You will then certainly see a drop in the stales and and an increase in returns!

I think both are overkills to a degree. From what I have read, @ 250M overclock, the unit consumes about 402 - 410 WATTS, thus it should be OK to run on a 550 WATT PSU with 80% efficiency. I am running one of my S3's on a second-hand server PSU rated at 550 WATTS that cost GBP 10.00 off fleabay, running off just 2 power connections @ 225M. I had to conjure up the power leads, but that did not cost as much as the PSU, and also had to fire up my solder-gun.
I will try out 250M and 256.25M in the next couple of days to check on stability and if it does run OK at the higher overclock speeds, I'll definitely be looking at getting rid of all the other PSU's and reverting to the server PSU's. I need to lower the cost of this "operation" given the fall in BTC, the anticipated difficulty increase, the proliferation of miners and (at least here in the UK) the anticipated increase in power costs this coming September!

By the way, the server PSU is the Dell PS-2521-1D

EDIT: Actually, @ 410 WATTS, the calculation is 410/0.8 = 512.5 WATTS, so if one can get a PSU rated at such for a better price, then that would be it, but I think I am content thus far with the Dell server PSU which should be rated higher than 80%

Yep, makes sense to connect to a local / nearer server to reduce that latency and get less stales, thus you should get a marginally better return.
I am amazed at the solidity of the S3's when overclocked comapred to the S1's.
By the way, what power supply are you using and are you using all four connections?

omnik, Yes that looks OK.
My only concern is the DiffR number of 37,000+ though for nearly 2 days that may be OK. This could mean your latency to the ghash servers is high as I have come to find out that this number represents the stale shares (at least on ghash), but since ghash only shows the last 24 hrs then you will not be able to compare now.
Otherwise, looks good! What batch was this S3 if you know?

I hope this is the right place to ask this,

I have just been mining for the last few weeks on slush and noticed something peculiar.
1. The current block as per settings tab on slush is showing #298470 whereas BFGMiner is showing #298471
2. I am sure that BFGMiner was showing #298470 earlier but I had a network fault (which also resulted in the difficulty reducing from 6 to 5) and then the block number changed.

The concern here is that in addidition to block #298471 not beingisted on the pool's page, I also noticed that I "LOST" all the estimated earnings for the block on the pool status page when this happened, and though BFGMiner is clearly now dealing with a different block number, I am accumulating estimated rewards for the old block. Am I missing something obvious or is this not the place to ask about this kind of thing?


[img src=http://1drv.ms/R0iHDJ][/img]