I seem to only get a max usage of 30% on my GPU.
Edit: 6950 with shaders unlocked.
Same problem with a 5970, only about 40% GPU load. I've tried a variety of settings.Edit: 6950 with shaders unlocked.
Topic: Phoenix - Efficient, fast, modular miner - page 52. (Read 760706 times)
Any idea why it's not maxing out my gpu jedi tried it with all different flags.
I don't have a 69xx card to test with, so I couldn't say for sure.
Do other miners load the card to 100%?
Yeah they do I guess I'll wait for feedback from others who have a 69xx card. Thanks for the response if it would use 100% it seems it would be about 30 mhash/s faster
The only similar behavior I can produce on a 5870 is low GPU usage with AGGRESSION=1 or not specified. Try using AGGRESSION=7 if you haven't already.
I tried 10, 12, I even put it up to 5,000 lol but will try 7 real quick thanks.
Edit: errm it might help if I spelled "aggression" right lol it works now sorry for the bother.
Any idea why it's not maxing out my gpu jedi tried it with all different flags.
I don't have a 69xx card to test with, so I couldn't say for sure.
Do other miners load the card to 100%?
Yeah they do I guess I'll wait for feedback from others who have a 69xx card. Thanks for the response if it would use 100% it seems it would be about 30 mhash/s faster
The only similar behavior I can produce on a 5870 is low GPU usage with AGGRESSION=1 or not specified. Try using AGGRESSION=7 if you haven't already.
Any idea why it's not maxing out my gpu jedi tried it with all different flags.
I don't have a 69xx card to test with, so I couldn't say for sure.
Do other miners load the card to 100%?
Yeah they do I guess I'll wait for feedback from others who have a 69xx card. Thanks for the response if it would use 100% it seems it would be about 30 mhash/s faster
Any idea why it's not maxing out my gpu jedi tried it with all different flags.
I don't have a 69xx card to test with, so I couldn't say for sure.
Do other miners load the card to 100%?
Any idea why it's not maxing out my gpu jedi tried it with all different flags.
Decent increase ~10% 
, only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get :
[26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
, only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get : [26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
Yeah can take a week or more to generate while solo. Was unaware LP worked with solo though?
This is normal, we will be adding a debug message indicating when difficulty 1 shares are found but not submitted. (like when solo mining) Since you have -v enabled you will be able to see these messages.
Also, bitcoind doesn't support LP, so you might want to specify an askrate.
Decent increase ~10% , only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get :
[26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
, only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get : [26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
Yeah can take a week or more to generate while solo. Was unaware LP worked with solo though?
Decent increase ~10% , only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get :
[26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
, only question is, is it doing anything? Mining solo I only get : [26/04/2011 01:07:52] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:02] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:13] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[26/04/2011 01:08:24] Server gave new work; passing to WorkQueue
[404.10 Mhash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected] [RPC]
Is it normal to get 0 Accepted while solo?
deepbit. But the problem seems to be gone when I lower my aggression to 12. Does this mean my miner is trying to work even faster at 14 but can not due to limitations getting work?
Im getting ~362mhps per core on 5970. Best I could do on poclbm is 330.
Im getting ~362mhps per core on 5970. Best I could do on poclbm is 330.
After reading your post I tried Aggression=14 on deepbit too. Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle. With 13 it´s running fine.
Im getting a ton of "work queue empty, minder is idle" messages
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
That's interesting. Are you mining solo or in a pool? If so, what pool?
You may need to speak with your pool operator about this.
Could you post the URL you are using? (edit out the username and password)
deepbit. But the problem seems to be gone when I lower my aggression to 12. Does this mean my miner is trying to work even faster at 14 but can not due to limitations getting work?
Im getting ~362mhps per core on 5970. Best I could do on poclbm is 330.
What's interesting is RPCProtocol doesn't use any Python HTTP libraries, it's all done through Twisted;
so while it could be a problem in Twisted, I don't think the linked bug is the answer.
The lack of TCP_NODELAY is interesting. Doesn't that only disable Nagle's algorithm, which affects sends?
How would it delay received data?
I didn't saw your source yet and can only see the results at my side, sorry.so while it could be a problem in Twisted, I don't think the linked bug is the answer.
The lack of TCP_NODELAY is interesting. Doesn't that only disable Nagle's algorithm, which affects sends?
How would it delay received data?
It means that the reason for that delay is different. Look for a log fragment in PM.
Im getting a ton of "work queue empty, minder is idle" messages
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
That's interesting. Are you mining solo or in a pool? If so, what pool?
You may need to speak with your pool operator about this.
Could you post the URL you are using? (edit out the username and password)
I seem to only get a max usage of 30% on my GPU.
Edit: 6950 with shaders unlocked.
Edit: 6950 with shaders unlocked.
Well, running -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT with my 5870 @980/300
With poclbm (gui) and the fix I was getting 376 M hash/sec.
With Phoenix I´m getting 412 M hash/sec.
What is the Max aggresision value I can use?
I´m getting this message sometimes Kernel error: Unusual behavior from OpenCL. Hardware problem? Is this happening due to a non stable oc?
Should I be running any other command?
BTW, GRAET WORK!
With poclbm (gui) and the fix I was getting 376 M hash/sec.
With Phoenix I´m getting 412 M hash/sec.
What is the Max aggresision value I can use?
I´m getting this message sometimes Kernel error: Unusual behavior from OpenCL. Hardware problem? Is this happening due to a non stable oc?
Should I be running any other command?
BTW, GRAET WORK!
"Kernel error: Unusual behavior from OpenCL. Hardware problem?"
This means that the OpenCL kernel returned a nonce that supposedly met the target of 1, but when this nonce is verified on the CPU it does not. This usually means your overclock is unstable.
Im getting a ton of "work queue empty, minder is idle" messages
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
What server/pool are you connecting to? This usually indicates that the server is not responding to requests for work in a timely manner. This can also happen if you use a queue size that's too small. (default of 1 should work for basically any GPU currently, unless you set it to 0 this probably isn't the issue)
Im getting a ton of "work queue empty, minder is idle" messages
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
im on a 5970 flags are -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=14 BFI_INT
I originally wanted to put it in a git repository when we started the project, but the setup was more complex than svn's.
We'd be happy to migrate now, however our classes depend on svn's revision numbers for versioning in a few places.
Does anybody know if there's a direct analog in git?
Until then, feel free to send us patch files for review.
There is a git svn interface, you can setup a git repository on, e.g. github, and sync it with your internal subversion repository.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-svn.html
I used to use subversion and after learning git, I find it much better.
My patches would probably not interest general audience. I corrected the endianness bug (in an ugly way for those who know python better) by printing
Code:
hexHash[6]+hexHash[7]+hexHash[4]+hexHash[5]+hexHash[2]+hexHash[3]+hexHash[0]+hexHash[1]
instead of hexhash[-8:].I also removed checking the target (so the calculation is always difficulty 1) and removed some printing so it will not clutter my logs.
Well, running -k poclbm DEVICE=0 VECTORS AGGRESSION=13 BFI_INT with my 5870 @980/300
With poclbm (gui) and the fix I was getting 376 M hash/sec.
With Phoenix I´m getting 412 M hash/sec.
What is the Max aggresision value I can use?
I´m getting this message sometimes Kernel error: Unusual behavior from OpenCL. Hardware problem? Is this happening due to a non stable oc?
Should I be running any other command?
BTW, GRAET WORK!
With poclbm (gui) and the fix I was getting 376 M hash/sec.
With Phoenix I´m getting 412 M hash/sec.
What is the Max aggresision value I can use?
I´m getting this message sometimes Kernel error: Unusual behavior from OpenCL. Hardware problem? Is this happening due to a non stable oc?
Should I be running any other command?
BTW, GRAET WORK!
Under-clocking mem. clock on Linux can be down simply using the little tool linked to in this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.74527
Read what "Ian" has to say ... you just have to move the slider down to 300 (or whatever you choose) and when you go back to "$aticonfig --odgc --adapter=all" on CLI then low mem. speeds will be available ... then do the "aticonfig" command for clock speed you want (all at your own risk of course).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.74527
Read what "Ian" has to say ... you just have to move the slider down to 300 (or whatever you choose) and when you go back to "$aticonfig --odgc --adapter=all" on CLI then low mem. speeds will be available ... then do the "aticonfig" command for clock speed you want (all at your own risk of course).
jedi95,
Are you going to create a git repository for phoenix? It would be much easier to track changes. I also did some local modifications (e.g., I run the miner with difficulty 1) and it would be much easier to apply them with git.
Are you going to create a git repository for phoenix? It would be much easier to track changes. I also did some local modifications (e.g., I run the miner with difficulty 1) and it would be much easier to apply them with git.
I originally wanted to put it in a git repository when we started the project, but the setup was more complex than svn's.
We'd be happy to migrate now, however our classes depend on svn's revision numbers for versioning in a few places.
Does anybody know if there's a direct analog in git?
Until then, feel free to send us patch files for review.
Jump to: