Wolf's XMR/BCN/DSH CPUMiner - 2x speed compared to LucasJones' - NEW 06/20/2014 - page 12.

Mysteriousdewd

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: slb on August 08, 2014, 09:48:37 AM

Hi,
I am trying to compile on Mac, but I receive this error when I 'make'

Quote

make[3]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'.
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -pthread -Qunused-arguments -falign-loops=16 -falign-functions=16 -falign-jumps=16 -falign-labels=16 -Ofast -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -funroll-loops -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores -fmerge-all-constants -fbranch-target-load-optimize2 -fsched2-use-superblocks -maes -MT minerd-cpu-miner.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/minerd-cpu-miner.Tpo -c -o minerd-cpu-miner.o `test -f 'cpu-miner.c' || echo './'`cpu-miner.c
clang: error: unknown argument: '-falign-loops=16' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-falign-jumps=16' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-falign-labels=16' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-fuse-linker-plugin' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-fvariable-expansion-in-unroller' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-ftree-loop-if-convert-stores' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-fbranch-target-load-optimize2' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
clang: error: unknown argument: '-fsched2-use-superblocks' [-Wunused-command-line-argument-hard-error-in-future]
clang: note: this will be a hard error (cannot be downgraded to a warning) in the future
make[2]: *** [minerd-cpu-miner.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [all] Error 2

I have the dependencies installed. 'autogen.sh' and 'configure' run without errors.

I am having the same issue as this person but I see no one has suggested a solution. Could someone help me out with this. I was told to use a makefile from cpuminer-multi and thought all I would need to do is copy it from there and paste into wolfs-m7m folder but when I attempted to configure/make it it only hit me with errors.

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 04:19:12 PM

Quote from: Wolf0 on July 12, 2014, 04:04:51 PM

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 04:50:34 AM

I'm getting different results when running the miner on all threads vs only physical cores.

On newer CPUs i'm getting up to 50% more power when running only on physical cpu cores. On older CPUs (also with AES) i get 50% less when using only physical cores.
Why is this ?

That isn't obvious? Newer CPUs tend to be faster, and I don't mean in terms of clock speeds. They improve shit like out of order execution, speculative execution, branch prediction...

I think you misunderstood my post, example below :

dual E5-2620 (12 cores/24 threads)

-t 23 (default when run without -t tag) does around 310H/s
-t 12 (physical cores) does around 390H/s

Dual E5620 (8 cores/16 threads)
-t 15 (default when run without -t tag) does around 150H/s
-t 8 (physical cores) does around 100H/s

EDIT:Dual E5620 figures might not be correct, i performed tests earlier today (couple hours) and no longer have access. Difference was 50%

Oh, I see. Odd... maybe the older CPUs did hyperthreading better?

sonny8888

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

I only have 150H/s on 2 Xeon L5639s

Help Huh

ashfaq

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

so we cant mine with 32 bit Huh

?

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 04:50:34 AM

I'm getting different results when running the miner on all threads vs only physical cores.

On newer CPUs i'm getting up to 50% more power when running only on physical cpu cores. On older CPUs (also with AES) i get 50% less when using only physical cores.
Why is this ?

That isn't obvious? Newer CPUs tend to be faster, and I don't mean in terms of clock speeds. They improve shit like out of order execution, speculative execution, branch prediction...

DirtyUniverse

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

All I want is a new CLEAN page for just to live!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DirtyUniverse on April 02, 2015, 05:48:30 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DirtyUniverse on April 02, 2015, 05:24:25 PM

Hello, I just get this :

why i cant see all outputs? I want see my hashrate..

Dumping that to screen takes time, slowing the miner - which is why I removed it and only showed hashrate when a share is found.

i can reactive it?

No, I didn't say I deactivated it, I removed it.

Okay boss.
Now i have another question.. How i can compile on freebsd x64? When i try make, i got errors..

Rytir_fik

full member

Activity: 139

Merit: 100

Quote from: gorserg on April 03, 2015, 05:23:55 AM

Hi! Where can I find minerd with support cryptonight for Windows 32 bit?

32 bit is not supported. Cry

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: ajiekceu4 on July 11, 2014, 05:39:42 PM

Download links broken. (ottrbutt.com and 46.105.182.112 didn't response).

Fixed - and had my VPS provider whipped. >.<

gorserg

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Hi! Where can I find minerd with support cryptonight for Windows 32 bit?

DirtyUniverse

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

All I want is a new CLEAN page for just to live!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DirtyUniverse on April 02, 2015, 05:24:25 PM

Hello, I just get this :

why i cant see all outputs? I want see my hashrate..

Dumping that to screen takes time, slowing the miner - which is why I removed it and only showed hashrate when a share is found.

i can reactive it?

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: sleepdog on July 10, 2014, 09:07:19 AM

I meant that if yours is quicker than his on AES-NI systems it must be down to that part of the code that uses AES-NI.

I'm running 2008 R2 Enterprise.

Nah, your problem is Windows. My AES-NI miner is faster than his on Windows and Linux. My non-AES-NI miner is only faster than his on Linux, I believe.

DirtyUniverse

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

All I want is a new CLEAN page for just to live!

Hello, I just get this :

why i cant see all outputs? I want see my hashrate..

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: sleepdog on July 10, 2014, 07:57:03 AM

Similar results here. I ran some tests with a dual E5520 server.

cpu-multi / LucasJones (these are the same thing, right?) v2.3.3 gets max 148 H/s and is pretty much always over 140.

Wolf's newly provided non-AES version gets 118 H/s max, with a range of 100 - 118.

Looks like any advantages of Wolf's miner come from the AES-NI code.

Lucas' code has AES-NI, as well. What OS?

d0om

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

Ah, there it is. Does it still not work on VPS? If so, why not?

TradeManager

newbie

Activity: 16

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on March 28, 2015, 09:24:31 PM

Quote from: firecrabby on March 28, 2015, 02:23:45 PM

Hey guys, what about Opteron 8222 - http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Second%20Generation%20Opteron%208222%20-%20OSA8222GAA6CY%20(OSA8222CYWOF).html

How much h/s per core it will make?

With apparently only 1mb of cache per core and no aesni I would not expect a whole lot. Not worth it if you are paying for electricity.

wolf im impressed with all the work you have done with your miners, keep on keepin on buddy!

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: firecrabby on March 28, 2015, 02:23:45 PM

Hey guys, what about Opteron 8222 - http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Second%20Generation%20Opteron%208222%20-%20OSA8222GAA6CY%20(OSA8222CYWOF).html

How much h/s per core it will make?

With apparently only 1mb of cache per core and no aesni I would not expect a whole lot. Not worth it if you are paying for electricity.

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: dragonmike on July 09, 2014, 02:25:45 PM

Probably a compatibility issue.
Testing on crypto-pool.fr gives more consistent results. Using -t 2 and -t 4 give similar result of between 40 and 50 H/s on the miner and the website... which is also consistent with the figure I would get from the Minergate client... except there I'd get 20% more from merged mining.

Actually, there you'd probably get huge amounts of stales because no support for stratum, IIRC. You are using http:// with MinerGate, right?

Also, you seriously have a good opinion of MinerGate? I don't think you're lying or anything, just weird, as I've talked to literally dozens of people who don't like it - you're the first person I've talked to who does.

mirny

legendary

Activity: 1108

Merit: 1005