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

On fail count # stop retrying #896

Open
neofixdata opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 10 comments
Open

On fail count # stop retrying #896

neofixdata opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 10 comments

Comments

@neofixdata
Copy link

neofixdata commented Dec 17, 2018

Everytime I upgrade and rebenchmark I troubleshoot some algos. I wish there was a feature to stop retrying the same algo on a specified fail count. It ussually continues to retry around 20 times the same algo if I dont keep an eye on it. Thanks

@Zeno78
Copy link

Zeno78 commented Jan 16, 2019

I'd like the ability to not have cuda 9 miners any more. Most of those will not run for me. I have plenty of issues with all of the ccminer variants and end up deleting them.

@nemosminer
Copy link
Owner

nemosminer commented Jan 17, 2019

@Zeno78 most ccminers are cuda 10.. not cuda 9.. apart from ccminerx22i and ccminerxevan9.. whats cards are you running? they are all working for me i have 1070 1070ti & 2080

@MrPlusGH
Copy link
Collaborator

Done: 0b4b0ea

@nemosminer
Copy link
Owner

thankyou @MrPlusGH

@MrPlusGH
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry, I reverted the commit.
Code is buggy and need some rework.

@nemosminer nemosminer reopened this Mar 19, 2019
@MrPlusGH
Copy link
Collaborator

MrPlusGH commented Mar 19, 2019

got some working code.
Testing on NPlusMiner right now on dev rigs.
Will need a bit of time to get it here in Nemos.

@nemosminer
Copy link
Owner

allgood

@grantemsley
Copy link
Contributor

Any update on this issue @MrPlusGH? Failing miners are making it a huge pain to benchmark for me. Would love to help test the code if it still needs testing.

@grantemsley
Copy link
Contributor

@nemosminer do you know what the issues were with the way @MrPlusGH's code worked? I'm not sure if he's still working on it or not, but if he doesn't have time I'd love to take a shot at it since this issue affects a few of my machines.

@Minerx117
Copy link

Minerx117 commented May 24, 2019

@grantemsley im not sure what the issues were that @MrPlusGH was encountering i didn't thoroughly test it myself, your welcome to test, its available here: 0b4b0ea

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

No branches or pull requests

6 participants