[XMR] JCE Miner Cryptonight/forks, now with GPU! - page 67.

heavyarms1912

full member

Activity: 729

Merit: 114

Quote from: dingdongtobias on August 02, 2018, 04:05:51 PM

I agree with you, alsow what is the point of mining a coin 15 minute, than switch to other Huh

People are crazy.

It seems like they were cheating the dev fee. It's not worth switching a coin in an hour or two. You introduce additional latencies: drop current work, connect to new pool, switch kernels, get new work. Am I missing something.

@JCE-Miner. I mine CN-saber and pretty good results with it (more than any other miner).
CN-Heavy is supposed to be lighter than CN-Saber and so potential we should get higher hashrates on that algo.

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

CN-Red is for MOX coin

Quote

Some miners dont show you even this.

I think Doktor talks about JCE here, but that's pointless, since i've control over my netcode, i can mine devfee for 10mn and report on screen i mine fee for 1mn. A close source miner internal report worth nothing. Like the Claymore -nofee hashrates that were tweaked. Only one info is trustfull : your pool report. Period.

dingdongtobias

newbie

Activity: 156

Merit: 0

I agree with you, alsow what is the point of mining a coin 15 minute, than switch to other Huh

People are crazy.

Iamtutut

full member

Activity: 1120

Merit: 131

Quote from: JCE-Miner on August 02, 2018, 01:55:15 PM

Hello all,
* Cryptonight-Red fork if i've time enough to do it. It's a mix of XTL and CN-Light

This fork is for which coin ?

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

I mixed the Claymore fee system (randomized timed fees) and the SRB overall rate (~54s/100mn). If you want to mine fee-free with JCE, kill it after 1mn, or even use the parameter -q 1 so it closes by itself after 1mn. It's the documented and official no-fee mode of JCE.

Quote

JCE never takes any fee during the first minute, so if you run it, and kill it after one minute, and repeat again and again, then you'll never pay any fee

- github doc

I prefered it compared to the stupid -nofee mode of Claymore that dropped 5% of your shares (10% measured on Claymore 10+) as a vengeance, keeping the then wrong 100% hashrate display and 100% power consumption.

edit: I took a look at SRB topic, and yes people are crazy. Doktor speech is right: he takes 0.85% on the long term, period. on 24h that's 0.85% of 24h, period. JCE does that since the very first version. As I said, that's the Claymore-style. I'm surprised Doktor still used fixed timed fees up to his 1.6.4...

My argumument for JCE is simple : look at your pool. Forget the stale shares, the fees, the average rates... Your pool, focus on your pool. Mine with miner X, Y... and JCE. Keep the one which gives more shares to your pool, period.

dingdongtobias

newbie

Activity: 156

Merit: 0

Quote from: JCE-Miner on August 02, 2018, 03:39:39 PM

It's randomized, average of ~54s every 100min, like SRB, on the long term. Since it's randomized, it may be slightly more or less every time, but in a small extent. The random is to avoid raisonnance with the user pool, in case it itself sends a new session every N minutes (like the 10mn of Nicehash).

You can check all this with you pool, the real pool side hashrate is supposed to be about 2% lower than the average hashrate of your rig (~1% for fees and ~1% for stale shares, with Nicehash losing more stale shares than other pools).

I ask this because there are mad people at SRB thread, because the way the fee is mine is changed, now they cant kill process every hour and skip fee, because fee 1 is mined at 4 min.
And if they start the miner 24 time a days, then its 24 fee mining.

You got also the same problem probably, just people still not mad Grin

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

It's randomized, average of ~54s every 100min, like SRB, on the long term. Since it's randomized, it may be slightly more or less every time, but in a small extent. The random is to avoid raisonnance with the user pool, in case it itself sends a new session every N minutes (like the 10mn of Nicehash).

You can check all this with you pool, the real pool side hashrate is supposed to be about 2% lower than the average hashrate of your rig (~1% for fees and ~1% for stale shares, with Nicehash losing more stale shares than other pools).

edit: the GPU hashrate @0.00 is a bug i already fixed in the 0.32g i'm testing for now. It's a display bug and does not block your GPU.

dingdongtobias

newbie

Activity: 156

Merit: 0

Can You tell us JCE how is the fee mined on GPU ?
All we knou is 0.9% and not in first minut.

How often and how long is the fee mining?

Uaciuganadu

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Quote from: JCE-Miner on August 02, 2018, 02:30:29 PM

JSON : if you use the normal JCE mode, it's quite readable, with clean names and indentation.
The XMRStak mode is a byte-exact redo of legacy Stak format, on purpose. Stak produces a one-liner, so i do the same.

Oh god, thank you, i forgot i have that flag in there. The normal one is perfect! Thx!

//edit: BTW is it normal for some of the threads to read 0.00 if a refresh the page? It was not doing this with the Stack JSON.

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

Thanks vmozara, true my miner is very little known, the couple Github page + Bitcointalk topic is the standard diffusion, but as I said, I came late.

I live in Europe, as you can deduce from the time I'm online or not. I won't tell more Wink

About the distant rig rental you offered, sorry I should have answered before, but that's again No, like the previous offers of XeonPhi rigs i got before : 1. i will crash the GPU several times while testing, and i cannot press the Reset button remotely. 2. It would imply I upload a debug clear version of my code, and that's unsecure. So I prefer buying my own vega.

The 0.32 series and the super fast start are now part of my code and I won't go back to the super-long start. I admit it caused some regressions, as I expected since it's completely new, and i'm fixing them step by step.

The best production version if you don't want to participate to the Beta testing is 0.31c and 0.31f
c is better on Vega and f on RX if i remember well. Of course my goal is to make a perfect version with all good aspects (fast start, fast warmup and fast mining).

QuirkSilver

member

Activity: 80

Merit: 13

Hey, so how to disable ultra fast start? need my fast miner back. also same GPUs with identical settings/ clocks get different performance (recently, 0.32X version).
Shall i just go 0.31f for the stable slow start?

vmozara

member

Activity: 190

Merit: 59

I just gave SRBMINER 1.6.5 a try again on one of my rigs. The topic claims fastest vega miner on the planet, however with your miner I have 14400 H/S and with srb i have 14130, not even to mention the issues with REAL and transparent hashrate.

I strongly believe you need to forget about all these auto config things and weird stuff at the moment, and make your miner more friendly for serious mining. Add some statistics, add a watchdog and some crap, and launch your miner as real miner, because this is hands down fastest vega cn7 miner. When you get some cash inflow from fees, you will be able to spend part of that money for new cards and development, and then you can return to all these auto configs and things that you like, and you will be much more motivated when you actually earn something from it.

This miner has incredible potential, and once the word start spreading, claymore and others will easily be forgotten. Now, i have the feeling that I am only Vega guy using this miner? Shocked

Jce, you never answered, where are you from?

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

Nope, that's pretty low and JCE remains mostly a CPU miner for small CPUs. I've few GPU users. That's the difference between Claymore who entered the game in 2014 and became millionaire and me who came the latest in 2018.
At least I provide a brand new miner, like did fellow CastXMR or SRB, and not just a custom recompile of Wolf0 code, like others.

Ho, i forgot: next GPU will deprecate the least important greeks in config from Gamma to Zeta. Alpha and Beta remain.

JSON : if you use the normal JCE mode, it's quite readable, with clean names and indentation.
The XMRStak mode is a byte-exact redo of legacy Stak format, on purpose. Stak produces a one-liner, so i do the same.

Uaciuganadu

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Hey JCE,

Any chances you can get the JSON output in a more friendly/readable format and not just one string of text?

vmozara

member

Activity: 190

Merit: 59

Awesome, keep developing Cheesy

Did you already start to have any noticeable income from your miner to be motivated for further development?

JCE-Miner

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 22

Hello all,

I do have an experimental version that fixes the warm-up phase stuck @80% forever, but I want to test it well, no more disasters like the 0.32 c-d-t... that produced bad shares. No more rushed release, i really need time to test.

If i can achieve it in time, i will release a CPU version with backports of the GPU netcode fixes. It's mostly targetted to the Linux miners since that's the version I update the less.

Next planned GPU version will have :

* Warm-up phase fixed
* CN-Heavy optim (i expect to come closer to SRB, but probably not above yet)
* Shares sent to the void bug on exotic pools (Nicehash, MoneroOcean...) fixed
* Auto blue hashrate back
* Correct display of very low GPU hashrates (for HD5000...)
* Auto yellow report (period: about 10mn)
* Cryptonight-Red fork if i've time enough to do it. It's a mix of XTL and CN-Light

heavyarms1912

full member

Activity: 729

Merit: 114

Quote from: fluxy12 on August 02, 2018, 10:08:01 AM

Oh sorry here are the values for 1960 and 95W at wall : 1100 core 810cvv | 2190 mem 830mcv

1140 h/s thats very good hashrate i think but what is your consuption at wall have you measured it ?

PS : i tested with your settings with rx580 msi armor 8gb samsung mem i get 1076 h/s and 124W at wall - Not bad !! thank you !!

PS2 : Not stable Sad

i will put 900mv

You typically need anything from 875-925mV voltage on core for 1250 core clocks.
the mcv voltage that you changed is only the floor for the core voltage.

1140 is pretty good for 1250 core clocks. This is what I get for my config. Thread 4 and Thread 5 are for an RX570 8gb card. Keeps hovering between 1145-1170.

Code:

{
  "hashrate":
  {
    "thread_0": 771.17,
    "thread_1": 801.35,
    "thread_2": 796.32,
    "thread_3": 742.88,
    "thread_4": 585.85,
    "thread_5": 585.85,
    "thread_6": 796.32,
    "thread_7": 796.32,
    "thread_8": 708.87,
    "thread_9": 801.69,
    "thread_all": [771.17, 801.35, 796.32, 742.88, 585.85, 585.85, 796.32, 796.32, 708.87, 801.69],
    "thread_gpu": [771.17, 801.35, 796.32, 742.88, 1171.70, 796.32, 796.32, 708.87, 801.69],
    "total": 7386.59,
    "max": 7390.37
  },
  "result":
  {
     "wallet": "WALLET.219000",
     "pool": "bittube.miner.rocks:5555",
     "ssl": false,
     "currency": "BitTube (TUBE)",
     "difficulty": 219008,
     "shares": 4161,
     "hashes": 911292288,
     "uptime": "34:56:08",
     "effective": 7245.82
  },
  "gpu_status":
  [
    { "index": 0, "temperature": 69, "fan": 78, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 429, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 1, "temperature": 69, "fan": 78, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 464, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 2, "temperature": 64, "fan": 74, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 484, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 3, "temperature": 64, "fan": 74, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 428, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 4, "temperature": 57, "fan": 66, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 8192, "good_shares": 611, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 5, "temperature": 75, "fan": 88, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 469, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 6, "temperature": 75, "fan": 88, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 468, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 7, "temperature": 75, "fan": 86, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 391, "bad_shares": 0 },
    { "index": 8, "temperature": 68, "fan": 78, "processor": "Ellesmere", "memory": 4096, "good_shares": 418, "bad_shares": 0 },
  ],
  "miner":
  {
     "version": "jce/0.32e/gpu",
     "platform": "Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU G4400 @ 3.30GHz",
     "system": "Windows 64-bits",
     "algorithm": "13"
  }
}

lebuawu2

jr. member

Activity: 176

Merit: 2

Quote from: fluxy12 on August 02, 2018, 10:08:01 AM

Quote from: lebuawu2 on August 02, 2018, 09:27:17 AM

Quote from: fluxy12 on August 02, 2018, 07:58:19 AM

Quote from: lebuawu2 on August 01, 2018, 06:20:40 AM

Hi JCE,

any reason why multi_hash must be multiple by 16? why is it not 2 or 4 or 8?

another opinion is it possible to display hash rate, temp, fan, good shares, stale shares, bad shares in one line like below?

GPU0 : 1100 h/s, Temp : 50C, Fan : 50%, Shares : 100/0/1
GPU1 : 1090 h/s, Temp : 51C, Fan : 51%, Shares : 101/1/2

and another option like --disabledmonitoring to prevent that information showing up every xx seconds. if we want to show that information we can just press h. because I notice if I keep pressing h I don't see any accepted shares from pool so just curios by displaying that information is it reduce our effective hash rate?

Thanks.

Hello, can we get your OC settings to get this results ? do you undervolt ? also what multihash do you use ? 848 ?

For me, more effective settings (at summer 40° celsius) with a cost of 0.14usd/Kwh is : 960 h/s for 95W at wall per rx580 (Wattman : 1100 core 810cv, 1190 mem 830mv)

Thank you

that's just example, I can get 1140 h/s for cn-saber with cclock 1250/890 mclock 2200/890 multi_hash 944. RX 580 8GB with micron chipset.
Is it true cclock 1100 mclock 1190 can get 960 h/s ? because normally default mclock 2000 so 1190 is too low.

Oh sorry here are the values for 1960 and 95W at wall : 1100 core 810cvv | 2190 mem 830mcv

1140 h/s thats very good hashrate i think but what is your consuption at wall have you measured it ?

PS : i tested with your settings with rx580 msi armor 8gb samsung mem i get 1076 h/s and 124W at wall - Not bad !! thank you !!

PS2 : Not stable Sad

i will put 900mv

are you sure it's samsung? Because normally samsung can't go with that high mclock. I think it should be hynix.
Did you modded your bios with polaris bios editor?
I have samsung modded with polaris bios editor cclock 1250 mclock 2000 can get 1140 h/s - 1150 h/s.

I never monitor power consumption at wall, but I think it's around 120w-130w.

fluxy12

jr. member

Activity: 145

Merit: 1

Quote from: lebuawu2 on August 02, 2018, 09:27:17 AM

Quote from: fluxy12 on August 02, 2018, 07:58:19 AM

Quote from: lebuawu2 on August 01, 2018, 06:20:40 AM

Hi JCE,

any reason why multi_hash must be multiple by 16? why is it not 2 or 4 or 8?

another opinion is it possible to display hash rate, temp, fan, good shares, stale shares, bad shares in one line like below?

GPU0 : 1100 h/s, Temp : 50C, Fan : 50%, Shares : 100/0/1
GPU1 : 1090 h/s, Temp : 51C, Fan : 51%, Shares : 101/1/2

and another option like --disabledmonitoring to prevent that information showing up every xx seconds. if we want to show that information we can just press h. because I notice if I keep pressing h I don't see any accepted shares from pool so just curios by displaying that information is it reduce our effective hash rate?

Thanks.

Hello, can we get your OC settings to get this results ? do you undervolt ? also what multihash do you use ? 848 ?

For me, more effective settings (at summer 40° celsius) with a cost of 0.14usd/Kwh is : 960 h/s for 95W at wall per rx580 (Wattman : 1100 core 810cv, 1190 mem 830mv)

Thank you

that's just example, I can get 1140 h/s for cn-saber with cclock 1250/890 mclock 2200/890 multi_hash 944. RX 580 8GB with micron chipset.
Is it true cclock 1100 mclock 1190 can get 960 h/s ? because normally default mclock 2000 so 1190 is too low.

Oh sorry here are the values for 1960 and 95W at wall : 1100 core 810cvv | 2190 mem 830mcv

1140 h/s thats very good hashrate i think but what is your consuption at wall have you measured it ?

PS : i tested with your settings with rx580 msi armor 8gb samsung mem i get 1076 h/s and 124W at wall - Not bad !! thank you !!

PS2 : Not stable Sad

i will put 900mv

lebuawu2

jr. member

Activity: 176

Merit: 2

Quote from: fluxy12 on August 02, 2018, 07:58:19 AM

Quote from: lebuawu2 on August 01, 2018, 06:20:40 AM

Hi JCE,

any reason why multi_hash must be multiple by 16? why is it not 2 or 4 or 8?

another opinion is it possible to display hash rate, temp, fan, good shares, stale shares, bad shares in one line like below?

GPU0 : 1100 h/s, Temp : 50C, Fan : 50%, Shares : 100/0/1
GPU1 : 1090 h/s, Temp : 51C, Fan : 51%, Shares : 101/1/2

and another option like --disabledmonitoring to prevent that information showing up every xx seconds. if we want to show that information we can just press h. because I notice if I keep pressing h I don't see any accepted shares from pool so just curios by displaying that information is it reduce our effective hash rate?

Thanks.

Hello, can we get your OC settings to get this results ? do you undervolt ? also what multihash do you use ? 848 ?

For me, more effective settings (at summer 40° celsius) with a cost of 0.14usd/Kwh is : 960 h/s for 95W at wall per rx580 (Wattman : 1100 core 810cv, 1190 mem 830mv)

Thank you

that's just example, I can get 1140 h/s for cn-saber with cclock 1250/890 mclock 2200/890 multi_hash 944. RX 580 8GB with micron chipset.
Is it true cclock 1100 mclock 1190 can get 960 h/s ? because normally default mclock 2000 so 1190 is too low.

Topic: [XMR] JCE Miner Cryptonight/forks, now with GPU! - page 67. (Read 90814 times)