There is definitely some optimizations that could benefit Blagos miner. My experience is that I need to use a lower cache size than what ought to be optimal. Optimally, the miner should read all the data it needs from a file in one go, and do it's thing. That would limit the IO seeks to 2 per plotfile. But if I set the cache size such that it should be able to read everything the CPU will visually idle while it's trying to find the best offset. However if I lower it to 131072, it seems to keep the CPU at 100% utilization.
That said, I still have great success with optimizing. My 16TB took ~110s unoptimized, and are now running in ~80s, great improvement.
Hmmm, what sort of drives are you using? I never saw an improvement from optimizing my drives, I'm using the J6 optimizer as well (not Blagos). The drives I'm using should be very fast sequentially, but suck as far as seeks go (slower spindle = longer seeks, higher density = faster sequential).
I actually seem to be running into a absolute lowest mine time of ~50s for one of my drives. Although I'll be testing more later tonight on my desktop CPU (4690k). I OC'd my x4 640 an additional 25% and it didn't move that time at all, which I'm starting to think Blagos is part of the bottleneck (it can only process so fast regardless of the rest of the system).
When looking at the drives in resource monitor they aren't transferring that much data. The GPU plotter wrote to them about 3x faster doing a 8192 stagger buffer, which I assume is similar in nature to when they're getting mine
Why 131072 too? Why not 100000?
Some more testing, it looks like my drives are not the limitation. Looking at random transfers in HD Tune using random access, they're about 4x higher then the transfer speed I'm getting with Blagos at the same block size >64K. That is a worst case scenario as well, which shouldn't be representative of a optimized disk (which is supposedly mainly sequential).
Update to this, with a 4690k I got it down to 32s, but the drive still wasn't being maxed out.
