OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1

[SkyNet]

Why decreased speed?
cgminer 3.2.1 - 645 kh
cgminer 3.3.1 - 605-610 kh

most likely you changed your settings there is no decrease in speed...

[micalith]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

[-ck]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Efficiency means nothing in the stratum protocol era. Compare disconnects, GF and RF.

[crazyates]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Not really. Balance or load-balance don't distribute the hashrate perfectly evenly over multiple pools. If it favors one pool over another, and sends more shares that way, you're going to think you're earning more with that pool, when the pools may end up being the same.

Whenever I've tried it, it's always given Ozcoin the short straw, submitting less shares to Ozcoin and giving more to the other pools. Idk why it happens like this, but it can make Ozcoin look less profitable, when it's really not.

[micalith]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Not really. Balance or load-balance don't distribute the hashrate perfectly evenly over multiple pools. If it favors one pool over another, and sends more shares that way, you're going to think you're earning more with that pool, when the pools may end up being the same.

Whenever I've tried it, it's always given Ozcoin the short straw, submitting less shares to Ozcoin and giving more to the other pools. Idk why it happens like this, but it can make Ozcoin look less profitable, when it's really not.

Efficiency means nothing in the stratum protocol era. Compare disconnects, GF and RF.

OK, so I'll set it to 'balance' for unbiased results.

GF and RF are 0 for about 36 hours of run time. I'll check those periodically

thanks

[GrapeApe]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

[Krak]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

It's alright, that problem has been fixed many times in this thread already (I can recall at least 3 off the top of my head).

[PatMan]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

Damn those pesky readme files, ruining everyone's fun......

[GrapeApe]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS I am shocked at how far this has gone. The community here has spoken and evidently  I am the troll here so I stand corrected, you are all very helpful considerate people and I would like to thank all you for pointing out the readme to me.WOW I never thought of that. It was a power supply issue so this was no help whatsoever but I thank you again.
VERY HELPFUL

[Krak]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

It's obnoxious having to help people who won't help themselves over and over.

[crazyates]

It's obnoxious having to help people who won't help themselves over and over.

It sounds harsh, but it's true. Oh so very true... 

[Askit2]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

[Joshwaa]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that trolling as well?

Fixed it for you.

[alatvian]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

So you guys aren't willing to help me fix a problem on my one setup which is most likely different than every other setup because everyone's machine is different?  Well... Screw you guys... I'm going home.

[kano]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

So you guys aren't willing to help me fix a problem on my one setup which is most likely different than every other setup because everyone's machine is different?  Well... Screw you guys... I'm going home.

Bye

Really, the problem is people not bothering to read the README files that have the answers.

Basically:

"Oooh wow - free software to make money"

"Damn I'm not getting my free money"

"Why should I bother to read README files to get free money, I'm sure I can get someone else to do that for me so I get free money for no effort at all"

"Hey - can someone help me"

...

[Joshwaa]

Blame Obama. 

[crazyates]

Blame Obama. 

Thanks Obama!
Don't judge me.

[os2sam]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

So you guys aren't willing to help me fix a problem on my one setup which is most likely different than every other setup because everyone's machine is different?  Well... Screw you guys... I'm going home.

What are you whining about?  This conversation had nothing to do with you.  Unless your the same person as GrapeApe using more than one account?!?!?

[prehistoric]

ckolivas, you mentioned that Windows default 15ms timer resolution is shitty. Today I've just read that 15ms resolution is for reason http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/windows-timer-resolution-megawatts-wasted/
Indeed, after executing clockres and "powercfg -energy duration 5" I see, cgminer switched it to 1ms

Code:

ClockRes v2.0 - View the system clock resolution
Copyright (C) 2009 Mark Russinovich
SysInternals - www.sysinternals.com

Maximum timer interval: 15.600 ms
Minimum timer interval: 0.500 ms
Current timer interval: 1.000 ms

Platform Timer Resolution:Timer Request Stack
The stack of modules responsible for the lowest platform timer setting in this process.
Requested Period 10000
Requesting Process ID 5356
Requesting Process Path \Device\HarddiskVolume6\Downloads\prog\bt\cgminer\cgminer.exe
 Calling Module Stack  \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\ntdll.dll
 \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\winmm.dll
 \Device\HarddiskVolume6\Downloads\prog\bt\cgminer\cgminer.exe

I haven't found exact notice of that in NEWS.txt, but this

Code:

Version 3.0.0 - April 22nd, 2013
- Create a cgminer specific gettimeofday wrapper that is always called with tz
set to NULL and increases the resolution on windows.
- Add high resolution to nmsleep wrapper on windows.

So is timer resolution change in cgminer intentional?

[-ck]

ckolivas, you mentioned that Windows default 15ms timer resolution is shitty. Today I've just read that 15ms resolution is for reason http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/windows-timer-resolution-megawatts-wasted/
Indeed, after executing clockres and "powercfg -energy duration 5" I see, cgminer switched it to 1ms

Code:

ClockRes v2.0 - View the system clock resolution
Copyright (C) 2009 Mark Russinovich
SysInternals - www.sysinternals.com

Maximum timer interval: 15.600 ms
Minimum timer interval: 0.500 ms
Current timer interval: 1.000 ms

Platform Timer Resolution:Timer Request Stack
The stack of modules responsible for the lowest platform timer setting in this process.
Requested Period 10000
Requesting Process ID 5356
Requesting Process Path \Device\HarddiskVolume6\Downloads\prog\bt\cgminer\cgminer.exe
 Calling Module Stack  \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\ntdll.dll
 \Device\HarddiskVolume4\Windows\System32\winmm.dll
 \Device\HarddiskVolume6\Downloads\prog\bt\cgminer\cgminer.exe

I haven't found exact notice of that in NEWS.txt, but this

Code:

Version 3.0.0 - April 22nd, 2013
- Create a cgminer specific gettimeofday wrapper that is always called with tz
set to NULL and increases the resolution on windows.
- Add high resolution to nmsleep wrapper on windows.

So is timer resolution change in cgminer intentional?

Indeed it is intentional. We work with very tight timeframes and 15ms resolution isn't remotely accurate enough for what's required by some higher performance, but poorly designed hardware. If the hardware in question had nice queues for submitting work and buffers for returning work and didn't require polling, we wouldn't need to do this, but we do. Otherwise, depending on which device we're talking about, we'd lose results, the results would be corrupted or we'd be unable to keep it busy (the avalon suffers from all of the above for example).

Note that we try to only enable high resolution timers for the duration we need them, but with so much going on in cgminer, it ends up being on most of the time.