Monero Mining Performance

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Ok, it was my mistake.. the affinity needed to be inside "" marks.

Now its running perfectly, after i affined the idle cores for Cast XMR, i now get 600-612h/s on both CPUs. Flawless victory!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigatexal

dwright1542

Active Member
Dec 26, 2015
377
73
28
50
Ok, it was my mistake.. the affinity needed to be inside "" marks.

Now its running perfectly, after i affined the idle cores for Cast XMR, i now get 600-612h/s on both CPUs. Flawless victory!
Nice! Yeah, memory optimization is everything for Cryptonight based calcs. NUMA specifically addresses that. Same reason 5 year old HD79XX series GPU's still are viable: it's not about the actual GPU speed...it's about the memory optimizations.
 

voodooFX

Active Member
Jan 26, 2014
247
52
28
Does running the docker-mining-image inside a esxi VM (ubuntu) provides "impossible" results?
I mean, is this something well known?
Because I'm getting 674.5 H/s from a 4-Core VM on a IBM M4 host with 1xE5-2670V2, which looks very high/impossible, based on the numbers in the first post..

EDIT

getting similar performance also on bare metal (E3 1220V2)

Code:
dp@titan:~$ docker logs elegant_brown | tail -n 30
[ 78%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/Platform_unix.cpp.o
[ 80%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/Cpu.cpp.o
[ 82%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_keccak.c.o
[ 85%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_groestl.c.o
[ 87%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_blake256.c.o
[ 89%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_jh.c.o
[ 91%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_skein.c.o
[ 93%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/CryptoNight.cpp.o
[ 95%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/log/SysLog.cpp.o
[ 97%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/api/Httpd.cpp.o
[100%] Linking CXX executable xmrig
[100%] Built target xmrig
 * VERSIONS:     XMRig/2.4.3 libuv/1.9.1 gcc/6.3.0
 * HUGE PAGES:   available, disabled
 * CPU:          Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1220 V2 @ 3.10GHz (1) x64 AES-NI
 * CPU L2/L3:    1.0 MB/8.0 MB
 * THREADS:      4, cryptonight-lite, av=1, donate=0%
 * POOL #1:      a.mwork.io:4334
 * COMMANDS:     hashrate, pause, resume
[2018-01-01 14:22:01] use pool a.mwork.io:4334 64.71.135.158
[2018-01-01 14:22:01] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 20000
[2018-01-01 14:22:44] accepted (1/0) diff 20000 (192 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:22:59] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 30000
[2018-01-01 14:23:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.7 640.8 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:23:54] accepted (2/0) diff 30000 (190 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:24:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.6 641.5 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:24:12] accepted (3/0) diff 30000 (201 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:24:29] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 45000
[2018-01-01 14:25:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.6 641.6 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:26:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.7 641.5 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
Or I'm looking at the wrong numbers? :oops:
 
Last edited:

voodooFX

Active Member
Jan 26, 2014
247
52
28
I found another Socket 2011 MB laying around.
I'm now indecise if put in 2x E5-2670V2 or 2xE5-2687W

That would be

Sandy Bridge 16c/32 thread 3.10-3.80GHz - 300W TDP
vs
Ivy Bridge 20c/40 thread 2.50-3.10Ghz - 230W TDP

Does AEON scale better with cores or frequency?
 

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
Does running the docker-mining-image inside a esxi VM (ubuntu) provides "impossible" results?
I mean, is this something well known?
Because I'm getting 674.5 H/s from a 4-Core VM on a IBM M4 host with 1xE5-2670V2, which looks very high/impossible, based on the numbers in the first post..

EDIT

getting similar performance also on bare metal (E3 1220V2)

Code:
dp@titan:~$ docker logs elegant_brown | tail -n 30
[ 78%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/Platform_unix.cpp.o
[ 80%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/Cpu.cpp.o
[ 82%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_keccak.c.o
[ 85%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_groestl.c.o
[ 87%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_blake256.c.o
[ 89%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_jh.c.o
[ 91%] Building C object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/c_skein.c.o
[ 93%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/crypto/CryptoNight.cpp.o
[ 95%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/log/SysLog.cpp.o
[ 97%] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/xmrig.dir/src/api/Httpd.cpp.o
[100%] Linking CXX executable xmrig
[100%] Built target xmrig
 * VERSIONS:     XMRig/2.4.3 libuv/1.9.1 gcc/6.3.0
 * HUGE PAGES:   available, disabled
 * CPU:          Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1220 V2 @ 3.10GHz (1) x64 AES-NI
 * CPU L2/L3:    1.0 MB/8.0 MB
 * THREADS:      4, cryptonight-lite, av=1, donate=0%
 * POOL #1:      a.mwork.io:4334
 * COMMANDS:     hashrate, pause, resume
[2018-01-01 14:22:01] use pool a.mwork.io:4334 64.71.135.158
[2018-01-01 14:22:01] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 20000
[2018-01-01 14:22:44] accepted (1/0) diff 20000 (192 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:22:59] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 30000
[2018-01-01 14:23:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.7 640.8 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:23:54] accepted (2/0) diff 30000 (190 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:24:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.6 641.5 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:24:12] accepted (3/0) diff 30000 (201 ms)
[2018-01-01 14:24:29] new job from a.mwork.io:4334 diff 45000
[2018-01-01 14:25:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.6 641.6 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
[2018-01-01 14:26:04] speed 2.5s/60s/15m 641.7 641.5 n/a H/s max: 641.8 H/s
Or I'm looking at the wrong numbers? :oops:
You are mining cryptonight-lite, its about 3.5x higher hashrate than the cryptonight algo. So just divide your hash rates by 3.5 and it will be approximately comparative to the results posted in this thread.
 

dwright1542

Active Member
Dec 26, 2015
377
73
28
50
I found another Socket 2011 MB laying around.
I'm now indecise if put in 2x E5-2670V2 or 2xE5-2687W

That would be

Sandy Bridge 16c/32 thread 3.10-3.80GHz - 300W TDP
vs
Ivy Bridge 20c/40 thread 2.50-3.10Ghz - 230W TDP

Does AEON scale better with cores or frequency?
Both? :) Actually, the amount of L3 cache available on each CPU. A quick looks shows the 2670V2 has 25MB vs 20MB on the 2687. 2670 should be able to run 5 more full power aeon threads.
 

JustinH

Active Member
Jan 21, 2015
124
76
28
48
Singapore
For CPU hashing - yes. I did a quick test today and Saw about a 15% reduction in hash rates. Not going to upgrade my kernels anytime soon ( the machines are not exposed to the Net and I have my wallet on a different machine so little risk there)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigatexal

JustinH

Active Member
Jan 21, 2015
124
76
28
48
Singapore
It will be in the upcoming 4.15 release and I believe most of the distros will back port it.

I tested on Fedora with the patch backported to 4.14.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mantis

Member
Nov 17, 2017
38
6
8
52
15% reduction, that is a lot... i'm running windows, probably need to find a way to block auto updating completely.
 

alex_stief

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2016
884
312
63
38
From what I understood so far how the patch works 15% performance drop seems pretty high. I would not have expected that for this kind of application :(
 

nfsden

Member
Apr 6, 2016
113
15
18
35
Say hello, to new botnet. + almost 80Mh to monero nethash just in past few hours (I guess they are from botnets on js webminers)
Monero becomes abotnet coin.
 
Last edited:

Joel

Active Member
Jan 30, 2015
851
191
43
42
From what I understood so far how the patch works 15% performance drop seems pretty high. I would not have expected that for this kind of application :(
I suspect this will be a temporary problem until the devs can optimize for the patch. Sucks nonetheless.
 

keybored

Active Member
May 28, 2016
280
66
28
Wow... Network is at 630MH/s today. IIRC just 2 weeks ago it was at 500MH/s. At this rate it'll be at 1GH/s by Spring if not earlier...
 

Joel

Active Member
Jan 30, 2015
851
191
43
42
Devs probably don't care. After all, they're earning .1% of the botnets income. Unless you're talking about the devs of Monero itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigatexal