let's see how this week goes
Topic: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance | HP14 released! - page 19. (Read 397647 times)
Well the primecoin gods heard me and a block showed up
let's see how this week goes
let's see how this week goes
Thanks! downloading now.
My calculations show that for older systems ~0.5 chainsperday eg. Core 2 Duo (higher end models), i5 mobile (higher end), i3 (higher end), or i5 desktop (lower end) (or the Xeon or AMD equivalents of any of these) will find a block every 15-20 days on average. If you want to find blocks regularly ie. 1-3 days you need the very high end CPUs that have come out during the last two years. Possibly some older Xeon/Opteron CPUs with release prices >$1000 will also give you frequent blocks.
It's important to realize though, that bad luck with such infrequent blocks can result in months passing without finding any. For example I have a i5 laptop that's mined for over 50 days without finding a block @ 0.55 CPD.
It's important to realize though, that bad luck with such infrequent blocks can result in months passing without finding any. For example I have a i5 laptop that's mined for over 50 days without finding a block @ 0.55 CPD.
mikaelh,
first of all, thanks for all the hard work you have put into this.
I am not complaining about not getting any blocks, i am aware of variance/"luck" factor.
All things equal,usually it takes a month of 24/7 mining to get an idea of how things go.
That said, i've done the "math" myself and was expecting at least 1 block/week given the hardware available.
But again,as you said, sample is small so it might be off.
I've seen others comparing HP10 to HP11 block rates and looks like, at least for those reporting them, that they "see" some difference.
Not sure if this is due to variance,difficulty or some other factor,but unless we get some concrete data of blocks generated during that period its impossible to figure out if its true or just mind games.
Here are my stats with 1.27 CPD on HP11. You can see I've had periods of up to 9 days without finding a block.first of all, thanks for all the hard work you have put into this.
I am not complaining about not getting any blocks, i am aware of variance/"luck" factor.
All things equal,usually it takes a month of 24/7 mining to get an idea of how things go.
That said, i've done the "math" myself and was expecting at least 1 block/week given the hardware available.
But again,as you said, sample is small so it might be off.
I've seen others comparing HP10 to HP11 block rates and looks like, at least for those reporting them, that they "see" some difference.
Not sure if this is due to variance,difficulty or some other factor,but unless we get some concrete data of blocks generated during that period its impossible to figure out if its true or just mind games.
Sun Aug 11 22:11:51 CEST 2013
Mon Aug 12 23:37:51 CEST 2013
Sun Aug 18 11:19:38 CEST 2013
Tue Aug 27 17:31:03 CEST 2013
Wed Aug 28 11:53:26 CEST 2013
Fri Sep 6 08:24:34 CEST 2013
Sun Sep 15 08:11:59 CEST 2013
Sun Sep 15 10:23:27 CEST 2013
Tue Sep 17 21:18:17 CEST 2013
mikaelh,
first of all, thanks for all the hard work you have put into this.
I am not complaining about not getting any blocks, i am aware of variance/"luck" factor.
All things equal,usually it takes a month of 24/7 mining to get an idea of how things go.
That said, i've done the "math" myself and was expecting at least 1 block/week given the hardware available.
But again,as you said, sample is small so it might be off.
I've seen others comparing HP10 to HP11 block rates and looks like, at least for those reporting them, that they "see" some difference.
Not sure if this is due to variance,difficulty or some other factor,but unless we get some concrete data of blocks generated during that period its impossible to figure out if its true or just mind games.
first of all, thanks for all the hard work you have put into this.
I am not complaining about not getting any blocks, i am aware of variance/"luck" factor.
All things equal,usually it takes a month of 24/7 mining to get an idea of how things go.
That said, i've done the "math" myself and was expecting at least 1 block/week given the hardware available.
But again,as you said, sample is small so it might be off.
I've seen others comparing HP10 to HP11 block rates and looks like, at least for those reporting them, that they "see" some difference.
Not sure if this is due to variance,difficulty or some other factor,but unless we get some concrete data of blocks generated during that period its impossible to figure out if its true or just mind games.
I've been going for almost 7 days now with HP11 and 0 blocks found with a number of machines running 24x7
1 with 1.5 cpd
1 with 0.9 cpd
4 with 0.2 cpd
1 with 1.5 cpd
1 with 0.9 cpd
4 with 0.2 cpd
Well, your total chains/day is about 3.2 then. Since difficulty is about 9.86, that means only about 14% of chains will result in a block (because 1 - 0.86 = 0.14). Then we can estimate how many blocks you should get in a week:
3.2 chains/day * 7 days/week * 0.14 blocks/chain = 3.136 blocks/week
Of course chains/day isn't completely accurate, so let's assume that in reality it would be 20% lower (this is just a guess).
3.136 blocks/week * 0.8 = 2.5088 blocks/week
2.5 blocks isn't much as far as statistics are concerned. It is still very much possible that you simply got unlucky. That is unfortunately one of the realities of solo mining primecoins. If you want less variance, you can try one of the mining pools.
I assume now it is cheaper to buy XPM directly at exchange than mine it. (I am buying on mcxnow where I get also small interest rate on my deposit).
But it depends, if you have admin access to server farm where you can mine coins in large extent like my friend then mining is still very profiatble.
But it depends, if you have admin access to server farm where you can mine coins in large extent like my friend then mining is still very profiatble.
Well of course once I posted my previous post one of my servers found a block. So here's nagging the other two hoping this post will get them off the pot too. 
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
I'm running HP11 and Windows 7 on 4 machines and haven't noticed any great change from HP10.
Thank you for the information. I stopped mining XPM in August after a month passed and I mined only 1 block.
I'm running HP11 and Windows 7 on 4 machines and haven't noticed any great change from HP10.
One of these machines got 1 block late one day and 3 the next day - which is more than the usual 1 every 2-3 days. Another has found 0 in the past week and its twin has found 2 blocks. Variance.
One of these machines got 1 block late one day and 3 the next day - which is more than the usual 1 every 2-3 days. Another has found 0 in the past week and its twin has found 2 blocks. Variance.
I've been going for almost 7 days now with HP11 and 0 blocks found with a number of machines running 24x7
1 with 1.5 cpd
1 with 0.9 cpd
4 with 0.2 cpd
all machines run the same version (ubuntu 12.04,primecoid build from source) on the same wallet.dat and made sure they started with a fresh pull of the blockchain
{
"version" : "v0.1.2.0xpm-hp11-unk-beta",
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 173976,
"moneysupply" : 2167557.13000000,
"timeoffset" : 14,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1378963175,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
{
"blocks" : 173976,
"chainspermin" : 16,
"chainsperday" : 1.56431248,
"currentblocksize" : 1227,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 9.86041021,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 2826,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"sieveextensions" : 9,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
I was expecting to have found at least 1 block during that period and it seems others are also having issue finding blocks compared to earlier versions.
I plan to let them run for 1 more week to see how things go
1 with 1.5 cpd
1 with 0.9 cpd
4 with 0.2 cpd
all machines run the same version (ubuntu 12.04,primecoid build from source) on the same wallet.dat and made sure they started with a fresh pull of the blockchain
{
"version" : "v0.1.2.0xpm-hp11-unk-beta",
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 173976,
"moneysupply" : 2167557.13000000,
"timeoffset" : 14,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1378963175,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
{
"blocks" : 173976,
"chainspermin" : 16,
"chainsperday" : 1.56431248,
"currentblocksize" : 1227,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 9.86041021,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 2826,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"sieveextensions" : 9,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
I was expecting to have found at least 1 block during that period and it seems others are also having issue finding blocks compared to earlier versions.
I plan to let them run for 1 more week to see how things go
Quote
A probably related phenomena is apparently slower machines get many more blocks than faster machines.
I could provide my own anecdotal evidence that this is not the case (for me).
I have four Core 2 Duo machines that in total are about twice as fast as my main core 2 quad system. The 4 slower machines have found 9 blocks in a month and my faster machine has found 5 which is what you would expect.
But again its meaningless with so little data.
I agree the quality of our data is poor. I wonder if mining the blockchain and associated addresses could tell anything.
Quote
A probably related phenomena is apparently slower machines get many more blocks than faster machines.
I could provide my own anecdotal evidence that this is not the case (for me).
I have four Core 2 Duo machines that in total are about twice as fast as my main core 2 quad system. The 4 slower machines have found 9 blocks in a month and my faster machine has found 5 which is what you would expect.
But again its meaningless with so little data.
If you move the 1s around to make this more "random", then you're bound to see some clusters of 1s, separated by longer stretches of 0s, with the occasional lone 1. However, if the process behind the bits is "totally random", then there is no particular reason why given 1s would cluster up. Yes, they come in groups, but not necessarily because of any hidden parameters.
It's interesting how shorter repetitions are considered lucky patterns, but a more distributed pattern like the one above is not usually noticed, unless you actually keep track over many days.
That is fine. But the intervals between clustered members should have a normal distribution if the apparent clustering is caused by randomeness. This discussion came up because many people have reported that blocks came up within hours after days or weeks when there were nothing. It;s these high sigma events appearing to happen too often that makes me suspect it's not random. I think rigorous measurement is needed to determine if it's truely random. Statistics arguements without data cut both ways.
A probably related phenomena is apparently slower machines get many more blocks than faster machines.
I have three eight-core servers that were getting blocks with version 10 but haven't gotten any since version 11.
(Sometimes a day or even two might go by without any of them getting a block but most pairs of days at least one often two got a block or even more than one block.)
I am starting to wonder if maybe there is some github weirdness or something such as maybe git pull isn't really getting me the latest code even though the last time I pulled all I got* was a change in version.cpp, which changed the actual version number displayed to 11. (What I'd already installed on my servers seems to have been version 11 minus that afterthought change of the version.cpp file to actually have it admit it was version 11...)
* All I seemed to get, anyway. Git doesn't sometimes not mention every file that it pulled changes for or anythign like that, does it?
-MarkM-
(Sometimes a day or even two might go by without any of them getting a block but most pairs of days at least one often two got a block or even more than one block.)
I am starting to wonder if maybe there is some github weirdness or something such as maybe git pull isn't really getting me the latest code even though the last time I pulled all I got* was a change in version.cpp, which changed the actual version number displayed to 11. (What I'd already installed on my servers seems to have been version 11 minus that afterthought change of the version.cpp file to actually have it admit it was version 11...)
* All I seemed to get, anyway. Git doesn't sometimes not mention every file that it pulled changes for or anythign like that, does it?
-MarkM-
But I'm also posting because I have some trouble getting my Opteron 3280 to proper speed running primecoind. I've bought this CPU hoping that I would get some 1.x chainsperday with the 64 bit version of mikaelh's compile of hp11 and default settings. But the speed is not really making me happy although the CPU is running on fullspeed:
I know it's not perfect, but you can usually get a reasonable estimate of performance from comparing CPU that you might already have to their cpu mark (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php).
In this case your Opteron 3280 is not in the list. Sadly Opteron CPU are not quite as common as Xeon and so there aren't results for most Opterons on the site.
If you download PC Mark from their site and run all tests, and upload the results it would be useful (probably to many people, not just yourself). If you can tell me what CPU mark it gives you, then I could let you know if it agrees with marks from similar scoring CPU that I might have.
Generally though we are seeing a few people overestimating the CPU's they buy. And there is not much you can do to optimise your results as long as you are sure it really is using close to 100% of CPU cycles at all times and also you have used the 64 bit version of HP.
Regarding randomness:
Source: http://xkcd.com/221/
But I'm also posting because I have some trouble getting my Opteron 3280 to proper speed running primecoind. I've bought this CPU hoping that I would get some 1.x chainsperday with the 64 bit version of mikaelh's compile of hp11 and default settings. But the speed is not really making me happy although the CPU is running on fullspeed:
Sorry for the output of "cpufreq-info" in german, but I guess the report speaks for itself.
My Phenom II X6 1090T makes more than double the chainsperday (6 cores, 3.2 GHz).
I tried compiling primecoind myself with default settings; no increase in CPD.
I tried compiling primecoind with CFLAGS="-O3 -mtune=native -march=native"; no increase in CPD.
And if I set a genproclimit to below the number of cores, the CPD decreases.
I have not tried different settings for sieveextensions, sievepercentage or sievesize as I know these are the tested optimum settings for solving blocks (and I'm not interested in blindly increasing CPD for the cost of losing probabilty to solve blocks
).
Is an Opteron 3280 really that lame? I mean, this CPU consists of 4 Bulldozer modules, each carrying a "Clustered Multi-Thread" (CMT) running with 2.4 GHz. This CMT should by design be able to act like 8 cores in case of integer operation, which is the case at primecoin mining...
Does anybody have a suggestion what to try?
Kind regards
masterOfDisaster
Source: http://xkcd.com/221/
But I'm also posting because I have some trouble getting my Opteron 3280 to proper speed running primecoind. I've bought this CPU hoping that I would get some 1.x chainsperday with the 64 bit version of mikaelh's compile of hp11 and default settings. But the speed is not really making me happy although the CPU is running on fullspeed:
Code:
primecoind getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 173181,
"chainspermin" : 5,
"chainsperday" : 0.83579907,
"currentblocksize" : 1374,
"currentblocktx" : 1,
"difficulty" : 9.86138940,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"primespersec" : 2033,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"sieveextensions" : 9,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
top
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
4345 xpm 20 0 2272m 152m 34m S 798 7.8 52:10.17 primecoind
[...]
cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Bitte melden Sie Fehler an [email protected].
analysiere CPU 0:
Treiber: powernow-k8
Folgende CPUs laufen mit der gleichen Hardware-Taktfrequenz: 0
Die Taktfrequenz folgender CPUs werden per Software koordiniert: 0
Maximale Dauer eines Taktfrequenzwechsels: 8.0 us.
Hardwarebedingte Grenzen der Taktfrequenz: 1.40 GHz - 2.40 GHz
mögliche Taktfrequenzen: 2.40 GHz, 2.10 GHz, 1.90 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.40 GHz
mögliche Regler: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
momentane Taktik: die Frequenz soll innerhalb 1.40 GHz und 2.40 GHz.
liegen. Der Regler "ondemand" kann frei entscheiden,
welche Taktfrequenz innerhalb dieser Grenze verwendet wird.
momentane Taktfrequenz ist 2.40 GHz.
Statistik:2.40 GHz:97,46%, 2.10 GHz:0,00%, 1.90 GHz:0,00%, 1.60 GHz:0,00%, 1.40 GHz:2,53% (1148)
[...] more or less the same for the next 7 cores; all running on 2.4 GHz
Sorry for the output of "cpufreq-info" in german, but I guess the report speaks for itself.
My Phenom II X6 1090T makes more than double the chainsperday (6 cores, 3.2 GHz).
I tried compiling primecoind myself with default settings; no increase in CPD.
I tried compiling primecoind with CFLAGS="-O3 -mtune=native -march=native"; no increase in CPD.
And if I set a genproclimit to below the number of cores, the CPD decreases.
I have not tried different settings for sieveextensions, sievepercentage or sievesize as I know these are the tested optimum settings for solving blocks (and I'm not interested in blindly increasing CPD for the cost of losing probabilty to solve blocks
).Is an Opteron 3280 really that lame? I mean, this CPU consists of 4 Bulldozer modules, each carrying a "Clustered Multi-Thread" (CMT) running with 2.4 GHz. This CMT should by design be able to act like 8 cores in case of integer operation, which is the case at primecoin mining...
Does anybody have a suggestion what to try?
Kind regards
masterOfDisaster
In the pursue of randomness
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537045_10151426897309808_230206220_n.jpg
5 days and 8h with no block found...but who's counting
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537045_10151426897309808_230206220_n.jpg
5 days and 8h with no block found...but who's counting
Yes. They come in groups. It's not totally random. There are hidden parameters that are not well understood. In the hidden parameter space there is tide of "luck". I can only guess the parameters are related to network speed, performance of the whole network, and the condition of your peers who are network neighbors at the moment.
Sorry, I can't agree with this, and I have found several thousand XPM in total now. I think you are falling into the trap of seeing patterns where there really are none: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
If the distribution of blocks is "totally random" (which, btw, is pretty hard to define in itself) then they won't be coming at equal intervals. Think about the following bit pattern, which would correspond to blocks coming in regularly every 4 days:
00010001000100010001000100010001
This is obviously not random, at least in the Kolmogorov complexity sense, that you can write a very short program to produce this string of bits.
If you move the 1s around to make this more "random", then you're bound to see some clusters of 1s, separated by longer stretches of 0s, with the occasional lone 1. However, if the process behind the bits is "totally random", then there is no particular reason why given 1s would cluster up. Yes, they come in groups, but not necessarily because of any hidden parameters.
It's interesting how shorter repetitions are considered lucky patterns, but a more distributed pattern like the one above is not usually noticed, unless you actually keep track over many days.
I've thought about this aspect of randomness in many areas of human life. When things are distributed randomly (though uniformly in a large scale), some people are bound to get more than others. This is why some people are considered "lucky", they are just the ones where things cluster up. If you want to eliminate luck, you need a command economy where everyone is forced to have the same amount of everything.
Saying that, I found a total of 22 blocks on a crappy notebook with 2,5Ghz dualcore i5 (0,64 CPD HP11). I guess that's all pure luck
C'mon many have found their slow machine turns out to be a block magnet. It can't be all coincidence. We don't fully understand the mining process of this coin.
Jump to: