Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

11.2 claymore #37

Open
PeshBG opened this issue Mar 2, 2018 · 11 comments
Open

11.2 claymore #37

PeshBG opened this issue Mar 2, 2018 · 11 comments

Comments

@PeshBG
Copy link

PeshBG commented Mar 2, 2018

I just tested with 11.2. Seems not to work. Worker was not seen in the pool and i get error from claymore as soon as no dev fee kicks in.

@Demion
Copy link
Owner

Demion commented Mar 2, 2018

Not supported starting from 11.1 because of SSL encryption.
Havent tested, but I think that is the case. Provide all logs here, to check for sure.

Checked - doesnt work for ethermine. More details here - #34 (comment)

@PeshBG
Copy link
Author

PeshBG commented Mar 2, 2018

i went back to 11.0 and i havent started the nodevfee logs

@jsm0
Copy link

jsm0 commented Mar 3, 2018

divert 3.2 working claymore 11.2 on nanopool (for now at least)

@katatunix
Copy link

Can we hook some function like SSL_write instead of send?

@Demion
Copy link
Owner

Demion commented Mar 3, 2018

Sure if you know where it is located, and how to obtain its address.
I dont see it at any DLL exported. Might be static linked inside exe, modified, obfuscated.

@br1egel
Copy link

br1egel commented Mar 3, 2018

Claymore 11.2:

  • some improvements in AMD GPU kernels, it can increase hashrate a bit in some cases.
  • reduced some delays, it will cause a bit less stale shares.

pff, I would guess claymore doesn't want to share something of his cake :D

@Freekers
Copy link

Freekers commented Mar 5, 2018

Why do you want to run the latest version? I haven't noticed any difference between 10.5 and 11.2 in terms of hashrate or stability. So I just keep using 10.5 because the updates Claymore pushes are mostly 'devfee patches'.

@katatunix
Copy link

As I tested on AMD rigs, with 11.2 hashrate is increased about 0.8 Mh/s, of course it is the number reported on Claymores console, not sure whether it is real or not.

@br1egel
Copy link

br1egel commented Mar 5, 2018

@Freekers : agreed
Well regarding this thread mimimi someone stole my kernel. I am back to claymore v10.0. First tried v11 only eth mode with no change (maybe 0.8Mh/s but that could be variance - e.g we are playing partly a lottering) and then with dual mining mode. But if I take all my amd graphic cards to eth and just choose one gtx 1080ti to keccak, I'll get a more stable hashrate, overall higher hashrate on eth. For v10, claymore didn't use vmProtect, so no virtual machine, probably a bit faster asm code, and you can change easily his dev fee address. If everything goes 'south' and ssl will become mandatory, I am trying to dump the binary code / cl IL code/ he's sending to the opencl device. (ready to be inserted into ethminer).
Be aware to close remote mgmt ports see exploit

@Freekers
Copy link

Freekers commented Mar 5, 2018

@katatunix For me, Claymore 11.x slowed down my hashrate by approx. 1.5MH/s per card (without using nodevfee): https://i.imgur.com/zKr1NaB.png .Therefore I use Claymore 10.x (same settings): https://i.imgur.com/2CaGovj.png

@br1egel That thread was a good read lol. Yeah I have the mgmt ports closed.

Also, for those of you that do not need the overclock/voltage options in Claymore, have a look at ethminer. It comes without any devfee by default and is OpenSource as well. Sadly, I have to use the overclock and voltage options in Claymore because MSI Afterburner does not support 8+ GPUs (the developer of Afterburner is not in favor of/against mining and will not make it compatible to support 8+ GPUs)

@DragonKingz
Copy link

im using claymore 11.2 + nodevfee v0.2.6b mining on ethermine, asia1 :4444 (not using ssl), still working after i put -allpools 1
:)
1520527399394

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants