python OpenCL bitcoin miner

[c_k]

m0mchil, can we get better stats output?

like from lukejr's version?

 

[Mobius]

m0mchil, can we get better stats output?

like from lukejr's version?

 

He put it into the latest git download, - few display issues need to be worked out, but seems to work.

[sturle]

[...]
and I get ERRORS!!!!
what a fuck should I do?

You could start by revealing the error message.  On Linux error messages are actually useful, and often it says exactly what the error is.  At least to a trained eye.

[c_k]

OK, I got the latest git download working but it seems to briefly go idle when ever it gets an accepted share and the GPU usage drops briefly

I don't get this problem with previous releases or other miners - is this a known problem with the latest code in git?

[Luke-Jr]

m0mchil: Why'd you remove the retry-on-network-error code when you merged my branch? This greatly improves yield on many pools. Also, why remove GW/Efficiency? Useful data, that! Finally, when will phatk be optional?

[IlbiStarz]

Just installed on my 3rd Linux rig...wtf is wrong with the new display? It keeps making blank lines and such...could you bring back the old display please?

[lfm]

Just installed on my 3rd Linux rig...wtf is wrong with the new display? It keeps making blank lines and such...could you bring back the old display please?

I suspect that is a bug in that new terminal window. I get it on many different programs.

[IlbiStarz]

Just installed on my 3rd Linux rig...wtf is wrong with the new display? It keeps making blank lines and such...could you bring back the old display please?

I suspect that is a bug in that new terminal window. I get it on many different programs.

Well it's also mining super slowly for some reason...

[IlbiStarz]

OK, I got the latest git download working but it seems to briefly go idle when ever it gets an accepted share and the GPU usage drops briefly

I don't get this problem with previous releases or other miners - is this a known problem with the latest code in git?

This is also happening for me. Every miner will drop to super low rates like 1mh/s and then get a connection error, and then go back to 350mh/s...

Just installed on my 3rd Linux rig...wtf is wrong with the new display? It keeps making blank lines and such...could you bring back the old display please?

I suspect that is a bug in that new terminal window. I get it on many different programs.

Wait so it's Linux not poclbm? I just updated all my rigs to the newest poclbm miner and it's really...weird. Windows is fine I'm running the same batch script using --user, --pass, --host, but on Linux that isn't even an option, I have to do something like --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> and there are lots of connection errors/hashing inconsistencies. I'll be waiting for a fix...or it just me?

[RaTTuS]

one of my usernames has a @ in it so this breaks the  --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> bit :-(

[m0mchil]

m0mchil: Why'd you remove the retry-on-network-error code when you merged my branch? This greatly improves yield on many pools. Also, why remove GW/Efficiency? Useful data, that! Finally, when will phatk be optional?

Why would you need to retry submission? Because you either a) have connectivity problems or b) the pool is overloaded. Anyway, probability of result being valid is going down with time.

As for GW/Efficiency - this will soon be irrelevant because of some new protocols being developed. Even now, it assumes difficulty of 1 and will show (@ 400 Mh/s) efficiency of 50% at non-'time rolling' pools and anything above 100% (even 700%) with 'time rolling' ones (Eligius). Feel free to explain to users what/why is this. Not that it is wrong, it just doesn't make my life exactly easier.

Finally, what exactly is wrong with phatk? As far as I know, it's better on everything AMD 5xxx and up (majority of users). Nvidia users should have their own optimized miner anyway.

[brocktice]

one of my usernames has a @ in it so this breaks the  --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> bit :-(

Yeah btcmine in particular requires the @. May need some sort of regex instead of .split('@').

[TheMoneyStorm]

one of my usernames has a @ in it so this breaks the  --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> bit :-(

Yeah btcmine in particular requires the @. May need some sort of regex instead of .split('@').

I'm using the latest version with --servers at btcmine with the @ symbol and I haven't had a problem with it at all, all 4 miners
have been running for days with out a hiccup, So I don't think there's a problem with the @ symbol.

[brocktice]

one of my usernames has a @ in it so this breaks the  --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> bit :-(

Yeah btcmine in particular requires the @. May need some sort of regex instead of .split('@').

I'm using the latest version with --servers at btcmine with the @ symbol and I haven't had a problem with it at all, all 4 miners
have been running for days with out a hiccup, So I don't think there's a problem with the @ symbol.

Well it seems to be mining but long polling is somehow broken on btcmine.

[brocktice]

one of my usernames has a @ in it so this breaks the  --servers <user>:<pass>@<host>:<port> bit :-(

Yeah btcmine in particular requires the @. May need some sort of regex instead of .split('@').

I'm using the latest version with --servers at btcmine with the @ symbol and I haven't had a problem with it at all, all 4 miners
have been running for days with out a hiccup, So I don't think there's a problem with the @ symbol.

Well it seems to be mining but long polling is somehow broken on btcmine.

It's something with the new connect method. If I revert to the old longPollThread it works fine.

[TheMoneyStorm]

Well it seems to be mining but long polling is somehow broken on btcmine.

Yea, I noticed that too. My stales are less than a half of a % though, so that's fine with me.

[TheMoneyStorm]

It's something with the new connect method. If I revert to the old longPollThread it works fine.

They'll get it ironed out soon enough, hopefully.

[RaTTuS]

My backup pools with @ in them work now ... so I put it down to a temp glitch

[TheMoneyStorm]

My backup pools with @ in them work now ... so I put it down to a temp glitch

A temp glitch with some software, say it aint so . Glad it's working for you now.

[Luke-Jr]

m0mchil: Why'd you remove the retry-on-network-error code when you merged my branch? This greatly improves yield on many pools. Also, why remove GW/Efficiency? Useful data, that! Finally, when will phatk be optional?

Why would you need to retry submission? Because you either a) have connectivity problems or b) the pool is overloaded. Anyway, probability of result being valid is going down with time.

Every pool I've tried lately (BTCGuild, Bitcoins.lc, and of course Eligius) has had an occasional network error submitting blocks, even when it's not overloaded. Overload is pretty common during longpolls no matter how powerful the pool system, since it has to get new work for every single miner. What's the rationale behind giving up after one try, rather than giving it at least 5 minutes?

As for GW/Efficiency - this will soon be irrelevant because of some new protocols being developed. Even now, it assumes difficulty of 1 and will show (@ 400 Mh/s) efficiency of 50% at non-'time rolling' pools and anything above 100% (even 700%) with 'time rolling' ones (Eligius). Feel free to explain to users what/why is this. Not that it is wrong, it just doesn't make my life exactly easier.

Perhaps it should be changed from a % to a simple decimal number? Or a hidden option to enable it? --I-know-what-efficiency-is

Finally, what exactly is wrong with phatk? As far as I know, it's better on everything AMD 5xxx and up (majority of users). Nvidia users should have their own optimized miner anyway.

It uses too much system memory. In particular, I give my mining VM 256 MB RAM, and phatk just gets OOM-killed unless I add swap to it. If I go ahead and waste more RAM on it, I get a total of 1 MH/s improvement-- not worth it to me.