Topic: Team Black Miner (ETHW ETC Vertcoin Ravencoin Zilliqa +dual +tripple mining ) - page 97. (Read 35049 times)

I will write a pool tuning guide later.

Accepted/Rejected/Stale/ (Accepted/rejected percentage)
1000      /   1       /16    / (99.9%)

If you see alot of shares on the 3rd column, your xintensity is probobly too high. If you get more than 1% stale shares and the pool doesn't pay for stales reduce the xintensity. If you get rejected shares (2 column) check in the log what the error is. Perhaps your clocks are too high. when tuning use gpuz to check the workload of the gpu. At xintensity 1 the gpu is only working 95%. You save some power, but hashrate is lost.. .--xintensity 224 is giving 100% gpu workload. This give good results on miningpoolhub, 2miners, nanopool, woolypooly and many other pools.

Higher xintensity more power, better hashrate, but lower poolside hashrate on some pools.
Low xintensity less power (The tdp of the cards can be reduced without hurting performance) fewer rejected shares, less stale shares. Works on more pools. but Lower local hashrate

Thank you. I have GTX 1070

Different cards need different tuning

A user reported good results on the AMD RX 5500 with --xintensity 24

Hello ppl. Maybe somebody tested different --xintensity for Binance pool, which is better?

used 256, testing 224 now.(default in v1.12) Looking good.

Are you using xintensity 224 or 256 while mining from miningpoolhub?

v1.12
1. Bugfix for null pointer and empty buffer with Zil mining.
2. One letter or two letter board mark added to stats board number.
3. Do not query OpenCL version on systems with no OpenCL devices.
4. Added new option --nvidia-only.
5. xIntensity option for every device.
6. Restore performance opencl
7. Default xIntensity on nvidia changed to 224 (improves performance on some pools)

https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/releases

TeamBlackMiner_1_12_cuda_11_4.7z
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/458d188d41ded9a95112bc3b3d374f17b5f91dd158a4cb865e1cd05729dbb976?nocache=1

TeamBlackMiner_1_12_cuda_11_2.7z
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/15deb41bb12f59918ae324f8a7fb0c4c518a991d7daf02b88465d9c3b862304a?nocache=1

TeamBlackMiner_1_12_Ubuntu_18_04_Cuda_11_4.7z
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/355ebe8bd058cb2cf2b3f1894f0a2e9e2383975cf5463200604d4a11cfaafda6?nocache=1

Try miningpoolhub.com I always get good returns there. 100 000 accepted shares 0 rejected.


Problems with some of your cards? To high clocks perhaps? Look for cpu validation errors in the logfile.

Exactly. I got 580 mh/s average (poolside) on nanopool after 12 hours, which is nice since my reported hashrate is usually 575 mh/s with the other miners. But I got 0.0047 eth out of it, when I get 0.0055 eth from flexpool. A better poolside hashrate doesn't always mean a better revenue.

I'm saying there is more to the picture than just the data on that page and it makes sense to analyze everything about pool+mining software+tune stability before moving. Higher highrate with stales on a pool is good and well, but if it's not leading to more crypto in the wallet at the end of the day it's just mind games.

We've seen pools be deceptive with miner rewards. I don't blindly trust that pools compensating stale shares on the surface are not pulling from somewhere else. So yes, I want more data to prove the % gain in hashrate by switching pools for TBM (with more stales) translates to more actual rewards/payout.

Keep making TBM the best you can and presenting the data as it evolves.

Basicly you are claiming that this page isn't working...

https://www.miningpoolsprofits.com/how-it-works

---

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

It will require more testing as TBM matures I think.

I have not seen an effective hashrate increase with TBM on flexpool yet even with the lower fee, for example.

I understand the point that pools which pay for stale shares will give you a higher hashrate with the miner. But we have to consider the hashrate gain versus each pool's payout holistically. What is squeezing that extra hashrate poolside with stales at the expense of (withdrawal fees, pool not paying out other parts of the total reward, etc)?

TBM 1.11, Nicehash & RTX 3080

I am pretty pleased with -xxintensity 177 setting (I used 7 on version 1.05)

TBM reports average 98.44MH/s (Nicehash reports 108.88 MH/s as accepted speed? I forgot Nicehash does report average over time, just "current")

(1042/8/0), 226w

core -175MHz
memory +1000MHz
PL 75%

ok, yesterday moved one more 3060 to tbm 1.11 for test:

  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046] miningpoolhub.com (ethash)    PING: 385ms    DIFFICULTY: 3.00     EPOCH: 445
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]                                                                            
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046] ID   BOARD   TYPE   TEMP   FAN   CORE   MEM   WATT   kW/h   COST/h
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046] GPU0   3060   Cuda   51/0   90   1504   8432   113   0.11   0.01USD
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]                      113   0.11   0.01USD
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046] ID   BOARD   HASHRATE/W   HASHRATE   AVERAGE      SHARES
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046] GPU0   3060   449.26 kH/W   50.77 MH/s   50.76 MH/s   332/0/0 (100.00)
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]       449.26 kH/W   50.77 MH/s   50.76 MH/s   332/0/0 (100.00)
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]                                                                            
  1302m [2021-10-07 17:02:34.046]

then

  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046] miningpoolhub.com (ethash)    PING: 383ms    DIFFICULTY: 3.00     EPOCH: 445
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046]                                                                            
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046]
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046] ID   BOARD   TYPE   TEMP   FAN   CORE   MEM   WATT   kW/h   COST/h
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046] GPU0   3060   Cuda   51/0   90   1585   8432   113   0.11   0.01USD
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046]                      113   0.11   0.01USD
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046]
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046] ID   BOARD   HASHRATE/W   HASHRATE   AVERAGE      SHARES
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046] GPU0   3060   406.26 kH/W   45.91 MH/s   46.55 MH/s   333/0/0 (100.00)
  1306m [2021-10-07 17:06:38.046]       406.26 kH/W   45.91 MH/s   46.55 MH/s   333/0/0 (100.00)

Now without toching anything this rig started to have same problem like the one with 3 cards, but that one is running fine with 1.09. So, more and more i'm sure that 1.10 and up are broken. Few hours later it is still with same slow hashrate.

  1628m [2021-10-07 22:34:00.073] GPU0   3060   417.76 kH/W   46.79 MH/s   45.21 MH/s   396/0/0 (100.00)

Just moved it to 1.09, lets see.

Why don't you try a 24h test on https://crazypool.org/ Compare the result in $$$ / 24hours

---

The team black school
MC68060 (1996) @50mhz AGA chipset (1992) bitplane graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPdB_zdyMbM


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

I did, but using -1 led to lower hashrates than the other miners to avoid the stales.

Also, woolypooly has a way too low hashrate to my taste to actually move to it.

Testing on nanopool for 24 hours now.

yes, on the right miningpool

---

Do a test on https://woolypooly.com/

---

In order to measure the real performance you need the pool and the miner to talk the same language. We added the --xintensity to increase the performance poolside. Did you try --xintensity -1 ?


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Be careful. It's a low hashrate pool, which might lead to a bad streak period at first if you're looking at the generated revenue only.

---

ethermine, hi diff port (14444), intensity 224 :


Average effective : 545 mh/s

---

Just still waiting for a single pool + single intensity value to lead to a real better efficiency.

I'm not related to any project. Dunno where this conspiracy post will lead you up to. My only link to the mining world was a website, myha.sh, whose purpose was actually to provide real infos from poolside datas. Exactly what I'm trying to find out here.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

What was the stale share rate? PPLNS pools doesn't like pool hopping 2hours isn't enough time. you need 24hours++

Tested 224 for 2 hours. The results actually aren't better.

I'll try nanopool. But I'm surprised there's no clear answer on the best pool to use with this miner.