Author

Topic: OLD: BFGMiner 3.10.0: modular ASIC+FPGA, GBT+Strtm, RPC, Mac/Lnx/W64, AntU1, DRB - page 130. (Read 1193368 times)

legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186

After a few hours, those last 12 seconds becomes less and less relevant, and your average should begin to settle on 355 Mh/s.
Is this error or is USB ASICminer really doing 355GH with your software? I thought 336 is theoretical max...
It's really doing 335 Mh/s for me at least (5½ day average):
Code:
BES 0:       | 336.0/335.7/335.7Mh/s | A: 37464 R: 72+0(.19%) HW:202/.54%
 BES 1:       | 336.0/335.7/336.5Mh/s | A: 37564 R: 66+0(.18%) HW:191/.51%
 BEE 0:       | 327.5/335.8/333.1Mh/s | A: 37177 R: 60+0(.16%) HW:153/.41%
 BES 2:       | 336.0/335.7/330.5Mh/s | A: 36887 R: 71+0(.19%) HW:202/.54%

Any idea if/when you'll be adding the getwork server to the Windows binaries?
The main problem here lies with libmicrohttpd
Is this the same issue with the OpenWRT version?  I just picked up a little TP-Link pocket router to run my Block Erupters, but it'd be nice if it'd run the Blades as well.
No, OpenWrt has a native port of libmicrohttpd already, so it should be possible.
The problem there is that it's all or nothing: if I build with libmicrohttpd support, it won't be usable without it, and may increase the flash requirements.
I haven't taken the time to measure just how much yet... Maybe I can offer multiple alternative BFGMiner packages to get around this.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
uthash isn't even 1 MB.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log:

checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no
configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+
blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.

If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!!  Not gonna happen  Roll Eyes

Where am I going wrong here?

..................

Anyone?

..................


im going to guess debian. the 1.9.7-1 uthash-dev package weighs in at ~400Kb so i think you may have either selected wrong package, have pending package installs, or misread apt-get output

Close - Xubuntu 13.04 64bit - & the text was copy/pasted.....it's also listed in the dependency list on bfg git. Never used it before when compiling though......
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
CCNA: There i fixed the internet.
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log:

checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no
configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+
blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.

If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!!  Not gonna happen  Roll Eyes

Where am I going wrong here?

..................

Anyone?

..................


im going to guess debian. the 1.9.7-1 uthash-dev package weighs in at ~400Kb so i think you may have either selected wrong package, have pending package installs, or misread apt-get output
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....
OK, decided to try out bfg due to high cpu usage with my other mining program & need a little guidance compiling bfg for usb eruptors, getting this at the end of make log:

checking whether HASH_ITER is declared... no
configure: error: Could not find HASH_ITER - please install uthash-dev 1.9.2+
blahblah@btc:~/bfgminer$ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.

If I apt-get install uthash-dev 1.9.2+ thats over 1000mb's!!  Not gonna happen  Roll Eyes

Where am I going wrong here?

..................

Anyone?

..................
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 501
Hi Luke!!!!

Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME?
SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU.
If possible?
What should do?

Thanks!!!

Run multiple instances....
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Hi Luke!!!!

Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME?
SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU.
If possible?
What should do?

Thanks!!!
No. It doesn't even make sense - there are no blockchains with multiple POWs.
JLM
full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
Hi Luke!!!!

Could i mine SHA and scrypt AT SAME TIME?
SHA with Block Erupters and FPGA´s; Scrypt With GPU.
If possible?
What should do?

Thanks!!!
hero member
Activity: 1246
Merit: 501
I wouldn't fuss too much about it Luke-Jr - bfg still handles the Erupters WAY better than the "Other Miner".  So what if the figures jump around, the little sticks do their thing no matter what.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Ok, I've figured out why I think people are reporting bad hashrates on Erupters with 3.2.0...

First, a summary: it's just your perception, it will take a few hours, at least, before the average hashrate displayed settles down.

This is due to the Erupter driver only reporting hash completion once every 12.8 seconds (the time it takes to find 1 share on average). During this time, the average is skewed because while the Erupter has been hashing, it hasn't reported its progress.

So for the first 12 seconds, the erupter has "completed" a total of zero hashes. So the average is 0 despite that it's been actually performing hashes the whole time.
For the next 12 nexts, it has "completed" 4 gigahashes (total, not per second), which are then divided across the 12 seconds (which gets an accurate 335 Mh/s average); but then across 13, 14, 15, etc seconds; by the time we get to 24 seconds, it's still using the same 4 gigahash "completed" number, so the average (of 4 Gh over 24 seconds) is 178 Mh/s.
Once the second 4 gigahash "completed" come back, now the total is up to 8 gigahash, and it once again shows the correct 335 Mh/s average. By 36 seconds, however, the same thing has happened again: we have 8 gigahash divided by 36 seconds now, which is only 238 Mh/s.

After a few hours, those last 12 seconds becomes less and less relevant, and your average should begin to settle on 335 Mh/s.

The reason this didn't affect 3.1 and earlier as much is that it was abandoning work when a share was found, thus cutting the 12 seconds down to 6 on average. Scanning the whole work is more or less the main thing responsible for reducing hardware errors in 3.2. Smiley

There are a few ways to fix this to get a usable average faster:
  • Only count seconds for which completed hashes are known, when performing averages. This would change behaviour such that averages would not account for time a device is disabled or waiting on failover or other issues. Probably not a good idea IMO.
  • Ignore the time after the last "hashes complete" report so long as a device is actively hashing. This is probably ideal, but I need to think what the best way to be sure the device is actively hashing reliably (shockingly enough, this isn't obvious yet internally).
  • Upgrade the Icarus driver to the newer API so it can report progress more often. I need to do this eventually anyway, but there are some complex issues to handle on Windows when I do.

All of these solutions have potential to introduce new bugs, so I don't expect to implement them until 3.3 at the soonest.

Edit: Original post accidentally said 355 instead of 335.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
CCNA: There i fixed the internet.
Was worth a shot. I may give it a go in a day or so. Out of town currently :/
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Any idea if/when you'll be adding the getwork server to the Windows binaries?  No, I'm not prepared to compile myself (my head would explode trying).
The main problem here lies with libmicrohttpd, which doesn't really support Windows (some specific versions will build with a POSIX simulation layer, which itself only works on 32-bit).
So, someone would need to do one of these:
  • Port libmicrohttpd to Windows proper.
  • Fix PlibC to work on not only just 32-bit Windows.
  • Port BFGMiner to support another HTTP server library (I'm not aware of any decent alternatives, unfortunately).
wizkid057 thought he might have time to look into these options.

Have a looksie at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libmicrohttpd/2013-03/msg00007.html

Sounds like someone already patched plibc to work on x64 and add utf-8 support but his patch was ignored/forgotten.  At least he posted a git where it can be had.
Well, latest plibc git didn't compile for me, so Sad
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
CCNA: There i fixed the internet.
Any idea if/when you'll be adding the getwork server to the Windows binaries?  No, I'm not prepared to compile myself (my head would explode trying).
The main problem here lies with libmicrohttpd, which doesn't really support Windows (some specific versions will build with a POSIX simulation layer, which itself only works on 32-bit).
So, someone would need to do one of these:
  • Port libmicrohttpd to Windows proper.
  • Fix PlibC to work on not only just 32-bit Windows.
  • Port BFGMiner to support another HTTP server library (I'm not aware of any decent alternatives, unfortunately).
wizkid057 thought he might have time to look into these options.

Have a looksie at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libmicrohttpd/2013-03/msg00007.html

Sounds like someone already patched plibc to work on x64 and add utf-8 support but his patch was ignored/forgotten.  At least he posted a git where it can be had.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
°^°
Is it possible to compile the OpenWRT binaries smaller if restricting mining support only to Block Eupters?
Probably, but you may need to hack the openwrt Makefile.
What do you use for Compiling?

I use the official Toolchain but it reports missing libncurses-dev on Debian 6
But it compiles fine if i make directly for my CPU instead of Cross-Compile
To build for OpenWrt, you need to use their Buildroot toolkit.
that's what i used...
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
So ... why the FUD in your README? (that's rhetorical)
I added this accurate explanation to README because it is a common problem experienced by people who have used cgminer.
I'm more than happy to remove it if you fix the problem itself.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
...
"if you run cgminer, it will corrupt the real driver (until re-plug or reboot), which is likely why it isn't working."
...
Sigh, that's FUD.

No it doesn't corrupt anything.

It simply switches off the kernel module so that I can do direct USB access to the device.
And doesn't release it when it quits. That leaves it in a bad/unusable state.
I did ask if you would fix this, if you recall...
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Is it possible to compile the OpenWRT binaries smaller if restricting mining support only to Block Eupters?
Probably, but you may need to hack the openwrt Makefile.
What do you use for Compiling?

I use the official Toolchain but it reports missing libncurses-dev on Debian 6
But it compiles fine if i make directly for my CPU instead of Cross-Compile
To build for OpenWrt, you need to use their Buildroot toolkit.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
°^°
Is it possible to compile the OpenWRT binaries smaller if restricting mining support only to Block Eupters?
Probably, but you may need to hack the openwrt Makefile.
What do you use for Compiling?

I use the official Toolchain but it reports missing libncurses-dev on Debian 6
But it compiles fine if i make directly for my CPU instead of Cross-Compile
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Is it possible to compile the OpenWRT binaries smaller if restricting mining support only to Block Eupters?
Probably, but you may need to hack the openwrt Makefile.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
°^°
Is it possible to compile the OpenWRT binaries smaller if restricting mining support only to Block Eupters?
Jump to: