Way to be a troll.  I'm just wishing the guy well - not literally praying that the Internet Gods resolve the issue.

:HUG: Good luck with this.  If there's anything we (regular users) can do besides wait and pray, let us know.

Yes.  Pushpool seems to work just fine as a namecoin pool.  I tested this and successfully solved one block and now have an immature transaction for 50.01 Namecoins.    In that the difficulty level is so much lower, it's a neat way to test the software without requiring tens or hundreds of gigahashes to successfully earn some coinage.  I ended up opting for an alternative to blkmond since I couldn't get that working properly: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8797.0

I'm not highly experienced with it, but as far as I can tell thusfar, there's no real difference running pushpool as a namecoin pool than a bitcoin pool.  Good luck with it!

This works beautifully.  I could not get blkmond working at all, but your script does the trick, and the clients clearly show the "long poll: new block"

Thanks!

Thanks.  That confirms my understanding of the concept.  I guess what surprised me was that pool mining with poclbm looks like this:

17/06/2011 23:05:37, fd94be7d, accepted
17/06/2011 23:05:46, long poll: new block 00000c5220f6a603
17/06/2011 23:06:06, ac91fa5f, accepted
17/06/2011 23:06:11, c3050ae0, accepted
17/06/2011 23:06:26, a4408403, accepted
17/06/2011 23:06:31, 60eff26b, accepted
17/06/2011 23:06:39, d59cfbbd, accepted
17/06/2011 23:06:45, 8e660ab0, accepted
293182 khash/s

While solo mining just looks like this:

284757 khash/s


The lack of a flowing status is kind of puzzling once you've become accustomed to it.

Thanks for the replies!  I may try setting up a rudimentary installation of a pool software on one of the machines so I can at least see what's really going on.  I don't need to track who did what, but it's nice to see those little successful chunks as a confirmation of work done.

Hey folks... I've had experience so far with pooled mining using the poclbm client in Ubuntu so I'm used to the frequent status information showing timestamps and "accepted" as each share is submitted successfully.  Out of curiosity, I'm trying solo mining among several machines (actually for namecoins but the software is basically the same).  I have the namecoind daemon running on one of the machines, rpc user/pass and port configured, daemon=1, server=1.

The poclbm clients all connect without error and show a hash rate in the expected range, but nothing else.  Should they show frequent update information as I see with pooled mining or is this normal?  I poked around in the namecoind program but can't find any command to show definitively if I'm really mining or not.  My assumption is that I am because getinfo shows a connection count of 8, the correct difficulty and current block number.  Is that all the normal feedback I'd get when mining solo?

Thanks!!

Nice work!  Any chance of getting more details like the "Rate" as you do with BTCMine?  Or # active miners?  Anything that can help tell at-a-glance if things are working as expected would be far more helpful than just the balance.  Thanks again!

Or have them wire it as a single 30amp 120v circuit.  It's pretty much the same job for an electrician.  Personally I'd prefer to keep all the equipment running in the 110-120v world so I don't do something stupid like plug a machine intended for 120v into a 240v line.

As for the power draw, personally I suspect it will be a lot lower than you expect.  I have several systems in either the HAF-X or Antec One Hundred cases with 1 7200RPM hard drive, MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboard, 4 5830 cards, Corsair 950TX power supply and various fans, and each machine draws between 660 and 670 watts.  The 6900 series cards may draw more power but with only three of them, I suspect you'll be in the same ballpark.

Buy a Kill-a-Watt or similar device - it's worth having around to answer these questions.

Pretty cool!  I'd love to see support added for these pools:
BTCGuilld: http://www.btcguild.com/
Bit Clockers: http://www.bitclockers.com/

Thanks!

I've been very happy with the APC AP9211 and similar units.  They're often available used on eBay for less than $100 including the Ethernet interface.  You can connect via https, telnet, and several other methods.  Personally I just have a VPN set up so I can get to the network, and connect via the web interface to reboot machines.  They can be scripted to do fancy stuff like STONITH when setting up clusters, but the web interface has been more than enough for my needs in both mining and managing the office servers.

Thank you!  That makes so much sense.  I'm just happy to see it stable and will keep giving my 2.5% toward more good things.

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but I can't figure out why the earnings appear to be down about 30%.  I was consistently seeing around 0.08 BTC per Ghash/sec per block with some natural variance.  After sometime on 6/8 or 6/9, it looks like that dropped and remains closer to 0.55 BTC.

Was there a difficulty increase around that time?  Or is this just a function of the increased usage after the new servers came online, and maybe there's some other upside to offset this that I'm not understanding.

My own stats are a bit difficult to look at in a vacuum as I've recently added additional hardware, roughly doubling my hash rate but increasing the payouts considerably less.

Thanks - sorry if this is really a novice question, but I'm kind of a novice still.

Another question regarding the multiple pool servers...

I currently have two machines in one location, and two in another.  They're both within a few miles of one another, and should probably connect to the East coast server in an ideal world.  But instead I have two that appear to be hitting US East, and the other going to Europe.  The machines connecting to Europe are getting quite a few idles, and invalid or stales.

It looks like the current load balancing is just a round-robin DNS among the three locations with a 3-hour DNS TTL.  Unless there's some other fancy stuff going on in the background, I wouldn't think this would necessarily result in the miners reaching the ideal pool server.  On the other hand, it should do a nice job of balancing the load broadly speaking.

Does it matter as far as statistics, payouts, or anything else if one user has workers connecting to multiple BTCGuild servers like this?  Much as I'm tempted to connect directly to the server of my own choice, I'm sure that would be against the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish.  If everyone did it, the load may not be well balanced at all.  [Thanks for answering that!]

Thanks!!  Keep up the good work!

Thanks for this.  I had no trouble at all modifying it to monitor 8 workers and I tweaked the title into 2 lines.  Still doesn't scale but it serves my limited needs... until I bring some more workers online and have to tweak it again. 

I flashed 8 Saphire 5830s.  I assumed the bios dumps may be unique to a card, so I backed them all up individually.  In fact, a quick md5sum of the backups confirms that they are all identical.  My cards were purchased at the same time and are sequentially numbered, so YMMV...

Exactly.  I assumed that was the best way to measure the power usage.

You mean the estimated ones (current round)?  Mine's about half of what I'd expect, but hopefully that's either a calculation error or something related to downtime on BTCGuild's end during this round.  That aside, I'm seeing a complete lack of errors for the first time in days, so this is a real step in the right direction.  Glad to see users' donations are appreciated with good work.   

Not that you need more agreement, but that PS should be fine.

I've got two systems running quad-5830s OC'd 950/300, 1 7200RPM HDD, 3 200mm fans, 2 140mm fans, Sempron 140 on an MSI 890FXA-GD70 and they draw just under 670 Watts under full load.  I'm using a Corsair TX-950 which leaves a bit of headroom - more headroom than I anticipated.

I've got two machines running 4 5830s and have settled on 950MHz core, 300MHz Memory.  With -w256 I get 288 Mhash/sec.  I've seen over 300 Mhash/sec with 985,300 but not enough stability.  Has anyone tried running lower voltage to this card?  I saw an entry in the hardware comparison that someone's doing 1.125v instead of 1.163 which seems like a nice way to keep power usage down and maybe overclock a little further.  But then... I may have reached the reasonable limit for what these cards can do with any degree of reliability.