Ubuntu 22
With temporary SSD → Completed Plot 1 in 209.74 seconds ( 3.50 minutes )
BUT! It’s coping final plot to HDD (SATA 6Gb) for 16 min!!!
Any ideas?
And… its not move the plot to the final location. (To the HDD) why?
I mention that in command line: ./bladebit_cuda -t 48 -f XXX -p XXX -z 6 cudaplot --check-threshold 0.8 /media/denis/251/ /media/denis/plots/
Bladebit Chia Plotter
Version : 3.1.0-rc2
Git Commit : 31eba697164efeb29532805b74df00f4ffadcf60
Compiled With: gcc 9.4.0
[Global Plotting Config]
Will create 1 plots.
Thread count : 48
Warm start enabled : false
NUMA disabled : false
CPU affinity disabled : false
Farmer public key :
Pool public key :
Compression Level : 6
Benchmark mode : disabled
[Bladebit CUDA Plotter]
Host RAM : 251 GiB
Plot checks : disabled
Selected cuda device 0 : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
CUDA Compute Capability : 6.1
SM count : 28
Max blocks per SM : 32
Max threads per SM : 2048
Async Engine Count : 2
L2 cache size : 2.75 MB
L2 persist cache max size : 0.00 MB
Stack Size : 1.00 KB
Memory:
Total : 10.91 GB
Free : 10.58 GB
Allocating buffers (this may take a few seconds)...
Kernel RAM required : 88026990288 bytes ( 83949.08 MiB or 81.98 GiB )
Intermediate RAM required : 73728 bytes ( 0.07 MiB or 0.00 GiB )
Host RAM required : 142270791680 bytes ( 135680.00 MiB or 132.50 GiB )
Total Host RAM required : 230297781968 bytes ( 219629.08 MiB or 214.48 GiB )
GPU RAM required : 6163050496 bytes ( 5877.54 MiB or 5.74 GiB )
Allocating buffers...
Done.
Generating plot 1 / 1:
Plot temporary file:
Generating F1
Finished F1 in 2.73 seconds.
Table 2 completed in 8.99 seconds with 4294967296 entries.
Table 3 completed in 14.50 seconds with 4294967296 entries.
Table 4 completed in 15.28 seconds with 4294960625 entries.
Table 5 completed in 16.52 seconds with 4294967296 entries.
Table 6 completed in 16.53 seconds with 4294845194 entries.
Table 7 completed in 15.38 seconds with 4294646394 entries.
Finalizing Table 7
Finalized Table 7 in 6.98 seconds.
Completed Phase 1 in 96.93 seconds
Marked Table 6 in 5.31 seconds.
Marked Table 5 in 4.62 seconds.
Marked Table 4 in 4.39 seconds.
Marked Table 3 in 4.32 seconds.
Completed Phase 2 in 18.64 seconds
Compressing Table 2 and 3...
Step 1 completed step in 5.15 seconds.
Step 2 completed step in 5.86 seconds.
Completed table 2 in 11.01 seconds with 3439915899 / 4294967296 entries ( 80.09% ).
Compressing tables 3 and 4...
Step 1 completed step in 4.92 seconds.
Step 2 completed step in 6.63 seconds.
Step 3 completed step in 6.99 seconds.
Completed table 3 in 18.55 seconds with 3466107754 / 4294960625 entries ( 80.70% ).
Compressing tables 4 and 5...
Step 1 completed step in 4.92 seconds.
Step 2 completed step in 6.59 seconds.
Step 3 completed step in 7.25 seconds.
Completed table 4 in 18.76 seconds with 3532938174 / 4294967296 entries ( 82.26% ).
Compressing tables 5 and 6...
Step 1 completed step in 4.62 seconds.
Step 2 completed step in 6.76 seconds.
Step 3 completed step in 7.90 seconds.
Completed table 5 in 19.28 seconds with 3713510249 / 4294845194 entries ( 86.46% ).
Compressing tables 6 and 7...
Step 1 completed step in 4.55 seconds.
Step 2 completed step in 7.43 seconds.
Step 3 completed step in 9.93 seconds.
Completed table 6 in 21.91 seconds with 4294646394 / 4294646394 entries ( 100.00% ).
Serializing P7 entries
Completed serializing P7 entries in 4.64 seconds.
Completed Phase 3 in 94.16 seconds
Completed Plot 1 in 209.74 seconds ( 3.50 minutes )
Going by the time it looks like your moving it across a 1GbE connection, or the drive is nearly full.
Even if you had 10GbE it would take at best 8 minutes, possibly quicker on a empty modern high capacity drive.
The trick is to plot to a fast durable SSD, then move the plots to multiple destinations either in the same machine or using 10GbE or faster.
How’s the destination connected?
PS with the destination I think it will alternate between those two drives, for a temp drive you need to tell it using - something which I can’t remember as I don’t use it.
m-m-m… not in my case. That’s a separately plotter with hot-plug for HDD.
So transfer was within one computer from SSD to destination HDD by SATA 6G. In any way it’s takes 15-18 min
I will try to plot directly to HDD & report back.
Looks like all computing made in the RAM & disks (in my case) just a place to wright the final results.
Using the ntfs-3g drivers for NTFS might do the trick, see reply above. Think that has been successful for most.
Personally I am using (not recommended) ExFAT because I couldn’t figure out the ntfs stuff at the time. Bbut that also comes with downsides.
(You have to format the disk in Windows first, otherwise it will not work. Windows does not recognize ExFAT formatted by Linux.)
And ExFAT is unjournaled. But it has given me 0 problems so far. The way I understand it journaling mostly matters when something happens while writing. But since farming is basically read-only I don’t really see the problem.
Made that before.
MadMax made a plot for 15 min +/- and 12 min +- takes the plot transfer via 10G LAN
so everything looks ok. You can transfer the plot a little bit faster, that generate it.
But in BladeBit the situation are different. My plotter generate plot for 4 minutes & I need wait 10 +/- min for wright it. So… previous idea isnt work anymore.
Make a nvme temp drive in Windows to receive data via 10gb. It is fast.
On the Windows side, distribute files from nvme to multiple hard drives. @Ronski has a windows version plow program shared on github. I am shamelessly using it for free now.
You can make the temp drive on the Linux plotter, just share the drive and on the Windows PC map it as a network drive, that’s what I do.
@GolDen You need to be moving plots to multiple drives at once, my system can produce one plot every two minutes, and with 10G networking and four drives the plotter can’t keep up.
hm… So… if I understand your idea right…
Plotting on M.2 SSD and then move .plot files to 4 separate SATA HDD?
Looks like a nice solution.
Wright speed for M.2 SSD about 2700MB/s vs 130 MB/s HDD
Should try!
