Bitcoin Forum
March 27, 2017, 01:06:05 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 [174] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 ... 226 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!  (Read 473545 times)
420
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
September 29, 2012, 02:42:53 PM
 #3461

Anyone else have a problem connecting to account? I do. can login but worker not working when was working yesterday

Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS
the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
1490576765
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490576765

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490576765
Reply with quote  #2

1490576765
Report to moderator
1490576765
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490576765

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490576765
Reply with quote  #2

1490576765
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 02:45:13 PM
 #3462

US2 is having some trouble, I am investigating it now. 

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
420
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
September 29, 2012, 02:46:51 PM
 #3463

US2 is having some trouble, I am investigating it now.  


US3 gave me same result

Nevermind US3 seems to work now

EDIT again: both working again for RPCMiner

EDIT 3x: bad luck streak? I switch to Eclipse and no blocks are found? raincloud Sad

Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS
the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 06:06:09 PM
 #3464

I'm pointing my measly 5g/h here now.  So far I like the interface.  Note to self, and others, if switching from a pool where the workers were user.miner to eclipse, change it to user_miner if you expect to see anything.  Otherwise it happily mines away, presumably to never never land.

Q: are you keeping transaction fees?  I assume you need something to pay for this, unless you have some happy donators.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
betatest512
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
 #3465

what is the pool software you are using?
uuidman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121


View Profile
September 30, 2012, 08:51:56 PM
 #3466

I just saw it. half mhash for 17 blocks now... why?

cgminer 2.4.1 cant upgrade
What he probably means is that cgminers mhash is approx half, in my case from 320 to 160 MH.

For me seen also with cgminer 2.4.1 but directly against stratum proxy (tested both) 0.5.0 and 0.8.3, (against btcguild ). Only clue for me yet is that its a 6950, 3 other 5850 same setup, no problem. Maybe you also got a 6950 ?
Nevermind, too tired, had launched an earlier cgminer. Sorry for the fuzz.
betatest512
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 04:24:35 AM
 #3467

what is the pool software you are using?

please answer
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 09:02:22 AM
 #3468

I have an older cgminer (2.4.1) running on OpenWRT that was working great with EMC until last weekend (which I assume was when the var diff got turned on). Since then I get roughly 50% of my hashing power reported on the workers page.

I tried upgrading to the latest git version which rendered the exact same result (and random segfaults) so I moved back to my trusted version.

What am I missing here? var diff should work fine even with 2.4.1 if I understand it correctly, so what am I missing?
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2030


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 09:50:46 AM
 #3469

I have an older cgminer (2.4.1) running on OpenWRT that was working great with EMC until last weekend (which I assume was when the var diff got turned on). Since then I get roughly 50% of my hashing power reported on the workers page.

I tried upgrading to the latest git version which rendered the exact same result (and random segfaults) so I moved back to my trusted version.

What am I missing here? var diff should work fine even with 2.4.1 if I understand it correctly, so what am I missing?
Try 2.7.5 ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 11:48:37 AM
 #3470

I have an older cgminer (2.4.1) running on OpenWRT that was working great with EMC until last weekend (which I assume was when the var diff got turned on). Since then I get roughly 50% of my hashing power reported on the workers page.

I tried upgrading to the latest git version which rendered the exact same result (and random segfaults) so I moved back to my trusted version.

What am I missing here? var diff should work fine even with 2.4.1 if I understand it correctly, so what am I missing?
Try 2.7.5 ...

On 2.7.5 now, I'm putting 2GH/s+ in (10x ZTEX singles) and it all looks good on the miner side (apart from a few rejected with high-hash, which is new to me). On EMC, however, the hash rate reported fluctuates between 1~1.4GH/s, avg diff is 1.088. I expected it to fluctuate a bit higher, obviously.

Code:
(5s):2275.3 (avg):2042.6 Mh/s | Q:275  A:1573  R:214  HW:0  E:572%  U:16.6/m

-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2012, 11:53:52 AM
 #3471

That said, how does that effect efficiency calculations going forward?  Stratum is effectively the same in that regard, so if you pull a template and send back getworks, how is CGminer going to calculate efficiency or does that just become a redundant metric at that point?
I haven't decided what to do with the efficiency metric. Either I'll make up something or just not use it.
Making it halfway through the stratum protocol, I've decided that each mining notify message will be counted as the equivalent of a getwork. Of course efficiency is increasingly becoming a figure that is of not much use to miners and pool ops alike, but perhaps a target efficiency will be the endpoint of tuning what variable diff to set it to.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 01:36:05 PM
 #3472

I have an older cgminer (2.4.1) running on OpenWRT that was working great with EMC until last weekend (which I assume was when the var diff got turned on). Since then I get roughly 50% of my hashing power reported on the workers page.

I tried upgrading to the latest git version which rendered the exact same result (and random segfaults) so I moved back to my trusted version.

What am I missing here? var diff should work fine even with 2.4.1 if I understand it correctly, so what am I missing?
Try 2.7.5 ...

On 2.7.5 now, I'm putting 2GH/s+ in (10x ZTEX singles) and it all looks good on the miner side (apart from a few rejected with high-hash, which is new to me). On EMC, however, the hash rate reported fluctuates between 1~1.4GH/s, avg diff is 1.088. I expected it to fluctuate a bit higher, obviously.

Code:
(5s):2275.3 (avg):2042.6 Mh/s | Q:275  A:1573  R:214  HW:0  E:572%  U:16.6/m



Code:
bfgminer version 2.8.1 - Started: [2012-10-01 19:28:12] - [  0 days 20:06:41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5s:200.9 avg:201.1 u:199.7 Mh/s | A:3367  R:21  HW:0  E:174%  U:2.8/m

I mine with a 6770 and get 200 Mh/s so 1/10 your's but U: that means real shares submitted to pool is much higher, always get 2.6-2.7 shares/m. Can anyboy confirm it?, is a matter or GPU vs FPGA? or Am I too lucky?.

kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2030


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 02:16:04 PM
 #3473

...
Code:
cowminer version 2.8.1 - Started: [2012-10-01 19:28:12] - [  0 days 20:06:41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5s:200.9 avg:201.1 u:199.7 Mh/s | A:3367  R:21  HW:0  E:174%  U:2.8/m

I mine with a 6770 and get 200 Mh/s so 1/10 your's but U: that means real shares submitted to pool is much higher, always get 2.6-2.7 shares/m. Can anyboy confirm it?, is a matter or GPU vs FPGA? or Am I too lucky?.

Too lucky? No, you're just using the wrong software Tongue

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 02:31:09 PM
 #3474

...
Code:
cowminer version 2.8.1 - Started: [2012-10-01 19:28:12] - [  0 days 20:06:41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5s:200.9 avg:201.1 u:199.7 Mh/s | A:3367  R:21  HW:0  E:174%  U:2.8/m

I mine with a 6770 and get 200 Mh/s so 1/10 your's but U: that means real shares submitted to pool is much higher, always get 2.6-2.7 shares/m. Can anyboy confirm it?, is a matter or GPU vs FPGA? or Am I too lucky?.

Too lucky? No, you're just using the wrong software Tongue

Sorry but don't understand, wrong software? measures are differents if bfgminer is used with GPU or FPGA?

I've noticed the change of bfg by cow.

Regards
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 02:56:18 PM
 #3475

That said, how does that effect efficiency calculations going forward?  Stratum is effectively the same in that regard, so if you pull a template and send back getworks, how is CGminer going to calculate efficiency or does that just become a redundant metric at that point?
I haven't decided what to do with the efficiency metric. Either I'll make up something or just not use it.
Making it halfway through the stratum protocol, I've decided that each mining notify message will be counted as the equivalent of a getwork. Of course efficiency is increasingly becoming a figure that is of not much use to miners and pool ops alike, but perhaps a target efficiency will be the endpoint of tuning what variable diff to set it to.

I'd argue efficiency isn't even a meaningful stat on Stratum.  Pools sending you more job notifications aren't less efficient, they're actually MORE efficient (more frequent jobs = more current on transactions in the network).

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 03:10:05 PM
 #3476

Sorry but don't understand, wrong software? measures are differents if bfgminer is used with GPU or FPGA?
Kano is a troll, just ignore him.

I've noticed the change of bfg by cow.
Huh?

-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 03:27:33 PM
 #3477

That said, how does that effect efficiency calculations going forward?  Stratum is effectively the same in that regard, so if you pull a template and send back getworks, how is CGminer going to calculate efficiency or does that just become a redundant metric at that point?
I haven't decided what to do with the efficiency metric. Either I'll make up something or just not use it.
Making it halfway through the stratum protocol, I've decided that each mining notify message will be counted as the equivalent of a getwork. Of course efficiency is increasingly becoming a figure that is of not much use to miners and pool ops alike, but perhaps a target efficiency will be the endpoint of tuning what variable diff to set it to.

I'd argue efficiency isn't even a meaningful stat on Stratum.  Pools sending you more job notifications aren't less efficient, they're actually MORE efficient (more frequent jobs = more current on transactions in the network).
Indeed efficiency is already confusing enough in the light of rolltime and vardiff, and not even defined in any meaningful fashion for stratum. It looks like it might be time to retire it as a metric.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
 #3478


I've noticed the change of bfg by cow.
Huh?

...
cowminer version 2.8.1
Code:
cowminer version 2.8.1 - Started: [2012-10-01 19:28:12] - [  0 days 20:06:41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5s:200.9 avg:201.1 u:199.7 Mh/s | A:3367  R:21  HW:0  E:174%  U:2.8/m

I mine with a 6770 and get 200 Mh/s so 1/10 your's but U: that means real shares submitted to pool is much higher, always get 2.6-2.7 shares/m. Can anyboy confirm it?, is a matter or GPU vs FPGA? or Am I too lucky?.

Too lucky? No, you're just using the wrong software Tongue
demkd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
 #3479

Sopped miners two days ago and still have fixed amount of unconfirmed BTC and NMC
Bug?
Account: cls
FLHippy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 10:14:17 AM
 #3480

Sopped miners two days ago and still have fixed amount of unconfirmed BTC and NMC
Bug?
Account: cls


Not a bug, shit luck. really shit luck!
The confirmed number won't change until they solve a block and some block solves recently have been 8 hours, 6 hours...

Luck is shit for 5 days now.. Inaba needs to put a rabbits foot on the servers Smiley

How many days of bad luck do we have to have before you accept my offer to send a rabbits foot?

I'm willing to compromise. A horseshoe... an Oosik, a 4 leaf clover, a found penny, you choose. I'm stopping just short of a blood sacrifice though.
Pages: « 1 ... 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 [174] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 ... 226 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!