dear ivianoo,
has installation guides for Linux, Mac Os X, and Windows.
-John
1 Like
I think I contacted all contributors of >= 0.05 BTC.
Anyone else who would like a full or partial refund, please send me a private message.
I ran a few benchmarks on a Intel(R) Core™ i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz running Debian. It’s a 4-core processor with hyperthreading accessing 4 sticks of 4GB 1600MHz DDR3 memory. Three benchmarks were on native machine, two were in a Ubuntu VM. Three benchmarks were made with multithreaded solver, two were with multiple instances of singlethreaded solvers. Parameters for solvers were -n 1000 -r 200, producing 390 solutions.
- There is no benefit from going from 4 to 5 processors (engaging hyperthreading) - in case of
equisolver it actually produces worse results. Increasing the number of processors further has a larger effect on the multithreaded solver but little on the singlethreaded solver. - There is a large difference between VM and native solving, making native solving much preferred to VM solving. On the same machine the benchmarks using
zcash-cli zcbenchmark solveequihash 30produced very similar results natively and inside the VM, around 0.17H/s. Tests using zcash-miner connected Suprnova pool confirmed this. With this solver, using just 2 native processes is faster than running 4 cores inside the VM (and actually using 4 cores on the host). Running 4 cores natively outperforms running 4 cores in the VM by a factor of 1.8. - In all cases running N instances of singlethreaded solver is faster than running N threads of the multithreaded solver.
- If this solver makes its way into a standalone miner, I’ll use 4 singlethreaded solvers. This still leaves a bit of processing power for other operations and uses half the memory as compared to using 8 processes, for which the gain of 8% is almost negligible. I suspect that any high-performance solver will show the same behaviour.
4 Likes
@JanKalin Are you able to integrate equihash algo into zcash daemon code?
If yes, please let us know the changes. Currently I am working on this integration and it will save us lot of time.
Sadly, no. Even though I have done a lot of programming, cryptoworld is a completely new field to me and It would take me far too long to get familiar with it. But @str4d has announced that he will be working over the weekend towards integrating this with his standalone miner - with the caveat that he might have other work, so not to expect too much 
Make that “I have had other work, so it’s not getting done by me this weekend, so someone else should have a go.”
1 Like
I just committed the combined version, obsoleting the former “faster*” executables. The new “equi*” are almost as fast, and I have a few more micro-optimizations to make…
I changed the name of the thread since it is no longer about the crowdfund or Cuckoo Cycle. Just about my solvers…
When I run eqcuda I get this:
$ time ./eqcuda
Looking for wagner-tree on ("",0) with 10 20-bits digits and 8192 threads (128 per block)
Digit 0
Digit 1
Digit 2
Digit 3
Digit 4
Digit 5
Digit 6
Digit 7
Digit 8
Digit 9
9 rounds completed in 0.000 seconds.
0 solutions
0 total solutions
Why isn’t it “really” computing?
@dcale try running it multiple times
or
try different nounce with -n
./eqcuda -n 56
We will never really know its performance unless ported and use on beta2.
still not working… But I have an old nvidia 660, maybe that’s the issue?
try ./eqcuda -n 1000 -r 100. This should produce 188 solutions.
it “produces” them instantly… which commit are you using? I’m on 3cc4e5ae30343fd7d.
I (finally) tried changing the number of buckets used in my solver, and seem to get more than 50% speedup with 2^12 buckets instead of the former 2^16. Still cleaning up the code; should be committed soon…
And done…
Next on to-do list: port recent improvements over to CUDA…
7 Likes
Here are the updated benchmarks
and the table
+--------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| n | e1_nat_MP | f1_nat_MP | f_nat_MT | e_nat_MT | f1_VM_MP | f_VM_MT |
+--------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 1.00 | 2.99 | 2.51 | 1.98 | 1.71 | 1.39 | 1.06 |
| 2.00 | 5.77 | 4.63 | 3.73 | 3.22 | 2.48 | 2.04 |
| 3.00 | 8.25 | 6.41 | 5.24 | 4.53 | 3.48 | 2.89 |
| 4.00 | 10.11 | 7.76 | 6.21 | 5.32 | 4.27 | 3.63 |
| 5.00 | 10.04 | 7.77 | 6.24 | 5.13 | nan | nan |
| 6.00 | 10.62 | 8.05 | 7.19 | 5.77 | nan | nan |
| 7.00 | 10.83 | 8.30 | 8.01 | 6.22 | nan | nan |
| 8.00 | 10.76 | 8.45 | 8.27 | 6.35 | nan | nan |
+--------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
The latest solver is e1_nat_MP, the others and the test machine have been described a few posts back.
2 Likes
I benched my code with callgrind and it shows 33% of time being spent on blake2b hash computations. wish i could just plug in xenoncat’s asm optimized code for that:-)
3 Likes
Its really great news gentlemen. Mr. Tromp if I understand correctly your solver utilizes CUDA subsystems of NVidia cards?
If anybody has modern nVidia GPU cards could You please share your results in sol/s using current tromp’s solver?
Yop Im also intrested. If someone could share binary/or tell me how I can test that…, I could provide speedtest on my own GTX780.