Graet (OP)
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 07, 2012, 02:45:56 AM |
|
Stratum server still going strong connection is now possible from either stratum.ozco.in:3333 http://stratum.ozco.in:3333stratum+tcp://stratum.ozco.in:3333 I'm thinking the 1st one will be popular
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 07, 2012, 03:29:49 AM |
|
Stratum server still going strong connection is now possible from either stratum.ozco.in:3333 http://stratum.ozco.in:3333stratum+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
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
November 07, 2012, 03:40:16 AM |
|
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.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
Graet (OP)
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 07, 2012, 03:46:49 AM |
|
Stratum server still going strong connection is now possible from either stratum.ozco.in:3333 http://stratum.ozco.in:3333stratum+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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3583
Merit: 1094
Think for yourself
|
|
November 07, 2012, 01:01:12 PM |
|
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
|
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 07, 2012, 02:56:32 PM |
|
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
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
wknight
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 889
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin calls me an Orphan
|
|
November 07, 2012, 04:23:41 PM |
|
The website looks a little "crippled"... with a html display in the middle
This issue has been resolved
|
Mining Both Bitcoin and Litecoin.
|
|
|
wazoo42
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 07, 2012, 06:34:53 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 07, 2012, 06:37:28 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 07, 2012, 06:46:09 PM |
|
Ah, I thought bfgminer was a fork with cosmetic changes, my mistake. I will go back to cgminer and try again. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
gyverlb
|
|
November 07, 2012, 07:04:44 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
November 07, 2012, 07:53:55 PM Last edit: November 07, 2012, 08:08:58 PM by ckolivas |
|
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.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
Wave
Member
Offline
Activity: 105
Merit: 10
|
|
November 07, 2012, 08:43:57 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 07, 2012, 09:04:13 PM |
|
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: 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
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
abracadabra
|
|
November 07, 2012, 09:05:53 PM |
|
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
Member
Offline
Activity: 105
Merit: 10
|
|
November 07, 2012, 10:46:23 PM |
|
Thanks, and yes. That should read "user.minername".
|
|
|
|
Blaksmith
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:39:47 AM |
|
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: 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.
|
"Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one." Dr. Emmett Brown Donations welcome: Bitcoin: 1 BLAKSMTjnME4ZJX7VzzUyEgbQYLShvqgi Catcoin: 9aw3Ttiz5yMALUm2DUj748cCHYQLatwLPz Unobtanium: uh3bjJua71jFijmz1yAB89KM8mqJEbzrek Pool owner of: geekhash.org
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:47:10 AM |
|
... 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2012, 01:15:04 AM |
|
... 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
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 08, 2012, 01:26:36 AM |
|
... 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
|
|
|
|
|