No problem.
Done
Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 62. (Read 32072 times)
Hello,
No problem.
Done
No problem.
Done
Hello jean_luc I would like to send you an MP but it would be necessary if you would like to activate this option in your profile because otherwise the New can not. 
Hello,
I published a new release (1.3) with a ~15% global performance increase, (~20% on GPU).
On my hardware, VanitySearch is now 2 times faster (GPU) than oclvanitygen.
My goal was to reach a 8 characters (case sensitive) prefix in a reasonable time on my 6 years old hardware, it still need 2 weeks of computation for a 50% probability.
I'm not sure I will reach my goal of 2 or 3 days without changing my hardware
The next step will be to handle multiple GPU and to support CUDA for linux.
I published a new release (1.3) with a ~15% global performance increase, (~20% on GPU).
On my hardware, VanitySearch is now 2 times faster (GPU) than oclvanitygen.
My goal was to reach a 8 characters (case sensitive) prefix in a reasonable time on my 6 years old hardware, it still need 2 weeks of computation for a 50% probability.
I'm not sure I will reach my goal of 2 or 3 days without changing my hardware
The next step will be to handle multiple GPU and to support CUDA for linux.
Hello,
Thank you for your interest and for reporting issues
I just published a new release (v1.2):
-Updated probability calculation for very large prefix
-Avoid that default configuration hangs the system when gpu is enabled
-Performance increase (~10%)
Thank you for your interest and for reporting issues
I just published a new release (v1.2):
-Updated probability calculation for very large prefix
-Avoid that default configuration hangs the system when gpu is enabled
-Performance increase (~10%)
Great to see someone continuing to develop an open source vanity application. I'll have to check this out when I get an opportunity.
Thanks for testing
The 2 "Check" fields are here especially for debugging/checking purposes. The 2 'checked' addresses are recomputed from the private key by a direct multiplication. To reach the desired address, during the search, generator points are added one by one.
You're right by default, if you just add the -gpu option, all CPU cores are used and it slows down much the system and even the GPU. The CPU cannot handle GPU/CPU transfer efficiently. I wrote few words about this on the README but I will let one CPU core free if the gpu is selected.
The 2 "Check" fields are here especially for debugging/checking purposes. The 2 'checked' addresses are recomputed from the private key by a direct multiplication. To reach the desired address, during the search, generator points are added one by one.
You're right by default, if you just add the -gpu option, all CPU cores are used and it slows down much the system and even the GPU. The CPU cannot handle GPU/CPU transfer efficiently. I wrote few words about this on the README but I will let one CPU core free if the gpu is selected.
Hello
I've just published a new release. There is also a makefile for Linux but it supports only CPU release. CUDA release for Linux is coming. I'm very interested in knowing performance you get on your hardware (Linux/Windows/CPU/GPU).
Thanks for testing and reporting issues.
I've just published a new release. There is also a makefile for Linux but it supports only CPU release. CUDA release for Linux is coming. I'm very interested in knowing performance you get on your hardware (Linux/Windows/CPU/GPU).
Thanks for testing and reporting issues.
Yes,
For the CPU code it should not be a problem unless some intrinsics are missing with gcc. I have to check.
Concerning CUDA, I have to install the Cuda SDK on a Linux machine and try to compile, that should not be a big deal.
There is only few Windows specific functions (concerning high resolution timer) but I can easily make a linux code for it using gettimeofday().
I let you informed.
For the CPU code it should not be a problem unless some intrinsics are missing with gcc. I have to check.
Concerning CUDA, I have to install the Cuda SDK on a Linux machine and try to compile, that should not be a big deal.
There is only few Windows specific functions (concerning high resolution timer) but I can easily make a linux code for it using gettimeofday().
I let you informed.
Do you have any plan to write this for Linux? Or provide a guide to compile it on Linux?
I might try it on my Linux and will compare it with Vanitygen (my laptop is old, so it might worth to compare directly here).
I might try it on my Linux and will compare it with Vanitygen (my laptop is old, so it might worth to compare directly here).
Hello,
I would like to present a new bitcoin prefix address finder called VanitySearch. It is very similar to Vanitygen.
The main differences with Vanitygen are that VanitySearch is not using the heavy OpenSSL for CPU calculation and that the kernel is written in Cuda in order to take full advantage of inline PTX assembly.
On my Intel Core i7-4770, VanitySearch runs ~4 times faster than vanitygen64. (1.32 Mkey/s -> 5.27 MK/s)
On my GeForce GTX 645, VanitySearch runs ~1.5 times faster than oclvanitygen. (9.26 Mkey/s -> 14.548 MK/s)
If you want to compare VanitySearch and Vanitygen result, use the -u option for searching uncompressed address.
VanitySearch may not compute a good gridsize for your GPU, so make several tries using -g options in order to find best performances.
Using compressed addresses is roughly 20% faster.
VanitySearch is available from https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch
Benchmarks for various hardware (By DaveF):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50823897
There is still lots of improvement to do.
Feel free to test it and to submit issue.
Thanks.
Sorry for my bad English.
Jean-Luc
I would like to present a new bitcoin prefix address finder called VanitySearch. It is very similar to Vanitygen.
The main differences with Vanitygen are that VanitySearch is not using the heavy OpenSSL for CPU calculation and that the kernel is written in Cuda in order to take full advantage of inline PTX assembly.
On my Intel Core i7-4770, VanitySearch runs ~4 times faster than vanitygen64. (1.32 Mkey/s -> 5.27 MK/s)
On my GeForce GTX 645, VanitySearch runs ~1.5 times faster than oclvanitygen. (9.26 Mkey/s -> 14.548 MK/s)
If you want to compare VanitySearch and Vanitygen result, use the -u option for searching uncompressed address.
VanitySearch may not compute a good gridsize for your GPU, so make several tries using -g options in order to find best performances.
Using compressed addresses is roughly 20% faster.
VanitySearch is available from https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch
Benchmarks for various hardware (By DaveF):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50823897
There is still lots of improvement to do.
Feel free to test it and to submit issue.
Thanks.
Sorry for my bad English.
Jean-Luc
Jump to: