Just tested it:
[2011-07-23 12:59:10] 4 cpu miner threads started, using SHA256 'sse4_64' algorithm.
seems to work for me??
Make sure you do make clean && ./autogen.sh before ./configure when building from git?
Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.0 - page 831. (Read 5805677 times)
July 22, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
July 22, 2011, 09:23:02 PM
bug report - SSE4
ubuntu natty, 64bit, catalyst 11.6
CPU 6core AMD
Latest git version
CPU miner only. compiled without opencl.
michal@rig:~/cgminer4$ ./cgminer -a sse4_64 -t 6 -o http://useast.btcguild.com:8332/ -u xxxxxxxxxxx -p xxxxxxxxxxx
[2011-07-22 22:15:02] ./cgminer: -a: Unknown algorithm
sse2_64 (17.5MH/s) and 4way (20.5MH/s) working good
ubuntu natty, 64bit, catalyst 11.6
CPU 6core AMD
Latest git version
CPU miner only. compiled without opencl.
michal@rig:~/cgminer4$ ./cgminer -a sse4_64 -t 6 -o http://useast.btcguild.com:8332/ -u xxxxxxxxxxx -p xxxxxxxxxxx
[2011-07-22 22:15:02] ./cgminer: -a: Unknown algorithm
sse2_64 (17.5MH/s) and 4way (20.5MH/s) working good
July 22, 2011, 08:30:41 PM
Would it be possible to add a multipool strategy that's similar to load balance, but with the first one having priory? So the second one is just active when the first one for some reason doesn't have enough work, for example because of latency.
That's basically failover that you're describing... That's the default policy. Or do you mean micro delays instead of macro ones? July 22, 2011, 08:07:44 PM
Heads-up: NEWS currently contains this rather strange item:
Quote
- The longpoll blanking of the current_block data may not be happening before
the work is converted and appears to be a detected block change. Blank the
current block be
the work is converted and appears to be a detected block change. Blank the
current block be
July 22, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
Would it be possible to add a multipool strategy that's similar to load balance, but with the first one having priory? So the second one is just active when the first one for some reason doesn't have enough work, for example because of latency.
That's basically failover that you're describing... That's the default policy. Or do you mean micro delays instead of macro ones? July 22, 2011, 07:19:19 PM
Would it be possible to add a multipool strategy that's similar to load balance, but with the first one having priory? So the second one is just active when the first one for some reason doesn't have enough work, for example because of latency.
July 22, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
Latest git version segfaults when use -Q parameter at startup. Ubuntu 11.04, catalyst 11.6, 32bit
Thanks. Fixed in git. July 22, 2011, 06:17:14 PM
Latest git version segfaults when use -Q parameter at startup. Ubuntu 11.04, catalyst 11.6, 32bit
July 22, 2011, 05:28:22 PM
Looks like it never got the threads started. Grab a fresh tarball, uninstall sdk2.1 and install sdk2.4 perhaps. The phatk kernel in it may no longer be compatible with 2.1.
Sorry, this was stupid me, didn't export DISPLAY before I ran the miner. However, aren't you able to reproduce the segfault when you resize the terminal??? It happens to me both under screen and just like that on several machines (Ubuntu 10.04.3, RHEL5 etc.)
July 22, 2011, 01:30:48 PM
Looks like it never got the threads started. Grab a fresh tarball, uninstall sdk2.1 and install sdk2.4 perhaps. The phatk kernel in it may no longer be compatible with 2.1.
Sorry, this was stupid me, didn't export DISPLAY before I ran the miner. However, aren't you able to reproduce the segfault when you resize the terminal??? It happens to me both under screen and just like that on several machines (Ubuntu 10.04.3, RHEL5 etc.)
July 22, 2011, 12:59:38 PM
Yeah , sshhhhh its not "official" ;-P
I hope he gets the json multipool config sorted
I hope he gets the json multipool config sorted
July 22, 2011, 12:55:11 PM
Fantastic work for 1.4.0, I think it's again donation time for everyone 
July 22, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
are you running default queue size and I set to 8 ?
2x 6970 with -w 256 = U: 11.47/m (Mh/s = 773)
2x 6970 with -w 128 -v2 = U: 8.76/m (Mh/s = 800.4)
^^^ which would u rather have ? higher shares per minute or higher Mh/s...
2x 6970 with -w 256 = U: 11.47/m (Mh/s = 773)
2x 6970 with -w 128 -v2 = U: 8.76/m (Mh/s = 800.4)
^^^ which would u rather have ? higher shares per minute or higher Mh/s...
July 22, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
lol.. 
-w 256 is the correct work unit for ati 5870/5970/6950/6970/6990.
-w 256 is the correct work unit for ati 5870/5970/6950/6970/6990.
the correct worksize reported from the cards I have is 256 but they tune better on 128
also the correct vectors reported is 4 tuning in on 4 reduces mh/s by at least 30% for those cards
cgminer default (setting nothing) is vectors 2 and worksize 128
setting the worksize to 256 on my 5850 gets me 5 more MH/s and usually the card's thread freezes within minutes... means xserver stales means reboot (no kill -9)!
July 22, 2011, 07:55:32 AM
lol..
-w 256 is the correct work unit for ati 5870/5970/6950/6970/6990.
tweaking the -I value.
dual cards = -I 9 (2x 5870, 5970, 2x 6950, 2x 6970, 6990)
single cards = -I 8 (5870/6950/6970)
next thing to note.. windows you'll need 1 core per a graphics card, this is due to the pthread implementation.
CPU mining is not viable with cgminer.. with a highly optimized cpu specific build.. it is still 50% slower than ufasoft's miner.
Also.. MH/s rate means nothing.. you make your "money" on shares accepted per 1 minute eg. U: 10.77/m]
cgminer will upload more shares in a given time frame than all the other miners, do a proper test.
-w 256 is the correct work unit for ati 5870/5970/6950/6970/6990.
tweaking the -I value.
dual cards = -I 9 (2x 5870, 5970, 2x 6950, 2x 6970, 6990)
single cards = -I 8 (5870/6950/6970)
next thing to note.. windows you'll need 1 core per a graphics card, this is due to the pthread implementation.
CPU mining is not viable with cgminer.. with a highly optimized cpu specific build.. it is still 50% slower than ufasoft's miner.
Also.. MH/s rate means nothing.. you make your "money" on shares accepted per 1 minute eg. U: 10.77/m]
cgminer will upload more shares in a given time frame than all the other miners, do a proper test.
July 22, 2011, 04:29:23 AM
With cgminer the avg value is like 244.0 Mh/s (the momentary value show next to GPU 0 is like 252.5 Mh/s).with:
I've seen the momentary value next to the GPU show 1500MH/s on a GTX 560 Ti in WinXP, so I'd say the average value is correct. Additionally, I think -q will get rid of the GPU value, and presumably he wouldn't hide the correct value while showing an incorrect one. July 21, 2011, 10:00:30 PM
Great work, ckolivas.
Just being unclear about the mining-speed hinders me from switching all my miners to cgminer. I'm on Windows 7 (x86) with a 6950
phoenix shows 245.5 Mh/s with these settings:
With cgminer the avg value is like 244.0 Mh/s (the momentary value show next to GPU 0 is like 252.5 Mh/s).with:
Which of the values shown are comparable?
I don't really want to run long-term tests to compare the number of shares produced by each one of them.
Just being unclear about the mining-speed hinders me from switching all my miners to cgminer. I'm on Windows 7 (x86) with a 6950
phoenix shows 245.5 Mh/s with these settings:
Code:
phoenix -u http://user:[email protected]:8332/ -k phatk DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=11 BFI_INT WORKSIZE=128 FASTLOOP=false
With cgminer the avg value is like 244.0 Mh/s (the momentary value show next to GPU 0 is like 252.5 Mh/s).with:
Code:
cgminer --algo c -o http://nl.btcguild.com:8332 -u user -p pass -I 8 -l 2
Which of the values shown are comparable?
I don't really want to run long-term tests to compare the number of shares produced by each one of them.
I would add in -w 128 to make sure the worksize is matching and possibly try fiddling with -v.
July 21, 2011, 08:36:21 PM
Just added another card to my PC so now im running 2 in same machine.
CPU usage went from 0-1% (using 1 card) up to 90% (using both cards)
Running 1 process for each card brings it down a bit (15-20% cpu per process) but its still higher then when there was just the one card in the PC.
Had a look though a few of the posts to see if there was a fix and running it with affinity to core 0 at least limits its and brings power usage down a bit but its still using more power then it should be.
Windows 7 32bit.
SDK 2.4
Catylist 11.6 running dummy plugs.
CPU usage went from 0-1% (using 1 card) up to 90% (using both cards)
Running 1 process for each card brings it down a bit (15-20% cpu per process) but its still higher then when there was just the one card in the PC.
Had a look though a few of the posts to see if there was a fix and running it with affinity to core 0 at least limits its and brings power usage down a bit but its still using more power then it should be.
Windows 7 32bit.
SDK 2.4
Catylist 11.6 running dummy plugs.
July 21, 2011, 06:51:25 PM
If you want it to work remotely, use
export DISPLAY=:0
after ssh'ing in.
That'll only work if an X server is active and the session belongs to the right user. In the case of a headless system, or a remote system that just doesn't run an X server (like most servers), a dummy X server might help. (Xvfb comes to mind.)export DISPLAY=:0
after ssh'ing in.
July 21, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
If you want it to work remotely, use
export DISPLAY=:0
after ssh'ing in.
That'll only work if an X server is active and the session belongs to the right user. In the case of a headless system, or a remote system that just doesn't run an X server (like most servers), a dummy X server might help. (Xvfb comes to mind.)export DISPLAY=:0
after ssh'ing in.
Jump to: