You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm wondering what to do now that one can use separate bucket sizes for phases 1&2 versus 3&4.
I'm on an i-7820X (8C/16T) clocked at 4.4GHz, 32GB of 3200CL14 ram (Samsung B-die) running at 1.45V, two 500GB Samsung NVMe drives in a RAID0 for Temp2, and two 500GB Samsung SATA3 drives for Temp.
I'm getting 51.6 minutes per plot running -r 8, -u 64, and -v 256.
I don't know that I'm doing what's best for the bucket sizes though. I assume phase 1 is the most memory intensive and have gone with the large memory footprint for that reason but my logic may be flawed and it may be better to run with more buckets for -u and less for -v.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I'm wondering what to do now that one can use separate bucket sizes for phases 1&2 versus 3&4.
I'm on an i-7820X (8C/16T) clocked at 4.4GHz, 32GB of 3200CL14 ram (Samsung B-die) running at 1.45V, two 500GB Samsung NVMe drives in a RAID0 for Temp2, and two 500GB Samsung SATA3 drives for Temp.
I'm getting 51.6 minutes per plot running -r 8, -u 64, and -v 256.
I don't know that I'm doing what's best for the bucket sizes though. I assume phase 1 is the most memory intensive and have gone with the large memory footprint for that reason but my logic may be flawed and it may be better to run with more buckets for -u and less for -v.
Anyone have any thoughts or experience with this?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions