Ferris? Ferris? Any thoughts on why it is so wonderful now?
ehem..... Bueller ? Bueller ? ......nice try though  |
|
|
|
Looks pretty localized. Is there a support thread on this forum for it ? |
|
|
|
In all fairness to the pool though, IT WAS A SHORT TEST and I bailed after .... just short of a couple (under 2 hours) hours because I had become frustrated with my stats, especially when I KNOW how my setup performs. I failed to see how it would get any better considering my INVALID amounts were climbing at a rate of OVER 3:1 over the regular STALES...... I will try set aside some hardware to do a full 1 or 2 day test and see the results after that. You have to admit.....for a Pool that pays for STALE Shares, there sure seem to be alot of INVALIDS. Just an observation Total Shares ...5125 (100%) ------------------------------ Total Valid ......4966 (96.90%) - PAID Total Stale ........37 (0.72%) - PAID ................ (23.27% of 159 stales+invalids total) Total Invalid .....122 (2.38%) - NOT PAID ......... (76.73% of 159 stales+invalids total) |
|
|
|
Hi bitlane. How much is the fee of the pools where you get a 99.5%+ valid share average? In other words how much do you get paid per share? In our opinion, the only thing that counts is earnings.Chlorine. Well, for example, 1 of the pools is 5%.....but considering not only my VALID Share average is down, but also my TOTAL SHARES SUBMITTED is less as well, the 5% pool seems to prevail once again and pay me more than a free pool does. 5% Pool = 3360 Shares/hour, 99.50% Valid ...................... Free Pool = 3110 Shares/hour, 96% Valid = perhaps too close to call. |
|
|
|
I am leaving to Bahamas in the morning So lets hope nothing else goes wrong until I get there and find internet access.
I thought the whole point in going somewhere tropical, was to escape technology Enjoy the trip ( bastard....lol) |
|
|
|
Since they are all on one machine use CG Miner CGMiner FTW ! |
|
|
|
In response to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648 For the record..... I now ONLY MINE PPS (no share-type variants...never PROP, ONLY PURE PPS for the past 2 months...and to continue forward) and have fine tuned my system's hourly share average to an extremely predictable range, using Top PPS Pools to do so. I consider my setup has the ability to make an honest and accurate benchmark of a PPS Pool's performance because of this.....along with my familiarity of my setup, thanks to it's steady performance. ...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used. I stand behind what I have said about my particular setup, 100%. To reiterate..... I hate to say it, but your Pool is anything BUT predictable....yet extremely predictable all at the same time.
The 'Unpredictable'
My measly little 4GH/s mining setup is very optomized and I would even go as far as to say that it runs with the stability and reliability of a finely tuned Swiss Time piece, constantly able to maintain a minimum of 99.50% or higher, of VALID shares on all of the current 'TOP POOLS', yet on ABC, it's performance (my mining setup that is) is more like that of a cheap chinese Rolex knock-off that could barely maintain a 96%+ VALID Share percentage yesterday. I am familiar enough with even the minute-to-minute performance of my setup and it's benchmarked performance on many other pools, that I feel confident enough to comment on it's sad showing yesterday.....with only an address change and nothing else.
The sadly 'Predictable'
Since your Pool is marketed as "Paying for Stales", It was quite interesting, considering my horrible VALID percentage, to see just how many of those non-valid shares were 'ABC-CLASSIFIED' as INVALIDS (not being paid) rather than STALES (that are 'paid').
With my past history, the known stability as well as the overall steady performance of my setup, it was quite disturbing to see that not only was my VALID percentage LOW, but those shares which would have been valid anywhere else on the planet.....and STALES at worst, were further subject to an additional 'slap in the face', being ABC-classified as UNPAID INVALIDS - most of which appeared following a long-polling notification. It was also quite odd to see that the UNPAID INVALIDS were continuously 3 to 3.5x greater an amount than the PAID STALES.........but like I said, SADLY PREDICTABLE.
The Pool's stats are however quite impressive to say the least (298++ GH/s) and are left to speak for themselves.....
It was another type of learning experience on the Bitcoin Road for me. The introduction to "The ABC Invalid"
Allan
|
|
|
|
........1100 watt power supply........tho and its not like its the same miner its just a random one it will get a connection issuse and if i reset it it will work fine for however lone or if i leave it alone it will randomly connect again when it feels like it some=times it can be 15 min or sometimes 3 hours or more
At start up, perhaps the last card to get full power suffers ......a weak power supply ? yet if they all connect, fluctuating power might affect a single card later on after the start..... What kind of Power Supply ? Definately smells like a power problem to me, as I had a similar issue |
|
|
|
I agree completely, the pool has abnormal of invalid shares... compare to other pools, its 3x more.
High INVALIDS ? YES High STALES ? NO (because those have to be paid out....lol) |
|
|
|
You are aware that you can only have a max of 4 GPU in a windows install right?
-EP
CRAP..... THAT I did not know. Thanks for the heads up. After looking at the price of cables from Cablesaurus, it would be just as cost effective to launch another system instead, rather than pay over $20/cable. |
|
|
|
Need some help lol I just got a new 5970 so now I have two 6970 and one 5970 and it seems no matter what I try I always seems to have one miner get a connection. Error and I have no idea why just wondering if anyone else is having this issue
All in the same system ? What power supply ? what mining software ? What Operating System ? Extender Cables (powered or not) ? Too many variables....please share more info. |
|
|
|
We do intend to keep striving to offer......most predictable.......
I hate to say it, but your Pool is anything BUT predictable....yet extremely predictable all at the same time. The 'Unpredictable'My measly little 4GH/s mining setup is very optomized and I would even go as far as to say that it runs with the stability and reliability of a finely tuned like a Swiss Time piece, constantly able to maintain a minimum of 99.50% or higher, of VALID shares on all of the current 'TOP POOLS', yet on ABC, it's performance (my mining setup that is) is more like that of a cheap chinese Rolex knock-off that could barely maintain a 96%+ VALID Share percentage yesterday. I am familiar enough with even the minute-to-minute performance of my setup and it's benchmarked performance on many other pools, that I feel confident enough to comment on it's sad showing yesterday.....with only an address change and nothing else. The sadly 'Predictable'Since your Pool is marketed as "Paying for Stales", It was quite interesting, considering my horrible VALID percentage, to see just how many of those non-valid shares were 'ABC-CLASSIFIED' as INVALIDS (not being paid) rather than STALES (that are 'paid'). With my past history, the known stability as well as the overall steady performance of my setup, it was quite disturbing to see that not only was my VALID percentage LOW, but those shares which would have been valid anywhere else on the planet.....and STALES at worst, were further subject to an additional 'slap in the face', being ABC-classified as UNPAID INVALIDS - most of which appeared following a long-polling notification. It was also quite odd to see that the UNPAID INVALIDS were continuously 3 to 3.5x greater an amount than the PAID STALES.........but like I said, SADLY PREDICTABLE. The Pool's stats are however quite impressive to say the least (298++ GH/s) and are left to speak for themselves..... It was another type of learning experience on the Bitcoin Road for me. The introduction to " The ABC Invalid" Allan |
|
|
|
PROP = I have too many Bitcoins I enjoy being robbed blind by poolhoppers (speaking as an ex-poolhopper).
LOL.... Nice one. It's like the jelous boyfriend who is actually the one cheating on his girlfriend....hehe....not the other way around. |
|
|
|
I have enabled it try it now. My time out is time=23.661 ms from my house.
I actually have a lower PING to you, than the other Pool I used...... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- coinserver4.nmcbit.comReply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=51 Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51 Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=51 Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=51 Ping statistics for 107.20.142.218: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 76ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 80ms ----------------------------------------------------------------------- My 'other' Pool (repost from previous page) Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=55 Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=55 Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=55 Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 95ms, Average = 92ms |
|
|
|
|
Wow.....that was a 'rocky' first hour and a half.....LMAO
Today it looks as though I was introduced to an entirely new classification of BTC share:
"The ABC Invalid" - it's kinda like a Stale, except you don't get paid for it and there seems to be a steady stream of 3 - 3.5x more of them than actuall recorded Stales....which oddly enough, one does get paid for.....LOL....imagine that.
|
|
|
|
Not to crap on your post....or configuration for that matter...but, WHY IN HELL would you set a score-based (or any NON-PPS/Time Based/Share Expiring) Pool as your Backup/Failover Pool ?
Because I havent given it any thought, and I already had an account at slush before I discovered bitminer  . Since we are talking about like 5 proofs of work per day, I cant be bothered to find and register and configure a better suited failover pool That said, maybe I should, not because of 0.0001 BTC difference, but because slush appears to be down again. Guess I should go and try p2pool. Nice and simple backup pool...... 0% Fee, Immediate Credit/Payout, Pure PPS, Good Reviews. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.0 ...or... http://www.abcpool.co/ENJOY ! |
|
|
|
I am sure there is a way to prove it mathematically but for me writing up a command line simulator seems easier.
Then I will bow out and give way to the skillz ....because anything more than a simple bat file or spreadsheet and I will be in WAY over my head...LOL |
|
|
|
How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure. I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist. I admit, I am definately aware of it....but just not +/-20% worth using PPS (or so I would hope....lol) |
|
|
|
I have slush configured as failback pool and I keep getting tiny amounts of BTC from slush. Not to crap on your post....or configuration for that matter...but, WHY IN HELL would you set a score-based ( or any NON-PPS/Time Based/Share Expiring) Pool as your Backup/Failover Pool ? Wouldn't it make far more sense to use a pure PPS Pool as your Failover/Backup Pool ? .....a pool that doesn't care when you connect, or for how long, or for how little.....still giving you FULL value for every share submitted ? You might be pleasantly surprised when those tiny bits begin to grow in size if your need for a backup/failover continue. Again, sorry to point that out, but someone would have....or perhaps already did and I missed reading it. Happy Mining |
|
|
|
24 hour stat is a slight estimate and also lags behind by 1 hour. ~4-5% is not an unexpected amount of variance. If you look at your performance graphs, you'll see that your miners effective speed varies up/down hour by hour. This can have a net positive or net negative trend in a 24 hour period, the same way that a proportional pool has variances in luck. The difference in personal miners is the number of trials they're running (shares), meaning they tend to average much closer to the "perfect 0" in a 24 hour period.
I figured it might have something to do with the new reporting graphs, or the previous API error. Either way, it's all good. The stats are all perfect. I'll be re-adding the extra row to show your rank if you're not in the top 25, but it will probably not be until Friday.
Awesome. As petty, or minor as it is, it's nice to see how one measures up against the 'Big Boys'....LOL Thanks again. The new Pool/Reporting/Features are all worth the wait. Allan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
