Topic: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance | HP14 released! - page 52. (Read 397616 times)
I think you may lose unconfirmed, mined blocks if you overwrite the wallet.
As far as I understand the problem is that the wallet will diverge when the pool of (default 100) addresses is exhausted, and then transactions to newly generated addresses from that point will no longer be accessible/visible from other instances of the wallet, i.e. they fork. If you overwrite some "master" instance to slaves, it means that for any slave that forks before master, newly generated coins will be lost when the forked slave wallet gets overwritten.
I'm still waiting to reach that 100 block limit to match theory with reality
I'm still waiting to reach that 100 block limit to match theory with reality
The easiest way to do this is to copy the wallet.dat from one machine to all of the others. When one mines a block it will appear in the wallet on all machines. I was initially using the dump/importprivkey until I realised I could clone the wallet.dat. Just make sure the ones you are overwriting are empty before you copy the new wallet.dat over the top!
But this will only work for 100 blocks, then the wallets will "split". Unless you change the keypoolsize (search this thread 
).I did know that it was a bad idea to run the same wallet on multiple computers, but now it's getting a bit clearer why, although I still don't fully understand.
I think I may have a solution but would like to run it by you guys since most people on this forum probably have a better understanding of how the wallet works.
What if I run the same wallet on all computers, but run a script once a day that will copy the wallet.dat from my central PC to all others, and overwrite the wallet.dat that is on that machine, which was a clone of the original anyway. This way the wallets can't drift apart after 100 blocks since they get updated/replaced every day.
Would this work or could I lose coins this way? Obviously the mining program will be closed and restarted when the wallet gets replaced/renewed.
I found hyper threading adds no perf increase on my end...so I run 4 threads on a sandy bridge i7 and it's faster.
So with HP9 on a 24 core 1.7GHz AMD system I was getting 8300PPS, I just upgraded to a 32 Core 2.2GHz set-up and I'm getting 7100PPS, Anyone have experience with 32 core systems? What setting might I need to adjust?
You appear to have uncovered an issue with the miner with high thread counts - I get almost no performance gain when using more than 16 threads on a 32 core system. mikael / sunny any thoughts where this bottleneck might be?
I think the consensus is a lack of/lack of speedy L1 cache. L2 and L3 also play a role but as far as I understand they are very much less important than L1.
Someone please back me up. This was weeks ago I heard this.
So with HP9 on a 24 core 1.7GHz AMD system I was getting 8300PPS, I just upgraded to a 32 Core 2.2GHz set-up and I'm getting 7100PPS, Anyone have experience with 32 core systems? What setting might I need to adjust?
You appear to have uncovered an issue with the miner with high thread counts - I get almost no performance gain when using more than 16 threads on a 32 core system. mikael / sunny any thoughts where this bottleneck might be?
I'll try playing iwth the genproclimit=X setting
Finally got a block after ages. Was using the hp9 64 version.
So with HP9 on a 24 core 1.7GHz AMD system I was getting 8300PPS, I just upgraded to a 32 Core 2.2GHz set-up and I'm getting 7100PPS, Anyone have experience with 32 core systems? What setting might I need to adjust?
You appear to have uncovered an issue with the miner with high thread counts - I get almost no performance gain when using more than 16 threads on a 32 core system. mikael / sunny any thoughts where this bottleneck might be?
So with HP9 on a 24 core 1.7GHz AMD system I was getting 8300PPS, I just upgraded to a 32 Core 2.2GHz set-up and I'm getting 7100PPS, Anyone have experience with 32 core systems? What setting might I need to adjust?
I am also concluding that HP9 client is a lot faster, still getting a block or even two with haswell beast! 
Indeed it is. 
I am also concluding that HP9 client is a lot faster, still getting a block or even two with haswell beast!
Ubuntu 12, everything compiled from source, same as my other VPS's and personal machines. Seems this one just doesn't want to play. I might try a different version of linux later if I have time, but doubt it will yield anything. Incidentally I tried sunny's version too, as well as the pool miner, and had the same low performance on each.
Maybe they did not give you a dedicated server 
Every time hp9 crash it produce this same error :
checkqueue.h:171: CCheckQueueControl::CCheckQueueControl(CCheckQueue*) [with T = CScriptCheck]: Assertion `pqueue->nTotal == pqueue->nIdle' failed.
Just in case you didn't know already !
checkqueue.h:171: CCheckQueueControl
Just in case you didn't know already !
Ubuntu 12, everything compiled from source, same as my other VPS's and personal machines. Seems this one just doesn't want to play. I might try a different version of linux later if I have time, but doubt it will yield anything. Incidentally I tried sunny's version too, as well as the pool miner, and had the same low performance on each.
Maybe they did not give you a dedicated server How do you change the number of cores and threads?
if using the daemon then ./primecoind setgenerate true X (where X is the number of threads)if using the QT client, go into the debug console and type setgenerate true X
I'm having a strange issue with HP9 on an 16 core xeon. It's a dedicated server split into two 8-thread VPS's, each with 8GB RAM, and both of them are performing poorly...
"blocks" : 99198,
"chainspermin" : 2,
"chainsperday" : 0.28352104,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.37849414,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 647,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 6,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
I can't get the PPS or CPM/CPD values up to anything like a decent number. I have other similar VPS's with different providers running at 10 times these numbers. Any ideas?
"blocks" : 99198,
"chainspermin" : 2,
"chainsperday" : 0.28352104,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.37849414,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 647,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 6,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
I can't get the PPS or CPM/CPD values up to anything like a decent number. I have other similar VPS's with different providers running at 10 times these numbers. Any ideas?
Set sievepercentage at 10.
That gives me a slight reduction in both PPS and CPD, hence why it was at 6. It's something more fundamental than that I feel.
EDIT: CPU usage is at 800% showing all 8 cores are maxed out
Can you just wipe the system, install an OS and mine without the VPS? Or are those VPS used for something else normally
Unfortunately not, limitation of the provider as it's a dedicated cloud, i.e I have a dedicated box but have to create VPS's within it.
What OS are you running?
If linux have you tried compiling everything from source.
Some VMs have client side software to install. e.g. vmtools etc. Does yours require any?
I'm having a strange issue with HP9 on an 16 core xeon. It's a dedicated server split into two 8-thread VPS's, each with 8GB RAM, and both of them are performing poorly...
"blocks" : 99198,
"chainspermin" : 2,
"chainsperday" : 0.28352104,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.37849414,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 647,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 6,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
I can't get the PPS or CPM/CPD values up to anything like a decent number. I have other similar VPS's with different providers running at 10 times these numbers. Any ideas?
"blocks" : 99198,
"chainspermin" : 2,
"chainsperday" : 0.28352104,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.37849414,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 647,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 6,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
I can't get the PPS or CPM/CPD values up to anything like a decent number. I have other similar VPS's with different providers running at 10 times these numbers. Any ideas?
Set sievepercentage at 10.
That gives me a slight reduction in both PPS and CPD, hence why it was at 6. It's something more fundamental than that I feel.
EDIT: CPU usage is at 800% showing all 8 cores are maxed out
Can you just wipe the system, install an OS and mine without the VPS? Or are those VPS used for something else normally
Unfortunately not, limitation of the provider as it's a dedicated cloud, i.e I have a dedicated box but have to create VPS's within it.
What OS are you running?
If linux have you tried compiling everything from source.
Some VMs have client side software to install. e.g. vmtools etc. Does yours require any?
I've got great stats but no coins for over 2 days 
8 core : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz
Another identical one:
8 core : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz
No blocks for 2 days running hp9.
Is there anything wrong with the above stats for this kit?
8 core : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz
Code:
Stats: {
"blocks" : 99324,
"chainspermin" : 11,
"chainsperday" : 0.93862504,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.38212335,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 1915,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
"blocks" : 99324,
"chainspermin" : 11,
"chainsperday" : 0.93862504,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.38212335,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 1915,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
Another identical one:
8 core : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz
Code:
Stats: {
"blocks" : 99324,
"chainspermin" : 12,
"chainsperday" : 0.93196965,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.38212335,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 1901,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
"blocks" : 99324,
"chainspermin" : 12,
"chainsperday" : 0.93196965,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 9.38212335,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"roundsievepercentage" : 70,
"primespersec" : 1901,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
No blocks for 2 days running hp9.
Is there anything wrong with the above stats for this kit?
nothing wrong there, just bad luck, i've also some xeons,
some are running on meth solving 4 blocks a day ,
some are solving that their computation was useless for 48 hours
I'm having a strange issue with HP9 on an 16 core xeon. It's a dedicated server split into two 8-thread VPS's, each with 8GB RAM, and both of them are performing poorly...
Yeah, 0.28 CPD is quite bad. Probably has something to do with the VPS configuration.My dual core athlon at home is faster than that.
I'm having a strange issue with HP9 on an 16 core xeon. It's a dedicated server split into two 8-thread VPS's, each with 8GB RAM, and both of them are performing poorly...
Yeah, 0.28 CPD is quite bad. Probably has something to do with the VPS configuration.My dual core athlon at home is faster than that.
Jump to: