I've been getting a ridiculous amount of rejects lately. Currently at 88.6% efficiency (2879/371). Any way to get that up a little?

(Why) Is ptsminer slower with higher RAM setting?

If I run ptsminer with standard settings (512 MB) I get about 475c/m or 15.3 sh/m.
If I run ptsminer with setting 28 (1024 MB) I get about 385c/m or 11.6sh/m.

Quote from: wolf95 on November 27, 2013, 02:18:14 AM

Quote from: lerrigatto on November 26, 2013, 03:14:51 PM
Is beeeeer down? I have reboot on linux and the client says only:

connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds

Having the same issues on 2 machines, my local machine, and on a VPS.  IP used: 54.201.26.128:1337  I've waited several days to see if it's a connection issue, but it doesn't clear up.  Any ideas?

Do all your machines use the same wallet id? I accidently put my primecoin wallet in my script and it would not connect to the server, after changing it to my pts wallet it worked fine.

Quote from: lerrigatto on November 26, 2013, 03:14:51 PM
Is beeeeer down? I have reboot on linux and the client says only:

connecting to 54.201.26.128:1337
no connection to the server, reconnecting in 10 seconds

Having the same issues on 2 machines, my local machine, and on a VPS.  IP used: 54.201.26.128:1337  I've waited several days to see if it's a connection issue, but it doesn't clear up.  Any ideas?

Quote from: AcidCrash on November 26, 2013, 04:24:53 AM
PS: any news about compiling ptsminer on Macos Xor? Thank you for your job guys!

Sorry, i got hung up in personal stuff and evil work crap and haven't had a chance to update. I ran into a couple snags on mavericks that i don't get in 10.7/10.8, but i have a little time tonight to work on it. I'll update as soon as i know more.

I'll be on irc too if you want to troubleshoot live.

~Xornof

Quote from: Moonover on November 26, 2013, 08:38:32 PM
@xolokram

Thanks ! Rough test showed an improved sh/m and c/m with 512mb.

512mb : 115 c/m + 5 sh/m
1024 mb: 113 c/m + 3.5 sh/m
4096 mb: 95.3 c/m + 3.2 sh/m

N00b question here, which is the most important, c/m or sh/m ?

I'm now testing how many thread I can put on without  slowing down my alienware too much ... 12 thread at 512mb seem to do it ...

Let see if my laptop catches fire during the night ...

If you're running 12 threads, then that means you probably have either a Sandy Bridge-E or Ivy Bridge-E i7 in your laptop. Those c/m numbers seem a little low for 12 threads. Are you using the AVX binaries? That chip will support it. Also, I find it helpful to set the process priority to low, so it doesn't interfere with whatever you're doing in the foreground. Also like Xolo said, make sure you have good ventilation for your laptop, as we're not responsible for frying hardware.

@xolokram

Miner still fails to hand in shares, but it was pretty stable yesterday. Only 2 or so miner restarts.

Would a screen shot help at all? -- I'll edit this post and upload one when it crashes.
Even though there is very little difference on the screen?

If I don't catch the miner in time, eventually it will stop finding collision altogether until I restart it.

EDIT: Screenshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7OL6MIZst3YQWV5bGs0OVkxdVk/edit?usp=sharing
Hopefully that link works.

using multiple miners on the same payout addres is no problem
you can do that

@xolokram

Noob. Wondering if I should be using a different address for each machine I'm using. Using the same address VL total isn't combined, unlike another mine I use.

c/m is more important for your overall performance
sh/m fluctuates depending on the pool configuration

please don't try to kill your hardware! :D
i don't know if it's a good idea to mine with a laptop

- xolokram

ps. there's a issue with the pool/new miner producing rejects for one round of received work (until the next work is received), this happens rarely, i'll work on that asap

@xolokram

Thanks ! Rough test showed an improved sh/m and c/m with 512mb.

512mb : 115 c/m + 5 sh/m
1024 mb: 113 c/m + 3.5 sh/m
4096 mb: 95.3 c/m + 3.2 sh/m

N00b question here, which is the most important, c/m or sh/m ?

I'm now testing how many thread I can put on without  slowing down my alienware too much ... 12 thread at 512mb seem to do it ...

Let see if my laptop catches fire during the night ...

@hiddenvalleyranch:
AVX

@Moonover:
4 GB each is a overkill, the memory access will probably be your bottleneck, try 512 first, then 1024, and see if it increases your performance

@Sy:
thank you for clarification

- xolokram

Hawesome ... lot of great work here ...

Has there been a benchmark on the most optimal combination of thread vs memory allocated ? I'm currently mining at 5 thread with 4 GB each (I have 32 GB on my beast of alienware). For the moment each workers seem to pop-out 97 C/m on average.

Could I have a better yield with another config ?

Thx.

What instructions should I use for one of the new haswell processers.

Rebooted on windows and it works.
The linux client got a bug...