Topic: OLD: BFGMiner 3.10.0: modular ASIC+FPGA, GBT+Strtm, RPC, Mac/Lnx/W64, AntU1, DRB - page 133. (Read 1193235 times)
August 31, 2013, 11:10:46 PM
Sorry I don't have any log details, but I do have 3.2.0 crashing from 8-24 hours running on ubuntu with 4x fpga and 2x little singles, no gpus. Just dropped dead to command prompt, computer was not locked up or anything. Has happened 2-3 times already since release, glad I am not the only one having problems with newest version.
August 31, 2013, 05:30:40 PM
I've been on 3.2.0(64-bit) for 1 day and 4 hours, Zero problems with two instances with 5 BE's. This is on Windows 7 64-bit.
August 31, 2013, 02:20:35 PM
Yea all mine are usb eruptors, that might be the cause.. just guessing at this point, went back to 3.1.4 for now. everything seems to be back to 100% 
August 31, 2013, 01:46:06 PM
I've been running 3.2.0 (32-bit) now for 40 hours on 3 separate PCs (all Win7). None has yet crashed, and all are hashing at full speed (according to both BFGMiner and my pool). All BFL SC Singles.
August 31, 2013, 01:11:41 PM
i had crash too after like 3hours
dmesg says
stratum0[10991]: segfault at d59321dc ip 08065935 sp b5932190 error 7 in bfgminer[8048000+5a000]
running on debian 7 terminal hp t5710 1.2Ghz 512MB ram
im running two instances one with blades with diferent -u -p and one with usb erupters
that one with blades still working fine with noproblem
only bfgminer with usb erupters crashed
dmesg says
stratum0[10991]: segfault at d59321dc ip 08065935 sp b5932190 error 7 in bfgminer[8048000+5a000]
running on debian 7 terminal hp t5710 1.2Ghz 512MB ram
im running two instances one with blades with diferent -u -p and one with usb erupters
that one with blades still working fine with noproblem
only bfgminer with usb erupters crashed
August 31, 2013, 11:50:02 AM
Anyone care to provide me with a debug log (or backtrace) of these crashes? It's been rock solid for me :/
August 31, 2013, 11:19:59 AM
Not sure if it something i have done (no swap file ) or new version of BFG miner but i have had over 5 crashes since upgrading to 3.2.0. Before i upgraded 3.1.4 ran stable no crashes for 6 days straight. Now all my miners lights come up and when i remote to computer the dos box is closed.. nothing.
Anyone else have problems with 3.2.0?
Anyone else have problems with 3.2.0?
I have the same problem. v3.2.0. crashes several times a day. v3.1.4. did crash occasionally in a period of 2-3 days.
August 31, 2013, 09:15:12 AM
Not sure if it something i have done (no swap file ) or new version of BFG miner but i have had over 5 crashes since upgrading to 3.2.0. Before i upgraded 3.1.4 ran stable no crashes for 6 days straight. Now all my miners lights come up and when i remote to computer the dos box is closed.. nothing.
Anyone else have problems with 3.2.0?
Anyone else have problems with 3.2.0?
August 31, 2013, 07:43:55 AM
I`ve been using BFG for a while and love it, and just found out about the request diff function so I thought I`d enter it into my bat file.
Thing is, BFG doesn`t seem to recognise this and carries on as before?
If it didn't recognise it, it'd give you an error and exit.Thing is, BFG doesn`t seem to recognise this and carries on as before?
But it's inevitably just a request. The pool can choose to ignore it or honour it.
Can you even have 3 as a difficulty? I thought it was 1,2,4,8,16....
It's possible, sure. It doesn't even need the be a whole number.Powers of two are just easier to deal with.
August 30, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
The 'benefit' of load balancing is less short term variance; you are spreading work across a much larger hashrate base. I put 'benefit' in quotes because not everyone will agree that less variance is a 'benefit'.
I see. I guess it makes sense. If all pools behaved/paid the same way it would be like hashing with one large pool (btcguild gigavps+emc+bitminter+eligius).
August 31, 2013, 06:13:44 AM
So as HellDiverUK suggested I changed it to 4 difficulty on my code line, however BFG still only lets me up to diff 2.
hmm
hmm
August 31, 2013, 06:09:35 AM
Can you even have 3 as a difficulty? I thought it was 1,2,4,8,16....
Well that might be why it won`t accept it!!!!
I`ll give it a go.
D`OH!
August 30, 2013, 12:04:07 PM
Only in Failover mode.
Is there any other mode? Just kidding...
Do people still use load balancing mode? When? Unreliable pools/connections?
I never understood the benefit of running in load balancing mode.
If you are on non-PPS payout, what is the benefit of load balancing if you are connected to reliable/fast pools.
I fail to see any.
August 31, 2013, 06:08:11 AM
Can you even have 3 as a difficulty? I thought it was 1,2,4,8,16....
August 31, 2013, 05:08:47 AM
Hi peeps,
I`ve been using BFG for a while and love it, and just found out about the request diff function so I thought I`d enter it into my bat file.
Thing is, BFG doesn`t seem to recognise this and carries on as before?
My code atm is:
bfgminer -o https://us2.eclipsemc.com:3333 -u me -p 123 -G -S all --icarus-options 115200:1:1 --icarus-timing 3.0=100 --request-diff 3
Does that look ok to you or have I missed out something?
Thanks
I`ve been using BFG for a while and love it, and just found out about the request diff function so I thought I`d enter it into my bat file.
Thing is, BFG doesn`t seem to recognise this and carries on as before?
My code atm is:
bfgminer -o https://us2.eclipsemc.com:3333 -u me -p 123 -G -S all --icarus-options 115200:1:1 --icarus-timing 3.0=100 --request-diff 3
Does that look ok to you or have I missed out something?
Thanks
August 30, 2013, 11:42:15 AM
Is there a way to get the current share difficulty from the API? Would be useful for some monitoring tools.
The "pools" method has this info per-pool.I guess someone should add a way to determine which pool(s) are actively in use?
Cool.
"Last Share Difficulty" would give me that info, right?
To find out which pool is connected, I'd have to walk the list from priority 0-N and check which one is alive.
The one with the lowest priority and alive status is the one that is being connected to?
August 30, 2013, 09:55:07 PM
Just wanted to say the upgrade is great Luke, my HW% is now floating around .50-.70% now. It was around ~1% before.
Sent you a Bitcent donation as Thanks
Sent you a Bitcent donation as Thanks
August 30, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
NEW VERSION 3.2.0, AUGUST 30 2013
This release is the first of a new stable-focused 3.2.x branch. Many new improvements have been added, plus a merge from cgminer 3.4.0. BFGMiner 3.1.x is now discontinued, but bugfixes have been backported to 3.0.7 and 2.10.13.
...
This release is the first of a new stable-focused 3.2.x branch. Many new improvements have been added, plus a merge from cgminer 3.4.0. BFGMiner 3.1.x is now discontinued, but bugfixes have been backported to 3.0.7 and 2.10.13.
...
Does not compile
My system: x86/Ubuntu/Linaro
./configure: all disabled except bitforce and ztex.
I'm using the source from the tgz in the first post.
First error:
Code:
CC bfgminer-httpsrv.o
In file included from httpsrv.c:16:0:
/usr/include/microhttpd.h:893:55: error: unknown type name ‘va_list’
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-httpsrv.o] Error 1
In file included from httpsrv.c:16:0:
/usr/include/microhttpd.h:893:55: error: unknown type name ‘va_list’
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-httpsrv.o] Error 1
An #include
Code:
CC bfgminer-driver-getwork.o
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘getwork_gen_error’:
driver-getwork.c:109:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_create_response_from_buffer’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:109:85: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
driver-getwork.c:109:85: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘handle_getwork’:
driver-getwork.c:169:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_basic_auth_get_username_password’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:169:7: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
driver-getwork.c:173:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_queue_basic_auth_fail_response’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:252:58: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-driver-getwork.o] Error 1
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘getwork_gen_error’:
driver-getwork.c:109:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_create_response_from_buffer’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:109:85: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
driver-getwork.c:109:85: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘handle_getwork’:
driver-getwork.c:169:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_basic_auth_get_username_password’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:169:7: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
driver-getwork.c:173:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_queue_basic_auth_fail_response’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:252:58: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-driver-getwork.o] Error 1
Can you confirm the version?
Code:
grep Version $(pkg-config --variable=pcfiledir libmicrohttpd)/libmicrohttpd.pc
It's Version: 0.4.6
So you are right, it's a very old version, but you get it with apt-get. Tomorrow I will try the latest one.
August 30, 2013, 01:06:45 PM
Do people still use load balancing mode? When? Unreliable pools/connections?
I never understood the benefit of running in load balancing mode.
If you are on non-PPS payout, what is the benefit of load balancing if you are connected to reliable/fast pools.
I fail to see any.
The 'benefit' of load balancing is less short term variance; you are spreading work across a much larger hashrate base. I never understood the benefit of running in load balancing mode.
If you are on non-PPS payout, what is the benefit of load balancing if you are connected to reliable/fast pools.
I fail to see any.
If I spread my hashrate among 3 pools each with 30Thps, that would be the equivalent of mining at a single 90Thps pool ... which provides 1/3 the variance of pointing all my hashrate at a single 30Thps pool. Same expected payout in either case, just less variance when load-balancing.
I put 'benefit' in quotes because not everyone will agree that less variance is a 'benefit'. Most would; otherwise they'd be solo mining.
August 30, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
NEW VERSION 3.2.0, AUGUST 30 2013
This release is the first of a new stable-focused 3.2.x branch. Many new improvements have been added, plus a merge from cgminer 3.4.0. BFGMiner 3.1.x is now discontinued, but bugfixes have been backported to 3.0.7 and 2.10.13.
...
This release is the first of a new stable-focused 3.2.x branch. Many new improvements have been added, plus a merge from cgminer 3.4.0. BFGMiner 3.1.x is now discontinued, but bugfixes have been backported to 3.0.7 and 2.10.13.
...
Does not compile
My system: x86/Ubuntu/Linaro
./configure: all disabled except bitforce and ztex.
I'm using the source from the tgz in the first post.
First error:
Code:
CC bfgminer-httpsrv.o
In file included from httpsrv.c:16:0:
/usr/include/microhttpd.h:893:55: error: unknown type name ‘va_list’
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-httpsrv.o] Error 1
In file included from httpsrv.c:16:0:
/usr/include/microhttpd.h:893:55: error: unknown type name ‘va_list’
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-httpsrv.o] Error 1
An #include
Code:
CC bfgminer-driver-getwork.o
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘getwork_gen_error’:
driver-getwork.c:109:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_create_response_from_buffer’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:109:85: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
driver-getwork.c:109:85: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘handle_getwork’:
driver-getwork.c:169:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_basic_auth_get_username_password’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:169:7: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
driver-getwork.c:173:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_queue_basic_auth_fail_response’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:252:58: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-driver-getwork.o] Error 1
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘getwork_gen_error’:
driver-getwork.c:109:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_create_response_from_buffer’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:109:85: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
driver-getwork.c:109:85: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
driver-getwork.c: In function ‘handle_getwork’:
driver-getwork.c:169:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_basic_auth_get_username_password’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:169:7: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
driver-getwork.c:173:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘MHD_queue_basic_auth_fail_response’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
driver-getwork.c:252:58: error: ‘MHD_RESPMEM_MUST_FREE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [bfgminer-driver-getwork.o] Error 1
Can you confirm the version?
Code:
grep Version $(pkg-config --variable=pcfiledir libmicrohttpd)/libmicrohttpd.pc
Code:
--without-libmicrohttpd
helps, but I want the builtin getwork server 
BTW: Do you have read my last error post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3017263 ?
This should be fixed.Is there a way to get the current share difficulty from the API? Would be useful for some monitoring tools.
The "pools" method has this info per-pool.I guess someone should add a way to determine which pool(s) are actively in use?
Cool.
"Last Share Difficulty" would give me that info, right?
Also, keep in mind that it's possible for devices to be hashing different difficulty works, around changes.
To find out which pool is connected, I'd have to walk the list from priority 0-N and check which one is alive.
The one with the lowest priority and alive status is the one that is being connected to?
Only in Failover mode. The one with the lowest priority and alive status is the one that is being connected to?
Jump to: