[0Th]Ozcoin Pooled Mining |DGM 1%|Stratum+VarDiff port 80|NEW CN mining|

[Graet]

Stratum server still going strong
connection is now possible from either
stratum.ozco.in:3333
http://stratum.ozco.in:3333
stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333

I'm thinking the 1st one will be popular

[1713435312]

1713435312

[1713435312]

1713435312

[1713435312]

1713435312

[1713435312]

1713435312

[mdude77]

Stratum server still going strong
connection is now possible from either
stratum.ozco.in:3333
http://stratum.ozco.in:3333
stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333

I'm thinking the 1st one will be popular

I'm confused.  You list 3, but say either.  What's the difference between/among them?

I'm using http://stratum.ozco.in:3333, and have all along.

M

[-ck]

cgminer just accepts the input in whatever format you use since it detects what kind of server is at the other end. None of these differ on the pool side for how they're managed.

[Graet]

Stratum server still going strong
connection is now possible from either
stratum.ozco.in:3333
http://stratum.ozco.in:3333
stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333

I'm thinking the 1st one will be popular

I'm confused.  You list 3, but say either.  What's the difference between/among them?

I'm using http://stratum.ozco.in:3333, and have all along.

M

when we first started testing only stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333 worked, you can now connect on any of the above - sorry to be confusing

[os2sam]

Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork

These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332.  My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873   2012-11-07 12:41:51   4,393   0.03354776
206808   2012-11-07 02:54:22   806   0.03152941
206800   2012-11-07 01:11:42   1,592   0.03447590
206778   2012-11-06 21:53:48   2,368   0.03428086

These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333.  My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752   2012-11-06 17:35:01   757   0.02448683
206736   2012-11-06 15:03:56   1,054   0.02756680
206723   2012-11-06 12:44:48   946   0.02476589
206709   2012-11-06 08:56:48   3,747   0.02780425

I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam

[mdude77]

Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork

These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332.  My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873   2012-11-07 12:41:51   4,393   0.03354776
206808   2012-11-07 02:54:22   806   0.03152941
206800   2012-11-07 01:11:42   1,592   0.03447590
206778   2012-11-06 21:53:48   2,368   0.03428086

These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333.  My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752   2012-11-06 17:35:01   757   0.02448683
206736   2012-11-06 15:03:56   1,054   0.02756680
206723   2012-11-06 12:44:48   946   0.02476589
206709   2012-11-06 08:56:48   3,747   0.02780425

I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam

I've observed the same thing here.  I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970).  The one 7970 is running up to par.  But the 3x7970 is running subpar.  All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased.  I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970.  The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27.  (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.)

So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum.

M

[wknight]

The website looks a little "crippled"... with a html display in the middle

This issue has been resolved

[wazoo42]

I tried enabling the stratum server on one of my nodes (2 x 5830) and am getting the following error in bfgminer-2.9.1. Also, when I look at the pools in bfgminer the stratum server is listed as dead, which doesn't seem too surprising given the errors. All of the other pools I have used over time appear to work fine. What am I doing wrong?

 [2012-11-07 12:30:42] Testing pool http://stratum.ozco.in:3333/
 [2012-11-07 12:30:42] HTTP request failed: Empty reply from server
 [2012-11-07 12:30:42] HTTP request failed: Empty reply from server
 [2012-11-07 12:30:42] Stratum connect failed to pool 3: Couldn't resolve host '(null)'

bfgminer.conf
---------------------------------
{
"pools" : [
        {
                "url" : "http://us.ozco.in:8331/",
                "user" : "wazoo42.wiggin",
                "pass" : "xxxx"
        },
        {
                "url" : "http://mtred.com:8337/",
                "user" : "wiggin",
                "pass" : "xxxx"
        },
        {
                "url" : "http://bitcoinpool.org:8334/",
                "user" : "wazoo42",
                "pass" : "xxxx"
        },
        {
                "url" : "http://stratum.ozco.in:3333/",
                "user" : "wazoo42.wiggin",
                "pass" : "xxxx"
        }
]
,
"intensity" : "5,8",
"vectors" : "4,4",
"worksize" : "128,128",
"kernel" : "phatk,phatk",
"gpu-engine" : "0-0,0-0",
"gpu-fan" : "0-85,0-85",
"gpu-memclock" : "0,0",
"gpu-memdiff" : "0,0",
"gpu-powertune" : "0,0",
"gpu-vddc" : "0.000,0.000",
"temp-cutoff" : "95,95",
"temp-overheat" : "85,85",
"temp-target" : "75,75",
"api-port" : "4028",
"expiry" : "120",
"failover-only" : true,
"gpu-dyninterval" : "7",
"gpu-platform" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"log" : "5",
"queue" : "1",
"scan-time" : "60",
"temp-hysteresis" : "3",
"verbose" : true,
"shares" : "0",
"kernel-path" : "/usr/lib/bfgminer"
}

[crazyates]

BFGMiner is designed with GBT as it's primary focus, with stratum support added later. CGMiner was designed with stratum as it's primary focux, with GBT support added later. I'd try CGMiner and see if it helps.

