<<  >> (p.40)
    Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1  (Read 5806592 times)
    This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (3 posts by 1+ user deleted.)

    • gigica viteazu`
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 458
    Merit: 250

    beast at work


    View Profile
    August 11, 2011, 01:55:33 PM
     #781
    still no 1.5.3 version for windows ? Sad

  • miscreanity
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1316
    Merit: 1005


    View Profile
    August 11, 2011, 03:13:23 PM
     #782
    Quote from: znort987 on August 11, 2011, 02:54:35 PM
    The purple line is one rig running the current head of the git tree, with ah42's changes in.
    (that's 1.5 MH/s more than stock 1.5.3).

    I don't have a chart (curious if you'd share your method for generating the graph from data), but that's about what I've seen with the latest git as well: ~1.5Mh/s increase with Linux 2.6.38, 11.6/2.4 on 69xx cards. Run time so far of about 1 hour.

    The really nice bit is that the rejected rate has dropped below 1% so far from about 1.6% on average. If that can be maintained with Dia's phatk modifications, it'll be very impressive.

  • miscreanity
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1316
    Merit: 1005


    View Profile
    August 11, 2011, 04:56:34 PM
     #783
    Quote from: znort987 on August 11, 2011, 03:30:22 PM
    It's a rather messy setup of perl scripts and web servers:

    Thanks for the outline. Flexible and nice to get Mh/s stats. More than I'd need with just accepted/rejected shares, though.

  • tigereye
    Member
    **
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 79
    Merit: 10



    View Profile
    August 11, 2011, 07:52:17 PM
     #784
    Quote from: znort987 on August 10, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
    I am running the exact same thing, and I don't see your problem.

    Quote
    Code:
    [2011-08-09 23:57:10] Error: Getting program info CL_PROGRAM_BINARY_SIZES. (clGetPlatformInfo)
    [2011-08-09 23:57:10] Failed to init GPU thread 0
    [2011-08-09 23:57:15] Error: Getting program info CL_PROGRAM_BINARY_SIZES. (clGetPlatformInfo)
    [2011-08-09 23:57:15] Failed to init GPU thread 0
    When trying to get it to compile I had to first APT-GET a few packages including pkg-config, libcurl4-gnutls-dev, curl, libncurses5-dev and autoconf.


    In my opinion, you're barking up the wrong tree: this looks like
    cgminer does not manage to detect your GPU. Have you verified
    that your GPU is visible/available/working using other utilities ?
    (aticonfig comes to mind).

    Another possibility: did you do the following :


    Code:
    cd; tar zxpvfopt/AMD-APP-SDK-v2.4-lnx64/icd-registration.tgz

    Without the above, things are very likely to behave according to
    what you describe.
    Thanks for the suggestions, but unfortunately none of them work.

    cgminer can detect the GPUs in SOME capacity because when I do a "cgminer --ndevs" it lists 8, which is the number of GPU devices I have installed in the system.

    The GPUs are being used successfully by phoenix miner. I want to switch over to cgminer.
    Of all of my rigs, this is the only one that is reporting this problem. The other rigs have identical motherboards/GPUs and are running the same version of linuxcoin. I've successfully switched them over to cgminer, but I can't get this one rig to work.

    Furthermore, the AMD icd-registration.tgz has been extracted using the commands you recommended.
    I just did it again to see if it'd change the results, but I am still getting the same errors about the clPlatformInfo call.

    Any other ideas?

    If worse comes to worst, I may just clone the disk from one of the other rigs... but that's a huge pain!

    Thanks in advance for any further help any of you can provide...
    If my posts have helped, consider leaving a tip! 1AE5e56ivvaGMJJmLrZoLgiZXPx93CddyA

  • oppiet30
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 5
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 11, 2011, 09:43:30 PM
     #785
    Is there a reason that the $ appears in this line?

    CPU 0: [1.$ 0.9 Mh/s] [Q:56  A:0  R:1  HW:0  E:0%  U:0.00/m]

    http://oppie.homelinux.com/screenshot.png

    This is using cgminer 1.5.3 as seen in the screenshot.

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 11, 2011, 09:47:49 PM
     #786
    Quote from: znort987 on August 11, 2011, 04:49:58 PM
    Quote from: znort987 on August 11, 2011, 03:30:22 PM

    It's not Diapolo's last changes I want in cgminer, but rather phateus's latest (phatk 2.2).
    This runs at 371 MH/s on my 5970s


    And now that I look at the code ... the phatk kernel has an API that is not compatible
    with what cgminer calls (phatk OpenCL code requires pre-computed values that aren't
    provided by cgminer) Sad

    I guess the approach phoenix took is the best: via the __init__.py module it lets a
    kernel precompute whatever it wants before it calls the OpenCL code ... we would
    need something similar for cgminer (i.e. a combination of a .cl kernel and some
    init code). Unfortunately, that's kind of hard to pull off in C (short of adding a LUA
    interpreter to cgminer). Tough.



    I was mistakenly under the impression your changes incorporated everything from the latest kernels. Perhaps I may have to roll them all back and start porting it all myself. Darn.  Undecided
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 11, 2011, 11:22:24 PM
     #787
    Sorry I mixed you up with ah42. I'm quite aware of the changes required to make it work though, thanks.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • ah42
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 14
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 12:51:14 AM
     #788
    Quote from: Diapolo on August 11, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
    Current 110810 kernel on git has 1368 ALU OPs for 58XX and 1696 for 69XX, that's neither phatk 2.2 nor my latest result (which is 1364 1688), but a bit faster than the last official CGMINER kernel. I mailed my latest version to Con for review Wink.

    The added __attribute__((vec_type_hint(u))) is unknown to the compiler and throws a warning, but IS mentioned in the OpenCL 1.1 manual ... strange.

    Dia
    Correct, it's not 2.2, nor your most recent. It was an honest attempt at integrating *both* of them, but I think now that  I missed a few things.

    I had noticed the Kernel Analyzer threw an error about vec_type_hint, but it compiles without issue on linux. I don't have native windows (only virtualized) to test anything there. In testing, I was unsure as to whether vec_type_hint made an improvement, but I was certain that it wasn't the opposite.

  • ah42
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 14
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 01:01:09 AM
     #789
    Quote from: ckolivas on August 11, 2011, 09:47:49 PM
    I was mistakenly under the impression your changes incorporated everything from the latest kernels. Perhaps I may have to roll them all back and start porting it all myself. Darn.  Undecided
    I had attempted to, however, I was trying to incorportate both phatk2.2 and diapolo's versions, since in my attempts, i was not able to integrate either of them alone to get cgminer to work as well as either of those versions were, running standalone.

    I also realised late lastnight that I might have missed a few things that could have changed things, but my VirtualBox windows .vdi crapped out on me, so I'm unable to utilize the Kernel Analyzer right now.

    One thing I definitely want from Diapolo's most recent work is the new output method. Not only is it faster, but it seems to subjectively give a *much* higher Efficiency/Utility. (Not tested over a long enough timespan to say objectively)

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 01:14:36 AM
     #790
    I would say you need to attribute ZERO value to any perceived changed to utility and efficiency. It's entirely network dependent, so please do not place any value on it. When pools with 3Thash or more can go from -40 to +10% efficiency, it's impossible to use those to determine performance.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 01:58:06 AM
     #791
    Quote from: ah42 on August 12, 2011, 01:01:09 AM
    One thing I definitely want from Diapolo's most recent work is the new output method.
    It's interesting that it should be faster

    a = (b == c);
    is the same as
    if (b == c) a = 1; else a = 0;

    as far as code is concerned and ends up being compiled into the same thing in c.

    Perhaps it's a weakness in the opencl compiler, or maybe it's just the jump path is inefficient since there are multiple statements in the if {} loop.

    Anyway I've merged it for what it's worth, and updated poclbm accordingly as well.

    (EDIT: By the way, I'm not seeing any improvement).
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • Diapolo
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 773
    Merit: 500



    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 04:28:22 AM
     #792
    Quote from: ckolivas on August 12, 2011, 01:58:06 AM
    Quote from: ah42 on August 12, 2011, 01:01:09 AM
    One thing I definitely want from Diapolo's most recent work is the new output method.
    It's interesting that it should be faster

    a = (b == c);
    is the same as
    if (b == c) a = 1; else a = 0;

    as far as code is concerned and ends up being compiled into the same thing in c.

    Perhaps it's a weakness in the opencl compiler, or maybe it's just the jump path is inefficient since there are multiple statements in the if {} loop.

    Anyway I've merged it for what it's worth, and updated poclbm accordingly as well.

    (EDIT: By the way, I'm not seeing any improvement).

    I tried to avoid control flow (which has very high costs on GPUs) and this method was mentioned in an AMD APP SDK document.

    Dia
    Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
    1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
    bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 04:30:03 AM
    Last edit: August 12, 2011, 05:03:06 AM by ckolivas
     #793
    Unfortunately, on my 6970s it is actually appearing to be slower  Huh I may have to revert this change.

    edit: On my 6770 it's clearly faster and clearly slower on the 6970s... now I'm really confused.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • Diapolo
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 773
    Merit: 500



    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 05:39:43 AM
    Last edit: August 12, 2011, 06:39:12 AM by Diapolo
     #794
    Quote from: ckolivas on August 12, 2011, 04:30:03 AM
    Unfortunately, on my 6970s it is actually appearing to be slower  Huh I may have to revert this change.

    edit: On my 6770 it's clearly faster and clearly slower on the 6970s... now I'm really confused.

    The OpenCL compiler and resulting performance seems to be far away of beeing consistent :-/.
    Are you on SDK 2.5 yet?

    Dia
    Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
    1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
    bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 06:08:44 AM
     #795
    Quote from: Diapolo on August 12, 2011, 05:39:43 AM
    Quote from: ckolivas on August 12, 2011, 04:30:03 AM
    Unfortunately, on my 6970s it is actually appearing to be slower  Huh I may have to revert this change.

    edit: On my 6770 it's clearly faster and clearly slower on the 6970s... now I'm really confused.

    The OpenCL compiler and resulting performance seems to be far way of beeing consistent :-/.
    Are you on SDK 2.5 yet?

    Dia
    Was on 2.4, tried 2.5 and it's still consistently slower.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • -ck (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    August 12, 2011, 09:29:49 AM
     #796
    Quote from: znort987 on August 12, 2011, 07:52:21 AM

    Just tried cgminer's latest head (@5411a13ad7140ced511782914e58395c10c76c1b)
    and it's consistently slower than yesterday's head by about 10MH/s per GPU core.

    Sad



    And that's almost certainly the return code which affected mine also. I'll be reverting it shortly.

    edit: reverting just that change fixes it instantly.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • kano
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4746
    Merit: 1908


    Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 02:27:14 PM
     #797
    Don't forget if your main pool is down at any particular time, you can always be running 2 pools (one as a backup) by using:
      ./cgminer -c pool1.cfg -c pool2.cfg

    Where pool1.cfg contains your default pool to use and pool2.cfg contains what to use when pool1 is down

    You can run it in this mode all the time and it will stay on pool1 until an outage occurs
    Pool: https://kano.is - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
    Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
    The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer

  • Meatball
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 378
    Merit: 250



    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 02:55:04 PM
     #798
    Quote from: kano on August 12, 2011, 02:27:14 PM
    Don't forget if your main pool is down at any particular time, you can always be running 2 pools (one as a backup) by using:
      ./cgminer -c pool1.cfg -c pool2.cfg

    Where pool1.cfg contains your default pool to use and pool2.cfg contains what to use when pool1 is down

    You can run it in this mode all the time and it will stay on pool1 until an outage occurs

    Is there a way to do this with the Windows binary version?

  • RvdE
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 10
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 02:58:18 PM
     #799
    Quote from: Meatball on August 12, 2011, 02:55:04 PM
    Quote from: kano on August 12, 2011, 02:27:14 PM
    Don't forget if your main pool is down at any particular time, you can always be running 2 pools (one as a backup) by using:
      ./cgminer -c pool1.cfg -c pool2.cfg

    Where pool1.cfg contains your default pool to use and pool2.cfg contains what to use when pool1 is down

    You can run it in this mode all the time and it will stay on pool1 until an outage occurs

    Is there a way to do this with the Windows binary version?

    Ofcourse. Just use cgminer.exe -c pool1.cfg -c pool2.cfg

    or use multiple -o, -u, -p statements. Works fine here. (.ie cgminer.exe -o http://url_pool1:port -u username_pool1 -p pass_pool1 -o http://url_pool2:port -u username_pool2 -p pass_pool2)

  • Meatball
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 378
    Merit: 250



    View Profile
    August 12, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
     #800
    Quote from: RvdE on August 12, 2011, 02:58:18 PM
    Ofcourse. Just use cgminer.exe -c pool1.cfg -c pool2.cfg

    or use multiple -o, -u, -p statements. Works fine here. (.ie cgminer.exe -o http://url_pool1:port -u username_pool1 -p pass_pool1 -o http://url_pool2:port -u username_pool2 -p pass_pool2)

    Nice, I'll give that a shot.  So, the second -o/u/p set is not used at all unless the first is down?  Will it automatically failback to the original?  Can you have a third or fourth set as well?

    Just wondering Smiley
    Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 843 »
      Print  
Page 39
Viewing Page: 40

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com