Update: Changed to 15 sec avg/forever double meter, further decreased run size floor, allow very maximum nonce before saturation flush

Not according to Art (from IRC):
23:48 < ArtForz> my kernel usually likes -w 64 or 128 and really low -f
23:48 < ArtForz> I'm running the equivalent of -f 2 her

I use 10.12  It works for me.  And -f 30 was good enough for me with the previous kernel, and gave a decent hashrate while keeping interactivity.  Art's kernel is not good at this setting, according to ArtForz.

Update: Use multiple buckets on output to reduce lost pool shares

Roughly 3.5% of shares are lost (due to bucket cramming) on a 5870 on -f 1... its far less for slower cards or high -f values. It is now 256 times less. I can live with 0.02% lost.

Does this justify a 3% performance increase? I'm not sure how precise the hash meter is.

My bad, the meter is fluctuating a bit more, I'll check if it stabilizes.

Anybody found an always effective workaround for this problem ?
I'm finding it hard to fix it, though only certain machines have the issue
Display already set to :0. Will using openjdk-6-jre-headless solve it ?
Using FC14 at this time, thinking on switching to Ubuntu, not sure if that will help.


 
 

Just want to say thanks for the info in this thread, I got it working and even have figured out how to have a few different batch files for different levels of hashing (-w 32 -f 1000 versus -w 512 -f 1)

Just want to report that I have a 9600 GT 1GB from MSI on Windows 7 x64, and if I increase the -w flag it goes up for each interval. At 32 I'm getting like 8600k but at 512 I get almost 15000k.

Good work on this one, it's quite an improvement over my CPU's 4000k (and I've got an AMD quad!).

oh, one thing. I noticed some talk about -v flags but the program doesn't recognize any. I assume they were simply removed from implementation?

Ah, thanks for the protips. The difference between 32 and 64 is between 8600k and 13500k! (Compared to 15000k for 512, pardon the typo in my above post.)

Also, when I get messages like Block 1 found, Block 2 found, does that mean I generated a block...?

edit: it looks like this.
[2/10/11 11:52:36 AM] Block 1 found on GeForce 9600 GT (#1)

DiabloD3, thank you for the great miner. It works out of the box on my 64-bit Windows 7 machine with a Radeon HD 6800 card. I am getting about 13.5 mhash/s -- and I can continue to run four threads of CPU miner without any noticeable effect on the GPU miner. Life is great.

The only problem is -- the GPU miner crashes after a few minutes of running. Windows informs me that Java has crashed. I am running the 64-bit JRE 1.6.0.23. The choice of worksize seems to have no effect. So far your GPU miner hasn't been able to run more than about 10 minutes. Windows itself remains stable; I can simply restart the GPU miner.

I'd love to get you a stack trace or something, but I don't see how. Any thoughts on this?