Based on 16 GPUs : between 260 and 270.

[1.6.2] Implement second pci mode (--pci-mode 1).

No idea what it is.

It does work, but when I was still mining on coinmine the SSL certificate wasn't recognized by optiminer, maybe feeleep75 changed/fixed that now.

So, I checked the difference between "-i 6" and "-i 7" on my rx 470 (xfx true oc). TL;DR : nothing changed (sols/s, watt, ..). So I reverted back to the default "-i 6".
This might have a better outcome with different GPUs but I guess optiminer did a pretty good choice at picking the intensity parameters.

I know i'm not answering exactly what you expect, but how does that matter ?
Can't you use ssh to admin your rigs ?
Or the issue isn't about administration but rather about the miner not working because the screen is not recognized ?
=> My setup is 100% headless, no fake hdmi or anything and it works like a charm.

How long have you been using your -i 7 ? mostly out of curiosity, i'm wondering whether that's just as stable as -i 6 on stock cards.
But more importantly, have you also compared your Watt/Sol ratio between -i 6 and -i7 ?

optiminer just updated the changelog on his github repo saying it's 2.5%


5% increase on my stock rx 470 (xfx true oc) on ubuntu 14.04 with amdgpu-pro 16.50 (netting me roughly ~262.5sols/s now, compared to ~250sols/s with 1.5.0)
Just as a side-note, i setup 1.5.0 when it got released and never had to reboot/restart any rig (hardware or software).

RX470 virtually unchanged compared to 1.4.0. A couple tenth of a percent at most. (i.e. still ~250sols/s on stock with ubuntu 14.04 and amdgpu-pro 16.50).
Edit : 1.5.0 is not faster per se, but the speed (according to the 60s average) is *much* more constant.

Edit2 : some graph for a 4 rigs 4 gpus cluster.
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/ac0be9e0-a4d9-4d0a-9a5b-cb85532e9ef4.jpg

It substantial. Like ~15% based on what I've read for GCN 4th gen.

I can confirm the speed increase.
By the way, when it comes to stability, I just wanted to point out that I ran version 1.3.0 from the moment it's been released until 30min ago when I switched to version 1.4.0 without a single crash on my rigs. That's what I would call pretty stable. Let's hope version 1.4.0 is just as good !
Thanks opti.

That's because the admins of that pool are sloppy and they installed a certificate which name is not coherent with the dns address.
Like for zec.coinmine.pl : the ssl certificate is actually for www2.coinmine.pl
=> Claymore added it just for the sake of the implementation and it adds little more security. Optiminer did the real work and checks that the certificate is actually the intended one (which is also why we can't hijack the fee channel anymore).

Well done. Running 4 ubuntu 16.04 rigs with each 4 rx470.
Stable so far, I'll keep you posted.

Compiled without any hassle here, with the latest commits.
Getting 115sols/s with a stock rx 470 (for reference, that same card would do ~175sols/s with optiminer - including the fee).

I'm getting more with 0.6.0 as I get own hash + fee hash than with 1.0.1 as I'd only get my own hash (which has barely changed).

I've been running optiminer 0.6.0 on 3 rigs 24/7 since the day it's been released without a single crash (each rig has 4 rx470).
Indeed all ethernet connected, stable connection, stock GPUs, default options.

I honestly don't see the point of using 1.0.1. It's rather easy to circumvent the crazy fee in 0.6.0 and base hash + fee hash in 0.6.0 is above the base hash on 1.0.1 (with or without fee).
Plus optiminer now has implemented an ssl connection for his fee, connecting to his own (solo ?) mine (proxy.optiminer.pl:4041) which checks the certificate so impossible to hijack the connection now.
Trying to strace/dbg the process is crashing it so hard to say now how much fee he's pumping out of our rigs.

Long story short : I'll be sticking to 0.6.0 until there's another linux miner with a decent fee or until optiminer get his act together and adjust his with more transparency.

PS : my rx470 is hashing at (not counting fee hash)
~170sols/s with 1.0.1
~160sols/s with 0.6.0

That's one of the reasons why we (generally speaking) have laws for "abusive license agreement" for example.
The problem is there is asymmetric information : YOU know how much you're making, because you code it, and you chose it that way. But we don't. And that creates a completely untrustworthy context which makes people more willing to cheat you, because essentially, what you are doing is cheating us by not saying anything and parading behind a "what you see is what you get, nothing else matters".

If you're too afraid of clearly stating the fee, maybe it's because you know yourself that's its too high. And that's not how you get much support.