I believe what you want looks like:
cgminer --rotate 15 -o http://pool0:port -u pool0username -p pool0password  -o http://pool0:port -u pool0username -p pool0password  -o http://pool0:port -u pool0username -p pool0password -o http://pool1:port -u pool1usernmae -p pool1password

"diakgcn" is the Diablo GCN kernel, it is designed for GPUs built on GCN technology (Radeon HD7000 serries)

CG miner auto-selects the best kernel for your hardware and rarely gets it wrong so just use the default kernel and you'll be fine.

I can think of 3 "solutions" to your cannot be managed/must be managed card combo. So here goes in increasing order of difficulty.

1. Get rid the faulty card. Maybe replace it with something that still works.
2. run 2 instances of CGMiner; one with "-d 1" and the other with "-d 0 -d 2 --auto-fan --auto-gpu  --your-other-options"
3. Adjust the bios defaults on your cards so they default to what you want them to run at. Don't specify any GPU or fan speeds when you start CGMiner so they all run at their modified defaults and let the driver control the fans.

Good luck.

from: http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS

"Miners accumulate Pay-Per-Share as usual. When a block is found, the pool counts the total unpaid PPS credits. If there are sufficient pool funds earned to pay them all in full PPS, that happens. If not, the miners are paid proportional to available funds. Remaining pool funds accumulate toward future payouts. The difference between a miner's actual (SMPPS) earnings and PPS earnings is retained as "extra credit", and considered in future blocks."

Assuming that everything but the stats is still working correctly and that the payout queue is still only a few blocks deep, then at 2GH/s you should get payed roughly every 3 or 4 days of mining. The first payout could take an extra day because you don't have much EC yet.

OK, I'm not going to pretend I fully understand the subtle differences between RSMPPS and CPPSRB.  I do feel that either of these should make for an agreeable compromise between the current (demonstrably broken) SMPPS and any of the AM variants. As someone that plans to keep mining here long term, I would of course prefer to cut off the inactive leaches by going full AM, I would be content to switch to one of these "recent" versions.

Also, I thought one of the major reasons to change reward system to PPLNS was to get rid of the infinitely growing shares database. I don't see any of these PPS variants helping in this respect. Then again if keeping the shares database also means we keep the current stats, then that would be a nice plus, at least until we have a new stats system in place, tested and tweaked to work with whatever reward system is in this pool's future.

Whatever the final decision may be, I hope something can be done before even more miners switch to another pool.

When I first read up on PPLNS, I didn't think I would like it. The reasoning being that with my limited mining capacity and the fact that this is my main PC and therefore can't be expected to mine full time, I Imagined the unfortunate scenario where I keep submitting shares that don't make the cut and therefore don't get payed out. I understood that other shares would get payed out multiple times and that my earnings should still average out to full PPS value but I just didn't want to face the prospect of some of my work going unpayed.

At that time, I figured that N would have to be rather large for me to stay on such a pool. I decided I would leave if N was less then difficulty and was really hopping it would be closer to 2 x difficulty. With N = 8 x difficulty, every single share returned to Eligius within the last year would have been payed at least once. As far as I can tell, only Eligius-De was ever unlucky enough to have blocks go longer then 8 x difficulty.

Alright so I guess I can live with PPLNS but what about the current system, how's that working out for me? So I just did some calculations based on the last 10 blocks on stats page for my address and here's what I found.

Over the last 10 blocks I got payed at an average rate of 0.00001716 BTC / Share. At current difficulty, the expected pay rate is 0.00002282 BTC / Share.

So the current system is costing me 25% of my expected earnings because the pool had some bad "luck" over the past couple months. Until we can catch up and start a new buffer, no sensible person should mine here because of what is essentially a 25% fee to pay off people that already quit mining here.  Yes, there is still the very remote possibility that the pool's luck will swing around and pay out all that EC but I'm not going to hold my breath.

With PPLNS, past luck has no impact on future payouts, so there is no bad time to join such a pool since "luck" only affects payouts on the previous couple days worth of shares.

Eligius-Su? Wasn't that deactivated 6 months ago? The stats show the current server as Eligius-Ra.

Somebody may want to update the link in the announcement at the top of the stats page.

3 days short of 4 years actually since one of those will be a leap year.   

You may not.


While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.  

I do, but I'm certain some people use multiple addresses for various reasons. But the only real one I can think of is as a way for slower miners to force more frequent payouts (even at just 1 Hash per minute, you can get payed every week if you switch addresses weekly). But even then, you only need to cycle between a few addresses for this to work.

If you use different addresses from the same wallet, when you make a transfer, the client will use funds associated with multiple addresses to make up the total amount of the transfer, effectively binding those addresses in the public record.

If you use addresses from different wallets, then you increase the risk of loosing coins due to a mistake as you switch between wallets and an astute observer might still be able to link those addresses if you ever transfer their contents to a single account in order to make a larger payment.

While the greed in me would like to encourage as many miners as possible to quit in order for the difficulty to go back down. Therefore anything that discourages potential quitters is a bad thing.  The jerk in me finds it hard to sympathize with people who don't want anything to do with mining but still insist on maximum payment for past mining. I guess I would be fully satisfied if we could limit it to only miners in other pools quitting (at least until solo mining with a single GPU becomes a viable option again) 

An quicker and easier test would be to simply disable LP. It'll cause a 2% or so increase in stales but it will provide a big boost to efficiency.

That sounds like a pretty bad design flaw. So I have to assume it's more a case of using a product to perform a task it was never designed to do or even using it in a manner never envisioned by the developer.


Enjoy your $1.32  

First, unless your playing 3D games, you don't get any benefit from running your memory that fast. And yes 300ish MHz is about ideal but CGMiner probably won't be able to set your cards any slower then core less 100 MHz. So you would need to use something like MSI AfterBurner to set it witch gets to be a pain if you reboot often.

And if you are playing 3D games on that PC, you probably should quit your miner while you play and just re-launch it after your gaming session/marathon.

As for the large performance difference between the 2 miner programs, my guess is that CGMiner is reducing the core clocks on your 6970s. You should be able to check by pressing 'G' while CGMiner is running or better yet, use something that does data logging like GPU-Z to record what happens when you launch CGMiner and compare that with GUIMiner.

Because the pool doesn't use accounts so it can't be set on a per account basis.

And if you could just set it by payment address, anyone could change it just as easily because they aren't linked to whatever password(s) you use

Try changing the intensity to d,9,9,9 (or 9,9,9,9 if your not using the system for anything else).

You could also reduce the memory clocks to 855 (core less 100) to save a few watts of power and heat.

The thermal cutoff function kicks in at whatever temp you set. If you don't set anything, it defaults to 95 Celsius.

The 85 Celsius threshold is (by default) when the fan gets cranked up to 100%.

The heat pipe appears to be doing it's job of moving the heat when things get hot. The problem is your fan controller is reacting much too slowly. It turned the fan off at the temperature it should of turned it on then waited until your GPU was cooking itself before turning the fan back on.

Also, in such a cold environment, 2875 RPM is much more cooling then you need and apparently more cooling than those heatpipes can take. Try slowing things down to just 1000 RPM or so and see if your pipes still freeze up. Ideally, you should be able to adjust RPM to keep everything just a couple degrees above freezing point.

I hope you mean "-I 9" 

And if you're underclocking the memory, then you may want to try "-w 256"