GPU Plotter - Tweaks or Upgrade?



  • Been tweaking at GPU Plot settings for a few days.

    Using a GTX 960 - 4GB Ram onboard, best I can get it to run at settings-wise is:

    2048 - 512 - 256

    IN addition, each drive is allocated 2GB of working RAM

    With those settings, plotting to 3 drives simultaneously, I'm achieving only 4700 nonces/min in direct or buffer mode. Both show the same output reading on short 2GB tests.

    To compare, using xplotter with 3/4 i5 cores nets me 6000 nonces/min.

    All of three drives can be written to at 100+ MB/s, they are not the bottleneck.

    I have read somewhere in the forums that the GPU being the active display source may be an issue stability-wise, so I will see if using the MOBO to drive the monitor helps me increase settings.

    Is it just time to buy a stronger GPU? Or does this sound like a setup/optimization problem?

    Bonus question - has anyone set up a 'chain' of .bat files to run the GPUplotter successfully?

    EXAMPLE: Execute 2.bat after completion of 1.bat?

    If so, I would love a syntax example, I have been unsuccessful with '&&' and 'call' attempts I have made.

    Thanks in advance for the time and help!



  • @ATLPolit That might be the best you're going to get out of a GTX 960. I tried a GTX 950 and 960 and I was only able to get 5 - 6,000 nonces/minute and I had to cut settings in devices.txt by a lot. In contrast, my GTX 1070 can do 22,000 - 25,000 nonces/minute in direct mode with two drives in parallel.

    devices.txt:
    0 0 4096 512 128

    Also, you don't need a series of .bat files. Just put all the commands in a single .bat file one after the other:

    gpuPlotGenerator generate direct E:\XXX_0_1525760_10240 F:\XXX_30515200_1525760_10240
    gpuPlotGenerator generate direct E:\XXX_1525760_1525760_10240 F:\XXX_32040960_1525760_10240
    gpuPlotGenerator generate direct E:\XXX_3051520_1525760_10240 F:\XXX_33566720_1525760_10240
    :: more lines...
    pause



  • @sevencardz That's the conclusion I have been coming to myself, but wanted to check here because thought I may be missing something.

    I get at 5% boost by plotting 1 drive instead of 3, but still only 5000/min.

    Your example for the batch file acts in series like that for consecutive, not parallel, operations? If so I've been really over-complicating things.

    EXAMPLE:

    First Command:
    Plot 1TB on Drive A & B
    After complete, next command:
    Plot 1TB on Drive A & B



  • @ATLPolit Yep, exactly. The first command plots to two drives in parallel, completes, then the next command picks up immediately after and starts two more plots in parallel and so on. As a bonus, if you continue the exact pattern I used, that will plot a series of 372.5 GB (400 GB in decimal) plot files and use up 99.99% of any evenly sized drive (2TB, 4TB, 6TB, etc).



  • @sevencardz said in GPU Plotter - Tweaks or Upgrade?:

    ... and use up 99.99% of any evenly sized drive (2TB, 4TB, 6TB, etc).

    Only leaving 0.01% free, is that a good idea? I've read elsewhere on this forum that there should be a lot more drive head-room when plotting, or the HDDs get hot & bothered, which causes them to burn-out /fail. Afaik, the manufacturers recommend 10%, thou this seems excessive, especially for burst-mining operations.



  • I wouldn't think there would be any difference as to how much you leave free, drives are made to be filled.

    Maybe they don't want it to be completely full for fragmentation reasons, but with large plot files that shouldn't be an issue. If it was a working OS drive I could see complications with filling it, but it's not.

    I leave all of my drives with <1% free. No reason not to use the space, and no performance or heat issues.


  • admin

    @ATLPolit Maybe you should read into this:
    https://github.com/bhamon/gpuPlotGenerator/issues/18#issuecomment-307768957
    Test versions for improved 'direct' mode available it seams.



  • @BeholdMiNuggets It's a good idea to leave 10% or more space free on a hard drive if you're using it for your OS or something, but for Burst plots, no way, fill it all the way up. If I get bored one day, I'll go through and make a bunch of tiny plots and fill up the remaining 0.01%. :D

    The NAS drives have 3 year warranties and are rated for 24/7 operation. If I put them through hell and they fail, then they get returned or RMAed and I don't buy that brand anymore.



  • for me since Xplotter GPU plotting is dead... better benchmark the CPUs how about the new AMD ryzen vs i7 ? >8000 nonces/min o.O ?



  • @sevencardz said in GPU Plotter - Tweaks or Upgrade?:

    @BeholdMiNuggets -The NAS drives have 3 year warranties and are rated for 24/7 operation. If I put them through hell and they fail, then they get returned or RMAed and I don't buy that brand anymore.

    Been offered some large (pro) drives that usually have a 5-year warrantee. Although new & sealed, they are græy-market with no RMA available, hence about half the retail price. So they may be robust, but I guess we'll need to be more cautious!

    I've read about HDDs overheating due to being too full. However, with only a few plots (maybe just one) per drive, it does seem that the usual free-space required for auto-defrag & win-trim etc should be less necessary.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.