Will we have to take action to switch to PPLNS? or will it be done automatically?
I prefer to take action to switch manually. I want to stay with PPS for now. It's nice and simple.
Thanks,
Sam
PPS will be the default. You will be able to swap workers between PPS and PPLNS as long as they're using a Stratum server. Getwork servers will only work on PPS (even if you try to change it to PPLNS). I'll be working on an option for new users so they can sign up and see the two payment methods side by side and select the default method for their workers as well. In the long run, PPLNS should pay more (lower fee), but you'll have to deal with the frustration of some days making 2-3x more than expected, while making far less than expected on others. Sounds great. I've never quibbled about fee's. I think you deserve it for your work, both in the community and your pool. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
Will we have to take action to switch to PPLNS? or will it be done automatically?
I prefer to take action to switch manually. I want to stay with PPS for now. It's nice and simple.
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
So yeah, great miner guys, but there still seems to be some compatibility issues that need to be ironed out as far as the windoze side is concerned me thinks, but I don't blame you for not bothering too much about it, seeing as we all love windows so much. Well... I actually have busted my balls for months on end trying to sort out the windows issues, so that is a slight understatement saying "not bothering much"  Enjoy anyway. I've been using CGMiner on Windoze since it's 2.0 version because it could do what no other miner or GPU management software could do with controlling my GPU's. Been very happy with the capabilities since. Thanks ckolivas for additional work you have put into Windoze support. I haven't experienced any Windoze related issues since not being able to press Q and get the closing stats, that I know of anyway. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
The semi-official Bitcoin Pool Comparison Chart only shows 2 stratum pools, BTCGuild and Slush's. Are there others?
Most pools are in the process of implementing it. Of the other ones that already have it, ozcoin is my favourite, but emc also does it (though with too unstable a variable difficulty IMO). Good to know  Thanks ckolivas  * ckolivas rattles the donation jar and whistles innocently j/k People should start pledging amounts earned from when they receive their new gear. 3.0 btc here. Sure, I'll pledge an unknown amount of my unknown earnings from my unknown gear that I may receive, or not, so the story goes. I'm sure ckolivas and graet can really plan allot for the future based on that.  I'll count my chickens after they hatch and go from there. |
|
|
|
It will be bad day for namecoin.
But a good day for increased pool reliability and Bitcoin productivity. |
|
|
|
yes, 18 shares per minute on auto, though users can choose 1 - 10,000 if they feel they need something different What are some guidelines for the user defined diff? |
|
|
|
please stop whinging about payouts, there was a issue and i only just got some time to fix it.
just waiting for graet to get on to start them up.
I have never Whinged, that I know of, but I do like to whine from time to time. Thanks Wayno, Sam |
|
|
|
1. Even if it is using rolltime Q should be at lease eqal to NB (in 1000% it is different work) 2. Read about p2pool we are mining payuout blockchain which have 10sec blocks. Ah, will do, Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
Hi. Small reminder: "Q:" is still very wrong. cgminer version 2.9.3 - Started: [2012-11-12 11:10:19]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):14.55M (avg):14.63Mh/s | Q:4 A:31 R:6 HW:0 E:775% U:0.2/m
TQ: 0 ST: 1 SS: 0 DW: 3 NB: 21 LW: 2774 GF: 0 RF: 0 WU: 0.2
Connected to rav3n.dtdns.net with LP as user toy.gpu
Block: 02fc0fe59a06045dd6cfdc3c... Started: [14:07:12] Best share: 101
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
GPU 0: 55.0C 85% | 14.37M/14.63Mh/s | A:31 R:6 HW:0 U:0.16/m I: 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-11-12 14:17:12] LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
[2012-11-12 14:17:23] LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
[2012-11-12 14:17:24] LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
[2012-11-12 14:17:32] LONGPOLL from pool 0 requested work restart
It is p2pool, so longpool every 10sec, 21 new blocks in mean time but Q is only 4 and E is hitting roof on this small MH/s Don't know what's wrong with that. Seems to me to be a good thing if P2pool is using rolltime. But I have a question, why is P2pool sending a LP every 10 seconds? Sorry to be off topic, again, but this seems to be a huge waste of work. |
|
|
|
I just started using the stratum server with all my 7xxx series cards on cgminer and I have no rejects yet which is quite amazing considering what I would have normally accumulated by now. I tried to connect to the stratum server with guiminer on my 5xxx series rig but to no avail. I don't know if guiminer doesn't support it or what but it's not a big deal I will just keep that rig on the us2 server for now.
does guiminer even support stratum? The latest poclbm does. |
|
|
|
|
Neither the balance nor load balance strategies seem to work when your mining on a stratum server as your primary. I've noticed this on all of the stratum enabled CGMiner's so far.
Sam
|
|
|
|
another way to test would be switch to PPS while testing - PPS wont be affected by changes in pool hashrate or round luck.
Sam's example started one sample with a long block but finished the other sample on a long block. They way DGM pays out would influence those pay results.
If someone wanted to do that, that would be great. But I'm satisfied that everything is working correctly for me now. Not that I ever doubted it was . Thanks everyone, Sam |
|
|
|
Similar share count round payouts are lower with stratum from my perspective. Going to switch back to compare...
Same hardware, speed, etc.
Are you factoring in the extra ~300 GH/s that the pool has gained over the past couple of days? That's obviously going to decrease your reward for each block. I was thinking exactly that last night. The hash rate did go up to 1Ths and then back down to 700ish Mhs and now is back up again. That may very well explain the variation that I saw originally. I'm back on stratum for the last couple blocks and the payout is now on par with what getwork was getting previous to those two. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
I've started a poll regarding Merged Mining (Namecoins). As I stated recently in slush's thread, the namecoin project feels like it's abandonware. Very little work has been done since merged mining was released last year, usage is not picking up, and the value of NMC continues to become a smaller and smaller percentage of income. I'm likely going to drop NMC merged mining and stick purely to BTC unless there is a demand for it to remain available. In that case, I may setup a special getwork-only enabled server for people who want to continue mining NMC.
Finally a poll worth voting on. |
|
|
|
One thing I see possibly wrong about the shares output that was first posted, is that it was also against different blocks, and possibly across different time spans.
Yes they are different blocks, 8 in a row, 4 stratum and 4 getwork. That being said, last night, there was also a hiccup in the server, where miners got disconnected unintentionally. That issue has been resolved. Today, about 20 min ago, we had to bounce the stratum server to implement a minor change.
Unless there was a hiccup on each of the four stratum blocks I doubt that was the cause. Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
Yes, I agree that would be the best test. But I only have the one rig with two different GPU's, so I can't do that. But I will run it again over the weekend while keeping an eagle eye on SS. Again I'm just posting information while the testing is/was going on. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork
These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332. My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873 2012-11-07 12:41:51 4,393 0.03354776
206808 2012-11-07 02:54:22 806 0.03152941
206800 2012-11-07 01:11:42 1,592 0.03447590
206778 2012-11-06 21:53:48 2,368 0.03428086
These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333. My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752 2012-11-06 17:35:01 757 0.02448683
206736 2012-11-06 15:03:56 1,054 0.02756680
206723 2012-11-06 12:44:48 946 0.02476589
206709 2012-11-06 08:56:48 3,747 0.02780425
I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam
I've observed the same thing here. I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970). The one 7970 is running up to par. But the 3x7970 is running subpar. All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased. I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970. The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27. (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.) So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum. M Unless you're getting lots of disconnects with stratum, and your SS: count has risen, then there is no way to blame this on stratum. Nope no disconnects nor stales. I'm not blaming anything. I'm just posting the results of my payouts between stratum and getwork for 8 blocks in a row, four blocks each, and my payout was significantly lower on stratum. I often regret putting utility in as a counter in cgminer because it is a measure of hashrate x luck and people often blame stretches of bad luck on whatever their last software change was.
I have received your admonishments several times now about how luck is involvled with the Utility counter , but it is an objective measure of how many shares you are submitting a minute, so I really like it. I always keep in mind that luck is involved with it. Now if it is an issue of lost shares due to disconnects, that's another story. The SS counter will tell you that.
Nope, didn't notice any disconnects nor stales. I may retest for a longer period of time over the weekend. EDIT: It's also worth noting most people are noticing a universal rise in their hashrate, which makes sense given the lack of dropout in work between getworks that stratum exhibits. Hashrate being an objective figure unrelated to luck.
Yes, I did notice that hashrate was a bit higher and that is in my original post. But my payout was definitely lower. Sam |
|
|
|
|
Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork
These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332. My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873 2012-11-07 12:41:51 4,393 0.03354776
206808 2012-11-07 02:54:22 806 0.03152941
206800 2012-11-07 01:11:42 1,592 0.03447590
206778 2012-11-06 21:53:48 2,368 0.03428086
These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333. My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752 2012-11-06 17:35:01 757 0.02448683
206736 2012-11-06 15:03:56 1,054 0.02756680
206723 2012-11-06 12:44:48 946 0.02476589
206709 2012-11-06 08:56:48 3,747 0.02780425
I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333
cheers
Graet
Will that always be the stratum port number? Sam |
|
|
|
Well, I do publish the pool statistics weekly. If I'd called the posts "Pool statistics based on an invariant time period of precisely 604800 seconds" you might have embarrassed me.
It would be a bit wordy. But if it was set to a catchy tune... |
|
|
|
(this also saves me from discussions with my wife)
Yep, not a trivial reason. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
