LOL - well I was gonna add it to ckolivas' readme (already spoke to him) but he's away at the moment so I thought it useful to put it here rather than keep it hidden until he's back

But yeah it is specifically for working with cgminer - coz I haven't tried the others or even know if there are other steps required
(though the steps needed would probably be minor for the others?)
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1002
Hey,

Tried it, really good stuff. There are 2 points though that I would like to discuss...

I have 3 cards in one computer, one of these is failing due to overheating in the past. Now, every so often it locks and that's ok, I need to restart the computer, but with cgminer it tries to restart the gpu, create a new clcontext and the whole ati driver crashes, effectively killing all other GPUS along the process. Can this behaviour be switched, i.e. "it's dead, leave it alone".

I also add cards and remove cards more often than I should, and at least on card is a dual GPU where only one core still functions. So I need to disable one GPU, but to do that I need to specify all enabled GPUs instead. How about a -D (or something) switch to negate that particular GPU, instead of specifying all inclusions? Or at the very least having cgminer not die if I specify unused -d indexes (-d0 .. -d7, which is linux's limit, and then remove the ones I want to disable).

Great work!
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
It'd be great to pull GPU info similar to GPU-Z and edit it, but radeonvolt only supports reference 5xxx series cards currently. Until the lack of more diverse I2C code is expanded upon, its utility is virtually nil for 6xxx and non-reference cards in general.

Messing with I2C is dangerous, proper code verification is needed to not harm hardware - as the looks of now radeonvolt - supporting only reference 5000 series seems in general not vital for normal users!

Back to topic please!
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
How to setup a cgminer using xubuntu 11.04 live on a USB


This is an awesome post which, imho, deserves its own thread.


Reported to mods allready, nice post but just not useful in here.

(how to setup any ubuntu-on-a-pendrive has 100s of howtos in the internets... setting up a miner on pendrives is nothing else than on a normally installed system; although there are some limits with pendrives as you just should never hit apt-get upgrade if it is installed from a live-cd)
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Oh, and in either Windows compilation case, you'd also have to modify other code to get cgminer not to waste more than one core's worth of cpu on whatever it does in Windows that it doesn't do in Linux (even when only GPU mining in each).

From what I gather, and I can't vouch for it's accuracy, the windows 100% CPU problem when mining has to do with the Windows OpenCL drivers.  There's a function built into them that allows the CPU to assist a GPU when it's overloaded.  So what happens is that when a GPU gets to 99/100% utilization, the CPU spins up to lend a hand, but since mining doesn't need it, the CPU just sits there running, waiting to help.

Or something to that effect... Smiley
hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
[noob question]  Besides a GPU rig I also run a miner on my core2duo laptop sometimes just for fun (cpu only).  I've noticed that ufasoft does around 3x - 4x the Mhash that CGMiner does.  Any idea why or how I can get CGMiner to match the performance?
Install a 64-bit linux distro instead of running Windows?  (This is just a guess, the latest cgminer seems to come close to ufasoft on core 2 and older Intel processors in 64-bit Linux, but apparently [based on an earlier post in this thread] cgminer uses 64-bit optimizations to achieve that and doesn't have similar 32-bit optimizations coded).  The Windows binary is only written for 32-bit, so if I am correct in my assumption that your are running Windows, that would be the easiest solution.  The much more complex ones would be to either a) compile a 64-bit Windows version if you are running a 64-bit Windows OS or b) optimize the 32-bit code and compile a new 32-bit version.

Oh, and in either Windows compilation case, you'd also have to modify other code to get cgminer not to waste more than one core's worth of cpu on whatever it does in Windows that it doesn't do in Linux (even when only GPU mining in each).
newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
[noob question]  Besides a GPU rig I also run a miner on my core2duo laptop sometimes just for fun (cpu only).  I've noticed that ufasoft does around 3x - 4x the Mhash that CGMiner does.  Any idea why or how I can get CGMiner to match the performance?
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005
An especially usful addition would be to talk about the
radeonvolt tool to control voltage settings for stable
overclocking.

Thread is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.146827

It'd be great to pull GPU info similar to GPU-Z and edit it, but radeonvolt only supports reference 5xxx series cards currently. Until the lack of more diverse I2C code is expanded upon, its utility is virtually nil for 6xxx and non-reference cards in general.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
How to setup a cgminer using xubuntu 11.04 live on a USB


This is an awesome post which, imho, deserves its own thread.
legendary
Activity: 4634
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
The git source for this (and the latest version) is here:
https://github.com/kanoi/linux-usb-cgminer/blob/master/linux-usb-cgminer

The version below is old.

(2011-09-19: I've recently added 2 new comments about log files filling up disk space and enabling ssh login)
Check the git link to see the latest version.

Also, of course, since cgminer 2.* now does CPU/Fan control, you may not need the extra GPU/Fan control programs any more

---

How to setup a cgminer using xubuntu 11.04 live on a USB

Software
========
Short hardware comment:
Your mining computer doesn't need any HDD or CD/DVD/BD as long as it has at least 2GB of RAM, can boot USB, has some network connection to the internet and of course a reasonable mining ATI graphics card
... Or you can boot a windows PC with the USB to only do mining ... and ignore the system HDD ... wasting energy Smiley

To create the USB, you need of course a 4GB USB and temporarily need a PC with a CD (or DVD/BD) writer, a USB port and of course an internet connection to the PC

1) Download the xubuntu 11.04 desktop live CD iso for amd64
   ( look here for mirrors: http://www.xubuntu.org/getubuntu )

2) Burn it to CD then boot that temporarily on any PC with a CD/DVD/BD and a USB port (this and the next 2 step won't effect that PC)

3) Plug in your 4GB USB device and it should appear on the desktop - you can leave it's contents as long as there is at least 2.8GB free

4) Now run "Startup Disk Creator" in "Applications->System" (the system menu is the little rat in the top left corner)

(if you have no mouse you can get the menu with and navigate the menu with the arrow keys and key)

From here select the boot CD as the "Source" and the USB as the "Disk to use"
lastly move the slider to 2GB for reserved extra space

The 2GB should be enough for modifications

Click: "Make Install Disk"
After about 10-15 minutes you have a base xubuntu 11.04 boot USB
(you can shut down this computer now)

5) Boot your cgminer PC with this USB stick, select "English"
   then select "Try Xubuntu without installing" and wait for the desktop to appear
   (this happens by default if you wait for the timeouts)

6) Start a terminal
   "Applications->Accessories->Terminal Emulator"

7) sudo apt-get install openssh-server screen

   if you have a problem here then it's probably coz the internet isn't available ... sort that   out by reading elsewhere about routers etc

Cool sudo apt-get install fglrx fglrx-amdcccle fglrx-dev
   sudo sync
   sudo shutdown -r now

N.B. always do a "sudo sync" and wait for it to finish every time before shutting down the PC to ensure all data is written to the USB

9) sudo aticonfig --lsa
   this lists your ATI cards so you can see them
 sudo aticonfig --adapter=all --odgt
   this checks it can access all the cards ...

10) sudo aticonfig --adapter=all --initial
   this gets an error - no idea why but the xorg.conf is OK
 sudo sync
 sudo shutdown -r now

11) sudo aticonfig --adapter=all --odgt
   this checks it can access all the cards ...

12) get AMD-APP-SDK-v2.4-lnx64.tgz from
 http://developer.amd.com/sdks/amdappsdk/downloads/pages/default.aspx
  ( http://developer.amd.com/Downloads/AMD-APP-SDK-v2.4-lnx64.tgz )

 sudo su
 cd /opt
  (replace /home/ubuntu/ with wherever you put the file: )
 tar -xvzf /home/ubuntu/AMD-APP-SDK-v2.4-lnx64.tgz

 cd AMD-APP-SDK-v2.4-lnx64/
 cp -pv lib/x86_64/* /usr/lib/
 rsync -avl include/CL/ /usr/include/CL/
 tar -xvzf icd-registration.tgz
 rsync -avl etc/OpenCL/ /etc/OpenCL/
 ldconfig
 sync
 shutdown -r now

 You now have an OpenCL enabled xubuntu

13) cgminer:
 sudo apt-get install curl

 get the binary linux cgminer (see the bitcoin forum cgminer thread for where to get it)

 ./cgminer -n
   this shows you the GPU's it found on your PC

14) An OC option:
 sudo apt-get install libwxbase2.8-0 libwxgtk2.8-0

 http://sourceforge.net/projects/amdovdrvctrl/
  for an Over/underclocking application and get the file listed below then:
 sudo dpkg -i amdoverdrivectrl_1.2.1_amd64.deb

15) set the screen saver to ONLY blank ...

 Move the mouse to the bottom of the screen and you see a set of icons like on an Apple PC
 Click on Settings, then in the Settings window "Screensaver"
 Set "Mode:" to "Blank Screen Only"

Edit: originally left this somewhat useful addition out:
16) apt-get install ntpd
 An accurate clock is always a good idea Smiley

Initial setup complete.

========

If you want to SSH into the machine and run cgminer:
 From a terminal on the miner display each time after you boot:
  xhost +

Then after ssh into the machine:
 export DISPLAY=:0
before running cgminer

Also note, that you should force the screen to blank when mining if the ATI card is displaying the screen (using the screen saver application menu)
In my case it takes away 50Mh/s when the screen isn't blanked


This is of course just the basics ... but it should get you a computer up and running and able to run cgminer
full member
Activity: 174
Merit: 100
Any ETA on the windows binaries getting updated?
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
In keeping up with this thread, I have seen two or three posts saying that shares/minute is a better indicator of performance than MHash/second.  However, I don't understand this argument.

I understand that higher MHash/s doesn't do any good if the GPU is unstable and shares aren't found or shares are rejected, but assuming a person keeps the GPU stable, doesn't the shares/minute vary with luck and difficulty while the MHash/s is what is actually being processed (regardless of luck and difficulty)?

IOW, when a person goes from 310 MHash/s to 320 MHash/s and shares/minute drops from 4.15 to 4.10, it seems logical to me to assume that the 320 MHash/s is better and the change in shares/minute is luck/difficulty related (at least assuming when comparing two relatively short runs [less than a day for sure, a couple days? I'm not sure]).

I'm not saying I don't believe shares/minute is a good thing to pay attention to as well, though.  Obviously if the same scenario involved going from 280 MHash/s to 330 MHash/s and suddenly getting 3 shares/minute instead of 4 shares/minute an issue with the miner or stability would be indicated.

That said, am I misinterpreting something, or is the suggestion that shares/minute is more important than MHash/s oversimplified?
The reason for taking shares/min into account rather than just MHash/s is because MHash/s is only part of the equation.  You have to take into account accuracy and efficiency.  You can compute hashes all day, but unless you're computing the right ones it's not going to do you any good.  So cgminer found a way to still maintain a decent hashing speed while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn.  See the full picture?

Man, you have to be minister or priest in church.
Great talk about full picture, only totally misleading.
some of your bright ideas I have to quote again:

"unless you're computing the right ones it's not going to do you any good."  Grin
or
"making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn"   Grin


hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
In keeping up with this thread, I have seen two or three posts saying that shares/minute is a better indicator of performance than MHash/second.  However, I don't understand this argument.

I understand that higher MHash/s doesn't do any good if the GPU is unstable and shares aren't found or shares are rejected, but assuming a person keeps the GPU stable, doesn't the shares/minute vary with luck and difficulty while the MHash/s is what is actually being processed (regardless of luck and difficulty)?

IOW, when a person goes from 310 MHash/s to 320 MHash/s and shares/minute drops from 4.15 to 4.10, it seems logical to me to assume that the 320 MHash/s is better and the change in shares/minute is luck/difficulty related (at least assuming when comparing two relatively short runs [less than a day for sure, a couple days? I'm not sure]).

I'm not saying I don't believe shares/minute is a good thing to pay attention to as well, though.  Obviously if the same scenario involved going from 280 MHash/s to 330 MHash/s and suddenly getting 3 shares/minute instead of 4 shares/minute an issue with the miner or stability would be indicated.

That said, am I misinterpreting something, or is the suggestion that shares/minute is more important than MHash/s oversimplified?
The reason for taking shares/min into account rather than just MHash/s is because MHash/s is only part of the equation.  You have to take into account accuracy and efficiency.  You can compute hashes all day, but unless you're computing the right ones it's not going to do you any good.  So cgminer found a way to still maintain a decent hashing speed while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn.  See the full picture?
Sorry, but I don't see the full picture Smiley

What does it means when you say: "while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn"?

The shares it computes depends on the work the pool sent you (if you're in a pool), so they should be the same even using a different miner, or am I wrong?

spiccioli.
In addition to this, wouldn't that mean that a higher MHash/second is automatically better on cgminer?  The posts I am referring to don't seem to be scolding people for comparing MHash/second between another miner and cgminer, they seem to be scolding people for paying attention to the MHash/second in different runs of cgminer.  If cgminer was already dealing with accuracy and efficiency, wouldn't suggesting that a higher MHash/second in cgminer wasn't necessarily a good theng be spurious?
legendary
Activity: 1379
Merit: 1003
nec sine labore
In keeping up with this thread, I have seen two or three posts saying that shares/minute is a better indicator of performance than MHash/second.  However, I don't understand this argument.

I understand that higher MHash/s doesn't do any good if the GPU is unstable and shares aren't found or shares are rejected, but assuming a person keeps the GPU stable, doesn't the shares/minute vary with luck and difficulty while the MHash/s is what is actually being processed (regardless of luck and difficulty)?

IOW, when a person goes from 310 MHash/s to 320 MHash/s and shares/minute drops from 4.15 to 4.10, it seems logical to me to assume that the 320 MHash/s is better and the change in shares/minute is luck/difficulty related (at least assuming when comparing two relatively short runs [less than a day for sure, a couple days? I'm not sure]).

I'm not saying I don't believe shares/minute is a good thing to pay attention to as well, though.  Obviously if the same scenario involved going from 280 MHash/s to 330 MHash/s and suddenly getting 3 shares/minute instead of 4 shares/minute an issue with the miner or stability would be indicated.

That said, am I misinterpreting something, or is the suggestion that shares/minute is more important than MHash/s oversimplified?
The reason for taking shares/min into account rather than just MHash/s is because MHash/s is only part of the equation.  You have to take into account accuracy and efficiency.  You can compute hashes all day, but unless you're computing the right ones it's not going to do you any good.  So cgminer found a way to still maintain a decent hashing speed while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn.  See the full picture?

Sorry, but I don't see the full picture Smiley

What does it means when you say: "while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn"?

The shares it computes depends on the work the pool sent you (if you're in a pool), so they should be the same even using a different miner, or am I wrong?

spiccioli.
full member
Activity: 373
Merit: 100
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're saying it should have two sources of that information rather than one ...
i.e. some extra copy of the configuration information that will of course be unreliable due to it being exactly that ...
The way I understand it, he wants an additional, manual source of information to override the default one.
I don't see much wrong with this request... Wink
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
In keeping up with this thread, I have seen two or three posts saying that shares/minute is a better indicator of performance than MHash/second.  However, I don't understand this argument.

I understand that higher MHash/s doesn't do any good if the GPU is unstable and shares aren't found or shares are rejected, but assuming a person keeps the GPU stable, doesn't the shares/minute vary with luck and difficulty while the MHash/s is what is actually being processed (regardless of luck and difficulty)?

IOW, when a person goes from 310 MHash/s to 320 MHash/s and shares/minute drops from 4.15 to 4.10, it seems logical to me to assume that the 320 MHash/s is better and the change in shares/minute is luck/difficulty related (at least assuming when comparing two relatively short runs [less than a day for sure, a couple days? I'm not sure]).

I'm not saying I don't believe shares/minute is a good thing to pay attention to as well, though.  Obviously if the same scenario involved going from 280 MHash/s to 330 MHash/s and suddenly getting 3 shares/minute instead of 4 shares/minute an issue with the miner or stability would be indicated.

That said, am I misinterpreting something, or is the suggestion that shares/minute is more important than MHash/s oversimplified?
The reason for taking shares/min into account rather than just MHash/s is because MHash/s is only part of the equation.  You have to take into account accuracy and efficiency.  You can compute hashes all day, but unless you're computing the right ones it's not going to do you any good.  So cgminer found a way to still maintain a decent hashing speed while also making sure that the hashes it computes are actually worth a darn.  See the full picture?
hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
In keeping up with this thread, I have seen two or three posts saying that shares/minute is a better indicator of performance than MHash/second.  However, I don't understand this argument.

I understand that higher MHash/s doesn't do any good if the GPU is unstable and shares aren't found or shares are rejected, but assuming a person keeps the GPU stable, doesn't the shares/minute vary with luck and difficulty while the MHash/s is what is actually being processed (regardless of luck and difficulty)?

IOW, when a person goes from 310 MHash/s to 320 MHash/s and shares/minute drops from 4.15 to 4.10, it seems logical to me to assume that the 320 MHash/s is better and the change in shares/minute is luck/difficulty related (at least assuming when comparing two relatively short runs [less than a day for sure, a couple days? I'm not sure]).

I'm not saying I don't believe shares/minute is a good thing to pay attention to as well, though.  Obviously if the same scenario involved going from 280 MHash/s to 330 MHash/s and suddenly getting 3 shares/minute instead of 4 shares/minute an issue with the miner or stability would be indicated.

That said, am I misinterpreting something, or is the suggestion that shares/minute is more important than MHash/s oversimplified?
Jump to: