Sorry,
the one in the background is mining slower than the one in the foreground.
So, for example if i run jhprimeminer in foreground in the terminal:
./jhprimeminer -o http://... -u user.1 -p pass
it will mine faster than if I run it in the background (with the & at the end):
./jhprimeminer -o http://... -u user.1 -p pass >> jhprimeminer.log &
Maybe I am wrong...
I'm basing my findings by looking at the jhprimeminer's output when running in the foreground (in the ssh client window while logged in)
and running in the background (I redirect the output to a file >> jhprimeminer.log) and logging out of shell.
One weird thing I notices is that this log file "jhprimeminer.log" is updating very slowly.
Topic: [XPM]unofficial jhPrimeminer thread - page 24. (Read 180178 times)
Hi,
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 1000-2000 pps
- or when is it running the background = average 3000-4000 pps
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 1000-2000 pps
- or when is it running the background = average 3000-4000 pps
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
I think you are confusing which is faster. At first it looks like you are saying background is faster, then the opposite. By background, do you mean in screen detached?
Hi,
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 1000-2000 pps
- or when is it running the background = average 3000-4000 pps
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 1000-2000 pps
- or when is it running the background = average 3000-4000 pps
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
I don't understand. From what you say, it runs faster in the background.
I'm running a build from erkmos natively on ubunutu. I've only run it in the foreground, but if running in the back ground makes it faster, i'll do that. That said, I can't think of any reason that running in the background would be that much faster. Assuming the printing to the console is negligible.
Hi,
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 3000-4000 pps (EDITED)
- or when is it running the background = average 1000-2000 pps (EDITED)
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
EDIT: I corrected the wrong pps for fg and bg (swapped them)
I am running jhprimeminer the precompiled linux version by bengtåke or clintar (not trough wine!).
I am running it on my VPS Ubuntu 13.04 x64 linux server and I noticed a big difference in pps when:
- I run it foreground = average 3000-4000 pps (EDITED)
- or when is it running the background = average 1000-2000 pps (EDITED)
So if I leave my ssh session open and the jhprimeminer is running in foreground I get double speed.
But I can't have it open all the time...
I also tried to run it as a daemon (daemonize),
and also used renice commend to se the priority to -20 (maximum).
With no significant improvement.
Does anybody know why is this happening and if it is possible to run it at full speed even if it's in the background?
EDIT: I corrected the wrong pps for fg and bg (swapped them)
Quote
What settings do I change to increase the chance of getting 8+ size chains?
-fasmaxThis is what we all wanna know. What do we need to do to get higher size chains? what settings? A lower sieve size? A certain proportion between sieve/test ratio? Anybody who has a clue, please throw us a bone, we're dying in low chain hell and it's beginning to seem pointless to run our cpu's mining when we are getting 00097 of a share
.Even better yet, Is there a setting or way to make the miner STOP looking for these worthless shit-tier chainsizes? 
My guess is raising the sieve size and the primorial multiplier, but I'm not the one who should be guessing
can someone message me with a list of all the miner / locations where to get it so i can update the front page 
Ok, results with hp9 after a day: 1 block
I7 3820 at stock...win 7.
I7 3820 at stock...win 7.
Quote
What settings do I change to increase the chance of getting 8+ size chains?
-fasmaxThis is what we all wanna know. What do we need to do to get higher size chains? what settings? A lower sieve size? A certain proportion between sieve/test ratio? Anybody who has a clue, please throw us a bone, we're dying in low chain hell and it's beginning to seem pointless to run our cpu's mining when we are getting 00097 of a share
.Even better yet, Is there a setting or way to make the miner STOP looking for these worthless shit-tier chainsizes?
Also, how does one calculate XPM from the share count? Is there any relation or are they 2 different stats...god I wish this crap were more clear lol. Then again if it were, I'm sure someone would sell the software lol.
Idk about you guys, but now that I'm using the Beta one, my XPM per block are really shitty while my share counts are way higher. Anyone know why that is?
Which miner is everyone using? And can someone link me to it? I'm currently on Mumu's 7.1, but I'm having a tough time keeping up with which miners the posts above are speaking about lol. Which is the best now?
If we agree Mumu's 7.1 is still the best, what is the difference between Mumu's 7.1 and Mumu's 7.1 AVZ? Which is better for a laptop?
Thanks!
If you are running on a laptop, I'd stick with 7.1. The AVX is for Newer CPUs running Sandy Bridge and Ivy Brige architecture. If we agree Mumu's 7.1 is still the best, what is the difference between Mumu's 7.1 and Mumu's 7.1 AVZ? Which is better for a laptop?
Thanks!
I don't get what's going on, but even though I've had 7 and 8 chain shares, I don't seem to see them on ypool.net personal stats. date/times for those seem to be skipped, and all my shares are almost the same value. aroune .0012-.0027. Don't seem to be getting as much anymore.
Val/h and PPS are significantly lower for me when using the new Ypool provided miner as compared to the newest beta miner posted in this thread.
EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
That is because the Ypool miner is calculating val/h with the new values, and this miner is using the old values. You would want to compare the number of 6+ ch that you find over a certain amount of time to figure out which is faster. I'm guessing jhPrimeMiner, but you can't just look at the val/h. EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
Thank you. My 6 ch is about 17 on Ypool miner and 31 on the beta with more 7 ch and 8 ch than the stock miner. It's a definitive win for the latest beta build (not Mumus but the other guy's build). Find it in the thread here people. Sorry I'm lazy and it's 3am here. Bed time.
Val/h and PPS are significantly lower for me when using the new Ypool provided miner as compared to the newest beta miner posted in this thread.
EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
That is because the Ypool miner is calculating val/h with the new values, and this miner is using the old values. You would want to compare the number of 6+ ch that you find over a certain amount of time to figure out which is faster. I'm guessing jhPrimeMiner, but you can't just look at the val/h. EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
What settings do I change to increase the chance of getting 8+ size chains?
I am interested in this as well.
Which miner is everyone using? And can someone link me to it? I'm currently on Mumu's 7.1, but I'm having a tough time keeping up with which miners the posts above are speaking about lol. Which is the best now?
If we agree Mumu's 7.1 is still the best, what is the difference between Mumu's 7.1 and Mumu's 7.1 AVZ? Which is better for a laptop?
Thanks!
If we agree Mumu's 7.1 is still the best, what is the difference between Mumu's 7.1 and Mumu's 7.1 AVZ? Which is better for a laptop?
Thanks!
Mumus built regular 7.1 and AVX 7.1 versions. Rd has just one. Is it missing AVX optimization?
My educated guess says no, for compatibility reasons. On the plus side, even if it does or doesn't have AVX support, I'm getting 2x my previous number of shares with this newer miner.
I got the same error on OSX.
Try to install libgmp3-dev
I use MacPorts as my package manager and I have the 'gmp' (@5.0.5) installed already.
Try adding -L/opt/local/lib to your LIBPATHS and -I/opt/local/include to INCLUDEPATHS variables in Makefile.
P.S. You should try Homebrew its much better than macports.
So I just updated to the newest version (since this morning) and it compiled on the first try with some warnings.
Mumus built regular 7.1 and AVX 7.1 versions. Rd has just one. Is it missing AVX optimization?
Yes the new v7.1 rd miner is very good so far it has been faster
Val/h and PPS are significantly lower for me when using the new Ypool provided miner as compared to the newest beta miner posted in this thread.
EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
EDIT: By significantly lower I mean averaging 14.7 val/h with forum beta version and 0.53 val/h average with Ypool version over a now totaled 6 hour test period either way. This is with an ivy bridge i3 3225. I have not tested my two AMD mobile processors long enough on Ypool's new version to come to a conclusion.
Jump to: