2018-06-15 09:30:45
@rvncn has joined the channel
rvncn
2018-06-15 09:36:01
@Fireduck
Why does my miner-pool.bat download the snow file again at every startup even when it is in the folder?
rvncn
2018-06-15 09:40:40
Why exactly is the lenght incorrectly I have downloaded the whole 64GB through the .bat SnowFall process
rvncn
2018-06-15 09:43:12
the miner nerver downloads the snowfields, it either generates them or loads them from the disk to the memory
Rotonen
2018-06-15 09:43:28
it's not instant to pull tens of gigabytes from the disk into memory
Rotonen
2018-06-15 10:03:39
mining is faster on linux or on windows?
adorid
2018-06-15 11:03:51
Yes but as you can see on my screenshot I have the files already generated on my diskspace. I already mined for a couple hours.
rvncn
2018-06-15 11:04:28
And now it shows "Unexpected length" on the terminal and tries to generate them new everytime.
@Fireduck
rvncn
2018-06-15 11:04:31
Any idea?
rvncn
2018-06-15 13:54:49
disable auto snow to begin with
Rotonen
2018-06-15 14:02:26
It looks like your deck files are incomplete. They shouldn't be zero length.
Fireduck
2018-06-15 15:43:16
Did snow 7 just got activated?
rvncn
2018-06-15 15:56:55
No where close
Fireduck
2018-06-15 15:57:02
Still on 6
Fireduck
2018-06-15 16:00:01
my snowfall downloads 7 currently :confused:
rvncn
2018-06-15 16:01:29
It generates 7 to be ready
Fireduck
2018-06-15 16:09:52
ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
rvncn
2018-06-15 17:06:29
as said, disable auto snow, it’s mostly just in the way
Rotonen
2018-06-15 19:28:39
1-min: 32,588K/s, 5-min: 25,517K/s, hour: 2,126K/s
Is that like an okay number?
I run this on a i7-6700k CPU and an 1TB Samsung 960 Evo Pro as m2 ssd
rvncn
2018-06-15 21:27:15
960 pro can go to a sustained 100k, but that requires a bit of trickery on the linux kernel side
Rotonen
2018-06-15 21:27:20
up to 50k is easy
Rotonen
2018-06-15 21:27:44
as a baseline, if it's not saturating your cpu yet, bump the thread count and see what that does for you
Rotonen
2018-06-15 22:03:31
I’m not a coder in opencl or cuda but exchange between system ram-cpu and system ram-gpu are about the same , I’m sure that using a gpu to make those read and write with system ram could potentially do more hash than a 8 core cpu.
bl0ckchain
2018-06-15 22:05:36
it's not a checksum throughput problem, it's a seek latency problem
Rotonen
2018-06-15 22:23:19
Is the cpu randomly picking hash in the snowfield without keeping in memory those already tested ?
bl0ckchain
2018-06-15 22:24:24
it is picking a random nonce
Fireduck
2018-06-15 22:24:45
but the odds of hitting the same one twice is way less than the cost of tracking ones that are tried
Fireduck
2018-06-15 22:36:58
It seems like it makes no difference for my hashrate or CPU load if i increase the threads in the .conf file.
rvncn
2018-06-15 22:37:10
Started at 40 -> 60 -> 80 -> 100
rvncn
2018-06-15 22:37:25
hashes are no different
rvncn
2018-06-15 22:42:22
Yeah, IO limited
Fireduck