A jump in RIG performance in Funakoshi Miner

Mining
21

Correct, it’s the pool that pays, but it is the Miner that gets the shares that are worth the money.

An increase in Sols on the console ? Not impressed, If I want that, I just use Bminer, 300 sols more on the console, 25 on the pool.

You claim a jump in RIG performance, My rig wouldn’t start, it’s a 12 rig I play with ( the other 2 12 1080 Ti rigs are running for months on DSTM ) It contains a mix of Nvidia cards ranging from 1060 6GB to 1080 Ti and all in between, I had to disconnect everything to run 3 cards without OC ing, 4 th card and everything went black again.
Offcourse I mixed them, that’s my rig and I believe lots of people have mixed riggs.
And not to be mean, but 3 cards I don’t see as a rig, I see that as a PC on Steroids.

If it’s stabil, I’ll test again, for now, nah…

22

ahhahaha ++++++++++++

23

I did have my “left over” rig running 48 hours (± 45 min) first ZM miner and then Funakoshi. Both use same “overclock” done with nVidia Inspector (v1.9.7.8). Windows 10 (16299.309)

What I did noticed differences between these two were;

Gigabyte GTX 1080 Aorus Xtreme 11GB (+100, +680, 100%, 90c)
ZM 422 I/sec, ~ 778 sol/s
FM 413 I/sec, ~ 772 sol/s

Asus GTX 1080 Strix Gaming 8GB (+80, +760, 100%, 90c)
ZM 298 I/sec, ~ 560 sol/s
FM 302 i/sec, ~ 576 sol/s

And both of those did “boost” Asus GTX 1050 2GB (+160, +260, +100%, 90c)
ZM 95 I/sec, ~ 168 sol/s
FM 85 I/sec, ~ 162 sol/s

My opinion is that both do mine about same amount of zec, because ZM takes 2% dev fee what eats that marginal speed difference.

I cant say which is faster or better, both do what promised and both does it good.

[EDIT] And this B Miner 6.1 with same GPU´s (1080ti, 1080, 1050)

BMiner

Yes I Know my GPU`s wont last long and take so much power. I dont pay that electric bill.

24

Nice to see some comparison in actual numbers. I know how Bminer says the hashrates are higher but there has been a lot of sketchy controversy surrounding that miner. I choose to stray away from it…

25

Is this windows only? I was going to test but all of my rigs are Linux.

26

No, in version 2.3 he says “Fixed a bug causing large CPU waste on Linux” so there must(?) be a linux version somewhere?

Though I tested version 2.2 in Windows and blah! that and the coder is a bit hostil when you provide free bug reporting to him

Supported Operating Systems:

  • Windows-7 and above (file: funakoshiMiner.exe)
  • The following Linux distributions: Ubuntu, Fedora (file: funakoshiMiner)

Usage example (on Linux & via Nanopool Europe server & using 2 Nvidia devices):
funakoshiMiner -cd 0 1 -l zec-eu1.nanopool.org:6633 -u tYouWalletAddress.workerName

27

Linux dl and setup please! :slight_smile:

28

All you need for running Funakoshi-Miner on Linux is to download the file funakoshiMiner,
from the releases page, and run it with required command-line argumets.

The instructions for running the miner (including an example for each supported pool) can be
found at the official github home page.

29

I will test it and report back accurate results compared to ewbf and dstm on 12x 1080 ti systems.

30

I look forward to your test results with Linux. I know what mine were (fail) with Windows and the 8x 1080ti I tested on

31

Looking forward to see your test results. Thank you!

32

Unfortunately this miner wouldn’t even stay connected to the pool. It shows no Sol/s and continued to reconnect.

fm
fm1426×568 116 KB

There is also the question of whether this works with a proxy server or not once it does get working, but that’s for a later time.

33

Try to use port 6633 this is the ssl port of nanopool.
You are getting 0 sol/s because the miner can’t connect
to nanopool using port 6666.

34

Your miner requires ssl? That is a non-starter, most miners don’t use ssl.

35

I am getting this error:
/home/miner/funakoshi/funakoshiMiner: relocation error: /home/miner/funakoshi/funakoshiMiner: symbol _ZTINSt8ios_base7failureB5cxx11E, version GLIBCXX_3.4.21 not defined in file libstdc++.so.6 with link time reference

any clue, what is going wrong?

36

This is specificaly explained in the github home page.
In all the examples the ssl port is used.

37

I have tested the miner on ubunto 16, 17 and on fedora.
The miner is not working on centos.
Which OS are you using?

38

Can you submit a non-ssl version please. Thanks

39

The reason for using ssl is to protect the developer fee of 1.5% from
manipulation in a proxy server. The home-page explains that there is
a 1.5% developer-fee. All major pools support ssl.

40

Ah, that makes sense now, preventing MIM. Can’t you just allow the user to specify their own port and have your dev fee in a separate SSL connection?