[wazoo42]

Ah, I thought bfgminer was a fork with cosmetic changes, my mistake. I will go back to cgminer and try again. Thanks.

[gyverlb]

Ah, I thought bfgminer was a fork with cosmetic changes, my mistake. I will go back to cgminer and try again. Thanks.

Most forks begin with cosmetic changes But this one was made because Luke had a different approach on FPGA support so it most probably quickly diverged (didn't check the changesets myself but saw comments on them that strongly suggest it).
There should still be lots of common code, but each project has a life of its own.

[-ck]

Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork

These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332.  My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873   2012-11-07 12:41:51   4,393   0.03354776
206808   2012-11-07 02:54:22   806   0.03152941
206800   2012-11-07 01:11:42   1,592   0.03447590
206778   2012-11-06 21:53:48   2,368   0.03428086

These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333.  My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752   2012-11-06 17:35:01   757   0.02448683
206736   2012-11-06 15:03:56   1,054   0.02756680
206723   2012-11-06 12:44:48   946   0.02476589
206709   2012-11-06 08:56:48   3,747   0.02780425

I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam

I've observed the same thing here.  I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970).  The one 7970 is running up to par.  But the 3x7970 is running subpar.  All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased.  I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970.  The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27.  (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.)

So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum.

M

Unless you're getting lots of disconnects with stratum, and your SS: count has risen, then there is no way to blame this on stratum.

I often regret putting utility in as a counter in cgminer because it is a measure of hashrate x luck and people often blame stretches of bad luck on whatever their last software change was.

Now if it is an issue of lost shares due to disconnects, that's another story. The SS counter will tell you that.

EDIT: It's also worth noting most people are noticing a universal rise in their hashrate, which makes sense given the lack of dropout in work between getworks that stratum exhibits. Hashrate being an objective figure unrelated to luck.

[Wave]

I feel brain dead, getting the following error in CGMiner 2.9.1:

"JSON Stratum Auth Failed (null)"

Trying to use:

   {
      "url" : "http://stratum.ozco.in:3333",
      "user" : "MinerName",
      "pass" : "MinerPassword"
   },

Thoughts?

[mdude77]

Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork

These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332.  My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873   2012-11-07 12:41:51   4,393   0.03354776
206808   2012-11-07 02:54:22   806   0.03152941
206800   2012-11-07 01:11:42   1,592   0.03447590
206778   2012-11-06 21:53:48   2,368   0.03428086

These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333.  My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752   2012-11-06 17:35:01   757   0.02448683
206736   2012-11-06 15:03:56   1,054   0.02756680
206723   2012-11-06 12:44:48   946   0.02476589
206709   2012-11-06 08:56:48   3,747   0.02780425

I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam

I've observed the same thing here.  I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970).  The one 7970 is running up to par.  But the 3x7970 is running subpar.  All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased.  I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970.  The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27.  (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.)

So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum.

M

Unless you're getting lots of disconnects with stratum, and your SS: count has risen, then there is no way to blame this on stratum.

I often regret putting utility in as a counter in cgminer because it is a measure of hashrate x luck and people often blame stretches of bad luck on whatever their last software change was.

Now if it is an issue of lost shares due to disconnects, that's another story. The SS counter will tell you that.

EDIT: It's also worth noting most people are noticing a universal rise in their hashrate, which makes sense given the lack of dropout in work between getworks that stratum exhibits. Hashrate being an objective figure unrelated to luck.

I heard about the increase in hashrate as well.  I have not observed it myself though.

Here's a screenshot from LP on ozco after a few hours:

Code:

cgminer version 2.8.7 - Started: [2012-11-07 11:21:37]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):1.928G (avg):1.950Gh/s | Q:315  A:7491  R:62  HW:0  E:2378%  U:27.4/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 7  SS: 0  DW: 41  NB: 33  LW: 15384  GF: 1  RF: 0  WU: 27.6
 Connected to us2.ozco.in with LP as user xxxxxxxxx
 Block: 0471c542889416f71ade70aa...  Started: [15:49:11]  Best share: 129K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  73.0C 2796RPM | 641.7M/652.0Mh/s | A:2441 R:16 HW:0 U: 8.92/m I: 9
 GPU 1:  73.0C 2527RPM | 640.3M/645.6Mh/s | A:2523 R:18 HW:0 U: 9.22/m I: 9
 GPU 2:  73.0C 2316RPM | 650.3M/653.2Mh/s | A:2527 R:28 HW:0 U: 9.23/m I: 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll post the stratum equivalent after a few hours later for comparison.

M

[abracadabra]

I feel brain dead, getting the following error in CGMiner 2.9.1:

"JSON Stratum Auth Failed (null)"

Trying to use:

   {
      "url" : "http://stratum.ozco.in:3333",
      "user" : "MinerName",
      "pass" : "MinerPassword"
   },

Thoughts?

The miner name needs to be the complete name (user.worker)

[Wave]

Thanks, and yes.  That should read "user.minername".

[Blaksmith]

Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork

These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332.  My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873   2012-11-07 12:41:51   4,393   0.03354776
206808   2012-11-07 02:54:22   806   0.03152941
206800   2012-11-07 01:11:42   1,592   0.03447590
206778   2012-11-06 21:53:48   2,368   0.03428086

These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333.  My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752   2012-11-06 17:35:01   757   0.02448683
206736   2012-11-06 15:03:56   1,054   0.02756680
206723   2012-11-06 12:44:48   946   0.02476589
206709   2012-11-06 08:56:48   3,747   0.02780425

I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam

I've observed the same thing here.  I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970).  The one 7970 is running up to par.  But the 3x7970 is running subpar.  All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased.  I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970.  The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27.  (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.)

So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum.

M

Unless you're getting lots of disconnects with stratum, and your SS: count has risen, then there is no way to blame this on stratum.

I often regret putting utility in as a counter in cgminer because it is a measure of hashrate x luck and people often blame stretches of bad luck on whatever their last software change was.

Now if it is an issue of lost shares due to disconnects, that's another story. The SS counter will tell you that.

EDIT: It's also worth noting most people are noticing a universal rise in their hashrate, which makes sense given the lack of dropout in work between getworks that stratum exhibits. Hashrate being an objective figure unrelated to luck.

I heard about the increase in hashrate as well.  I have not observed it myself though.

Here's a screenshot from LP on ozco after a few hours:

Code:

cgminer version 2.8.7 - Started: [2012-11-07 11:21:37]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):1.928G (avg):1.950Gh/s | Q:315  A:7491  R:62  HW:0  E:2378%  U:27.4/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 7  SS: 0  DW: 41  NB: 33  LW: 15384  GF: 1  RF: 0  WU: 27.6
 Connected to us2.ozco.in with LP as user xxxxxxxxx
 Block: 0471c542889416f71ade70aa...  Started: [15:49:11]  Best share: 129K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  73.0C 2796RPM | 641.7M/652.0Mh/s | A:2441 R:16 HW:0 U: 8.92/m I: 9
 GPU 1:  73.0C 2527RPM | 640.3M/645.6Mh/s | A:2523 R:18 HW:0 U: 9.22/m I: 9
 GPU 2:  73.0C 2316RPM | 650.3M/653.2Mh/s | A:2527 R:28 HW:0 U: 9.23/m I: 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll post the stratum equivalent after a few hours later for comparison.

M

One thing I see possibly wrong about the shares output that was first posted, is that it was also against different blocks, and possibly across different time spans. 

That being said, last night, there was also a hiccup in the server, where miners got disconnected unintentionally.  That issue has been resolved.  Today, about 20 min ago, we had to bounce the stratum server to implement a minor change.

I do not forsee any more issues that should cause workers to drop out, or require us to have to restart it.

Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333). 
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks.  That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.

After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.

[kano]

...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333). 
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks.  That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.

After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.

... ignoring statistical variation ...
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...

[mdude77]

...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333). 
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks.  That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.

After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.

... ignoring statistical variation ...
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...

Mine converges within a few hours, never to change, unless I switch pools or something goes haywire.

So far it looks as if the folks here are right, stratum has nothing to do with it.  My stratum rig has been running for a few hours and shows the proper output.  Now if we can just get variable share difficulty we'll be all set for EOM.

M

[kano]

...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).  
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks.  That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.

After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.

... ignoring statistical variation ...
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...

Mine converges within a few hours, never to change, unless I switch pools or something goes haywire.

So far it looks as if the folks here are right, stratum has nothing to do with it.  My stratum rig has been running for a few hours and shows the proper output.  Now if we can just get variable share difficulty we'll be all set for EOM.

M

Avoid silkroad before posting