Aside from pointing my DragonMint T1s over I'm gonna light a candle. Come on, CKpool...
Well at the very least it looks like we've got something even better - a new big hasher on board. Alas it's just a rental unless they're choosing to use the rental port. |
|
|
|
I'll be restarting the pool shortly for minor updates. Downtime should be negligible.
Restart complete. Mine on! |
|
|
|
What if Major pool(s) gets down and CKpool can quickly finds lots of blocks in that time. Is there any possibility?
None. Difficulty has to change for that to happen, and it would take 10 years of no one mining but ckpool for diff to get that low. |
|
|
|
Is port 4334 working? Port 3333 is working fine (establishes connection) but 4334 is giving me problems at connection establishment on Nicehash.
It had crapped out, restarted now. |
|
|
|
Dragonmint T1 driver and asicboost rolling support for cgminer is now part of the public master cgminer code. https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/e7128f35d9b5ba816113e7f959aba47c6a870a3bThere is a minor firmware update version t1_20180430_083103 available based on this exact code also for existing owners. Just click check for updates. EDIT: BTW I forgot to mention an improved performance and efficiency with this latest firmware. |
|
|
|
Hi guys!
Could someone tell me why it shows 0 hashrate on solo.ckpool while on the asic’s S9 dashboard everything is ok and the hashrate is 13.5???
{
"hashrate1m": "0",
"hashrate5m": "0",
...
{
"workername": "16U5HDYhpW5ZxEX6MLofPCSh2tAumM932r",
"hashrate1m": "0",
"hashrate5m": "0",
...
}
And one more question: I’ve got only one worker, And it shows "workers": 2, why?
Thanks beforehand!
Based on that, your S9 is no longer connected to the pool. It might've switched to a different pool, maybe due to a failover, internet blip, or something else. If you look at your S9's status page, what pool does it show that its connected to? Hi , i would like to know me too why is there 2 workers for 1 machine . thks My guess is the old broken cgminer code that bitmain use under their name bmminer that doesn't correctly disconnect old sessions and is probably holding 2 sockets open. Harmless. |
|
|
|
It's been 30 days since the T1 has been released. When will the firmware code be released?
Today. The code was a complete mess so even if I wanted to release it into the public, I didn't want to add it to my cgminer git repository it was such a disaster. It's far less offensive now and stable so I plan to merge it today. By the way strictly speaking they're only obliged to release the code if someone who owns the hardware requests the code, but we're releasing it anyway. |
|
|
|
-ck, I've noticed that your pool has grown a little. If it's not to intrusive, can you tell us how many Dragonmint's are there, and how their holding up error wise???
The bulk of them are Halong burn testing their manufacture so they're not there for very long but they constitute 6+PH at all times. I can't pass any judgement on them with that little information. |
|
|
|
This firmware has been pushed to the main servers as the stable version so if you check for updates in the web interface you will now get this one to upgrade to. |
|
|
|
is there any changelog or date? Not sure which firmware I use actually, it was the one I got 3 days ago (telegram).. The date is in the filename, the changelog I just gave you. It only came out when I posted this message so it's definitely newer... |
|
|
|
|
And thanks to yet another network difficulty rise, we are again under 5x network diff, and our diff has dropped back to 118%.
|
|
|
|
I of the major reasons I kept the T1's rathe then send them back was the 3 speeds allowed with ck's firmware upgrades.
Firmware that lowers hashrate but does not lower watts per gh is meh.
-ck's firmware dropped watts per gh from .105 to .095
in my setup this = $$
and -ck's throttle feature to prevent over heating = $$ for my setup up.
I would like 1 more lower setting if possible.
something that drops me to 1000 watts and maybe 0.087 watts a gh
I can get the power usage down, but I cannot improve the efficiency any further. In efficient mode the chains are voltage tuned to the lowest stable voltage that produces a good hashrate and is still high enough to keep the chains running reliably. Turning the voltage down any further will only make the chains unreliable I'm afraid which means all I can achieve is lower power usage at the same efficiency. |
|
|
|
If you ran a promo like...
Please understand, I'm not running a business here, unlike other pools. This is a service to the community. |
|
|
|
That only took a year.  Part of me LOLs about the numbers and part of me weeps. It's good to be able to make light of the length of time, but as always I find it sad that more people don't mine here and it should have been like 6 months ago.  It again confirms just how hard it is to get a pool off the ground again in this environment. Halong burn testing in 6+PH of miners is the bulk of the hashrate at the moment, and wetsuit is most of the rest. If wetsuit's infrastructure update was complete we'd be about 5PH bigger but that's still only really 2 big hashers and not big enough to get us over the curve to start attracting more. Even the zero fee isn't really attracting anyone. It's the curse of pooled mining that there's no disincentive for the biggest to get bigger. That and the fact that the bulk of mining is actually all contracts and agreements with big pools (plus hardware manufacturers competing with their own customers - as Bitmain is doing - is a totally laughable situation.) |
|
|
|
|
The pool is now officially at 5 x the current network difficulty. You'll see the pool and the miners' herps and lns will plateau now.
|
|
|
|
Huh?
The bigger the hashrate the higher the diff, the shares per second are constant depending on number of connections. |
|
|
|
Interesting test I did today. I was bored. LOL
With 3.4-3.6PH the pool averaged 204-205 SPS.
I added a 3PH rental from nicehash and westhash to the pool for a while and the share rate only increased to 208SPS average.
Shouldn't it have gone up quite a bit more than that?
They use proxies which combine the shares from multiple machines into much less connections. Does that mena less shares are actually transferred to the pool then? Just a fictitious hash rate increase, but no real increase in shares? Diff |
|
|
|
Interesting test I did today. I was bored. LOL
With 3.4-3.6PH the pool averaged 204-205 SPS.
I added a 3PH rental from nicehash and westhash to the pool for a while and the share rate only increased to 208SPS average.
Shouldn't it have gone up quite a bit more than that?
They use proxies which combine the shares from multiple machines into much less connections. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
