Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:59:34 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!  (Read 461877 times)
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 07, 2012, 10:47:47 PM
 #3521

I am migrating the web server to a different DC... well it's already migrated.  I just repointed the DNS servers to the new server... it should be completely seemless and no one should notice the switch (unless your AV program or something pops up an alert that the IP has changed).

If you have a problem, please let me know so I can get it fixed ASAP.  Everything appears to be working on the new servers, so it should be pretty transparent.

The new DC should be much more stable (assuming I don't forget to pay the bill again).  It will also have the added bonus of being accessible via IPv6 as soon as I get it configured on the server.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
1481353174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481353174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481353174
Reply with quote  #2

1481353174
Report to moderator
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 957



View Profile
October 07, 2012, 11:37:30 PM
 #3522

Could you give us a rundown on the diff at each server?
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 07, 2012, 11:38:51 PM
 #3523

Ok, here's the config now:

US1: 12 getworks per minute target
US2: 16 getworks per minute target
US3: 20 getworks per minute target

See which one works best for you.



I may bump that up to 20, 24 and 32?

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

Activity: 957



View Profile
October 07, 2012, 11:55:44 PM
 #3524

Ok, here's the config now:

US1: 12 getworks per minute target
US2: 16 getworks per minute target
US3: 20 getworks per minute target

See which one works best for you.



I may bump that up to 20, 24 and 32?

So US1 gives the highest diff?
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 12:05:18 AM
 #3525

Yes, that's correct.

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

Activity: 957



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 12:08:23 AM
 #3526

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks,

It might help if you put a speed range for people to use:
Up to 3Gh or 10 workers US3 is recommended

and so on
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 12:09:06 AM
 #3527

There really isn't a range, any server should be usable by anyone.  We are just trying to find the optimum point and then I will change all servers to that.

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

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 12:33:07 AM
 #3528

Forum is currently giving a database error.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 02:19:30 AM
 #3529

Thanks! Should be fixed now!

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
chrcoe01
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 147


View Profile
October 08, 2012, 10:25:21 PM
 #3530

it's all working for me now yay!  probably has been for the past day or so, but I haven't really checked it until now :/

"You may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again." -Benjamin Franklin
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 06:46:15 AM
 #3531

So Gigavps and anyone else:  Did we ever decide on what a good share target was?  20?  24?
I'd say 10 shares per minute would be fine.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
FLHippy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 09, 2012, 09:04:57 AM
 #3532

So Gigavps and anyone else:  Did we ever decide on what a good share target was?  20?  24?
I'd say 10 shares per minute would be fine.

I agree... 10 shares per minute seems like a reasonable number of network connections.

I have a very general question about variable difficulty which has bugged me.

I've asked before and I think the answer was experiment and see how you make out. I did some of that and the earnings have steadily been dropping due to increased hash rates, bad luck, and increased difficulty. So... it is hard to tell the results of testing.

So the question is...

If you have multiple devices... should each device have its own worker or should all of your devices share a worker?

If the devices are FPGA/GPU - should you use a different approach than when people receive ASIC hardware?

Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
 #3533

So Gigavps and anyone else:  Did we ever decide on what a good share target was?  20?  24?
I'd say 10 shares per minute would be fine.

I was at 8 and that was too low... I moved it up to 16 and that still seems too low for some people.  Of course, when the ASICs are out, I think 10 is absolutely reasonable, if the minimum hashrate on a given unit is 4.5 GH/s.  Right now, though, I think 10 might be too low for GPU miners... not from a technical perspective, but from an emotional one: it drives their variance up too high for comfort is the feeling I get from people.

I think we might need to go back to the drawing board and shoot for a variable difficulty based on server load, vs a getwork target... though that adds quite a bit of complexity.  I'm not sure what metric would be the best to account for server load, as there are many other factors that come into play just looking at the system load in top or some such.

Quote
I have a very general question about variable difficulty which has bugged me.

I've asked before and I think the answer was experiment and see how you make out. I did some of that and the earnings have steadily been dropping due to increased hash rates, bad luck, and increased difficulty. So... it is hard to tell the results of testing.

So the question is...

If you have multiple devices... should each device have its own worker or should all of your devices share a worker?

If the devices are FPGA/GPU - should you use a different approach than when people receive ASIC hardware?

Well, the FPGA/GPU vs ASIC question really needs to be asked as at what GH/s speed does the getwork target make the most sense... so if you combine all your units into one worker, then a lower getwork target makes more sense, since your variance will "apparently" be reduced by the higher hashrate.  If you split them all up, a higher target is better, for the same reason.  It's all about perception for the most part... over a long enough period, it doesn't really matter from a functional standpoint.


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

Activity: 66



View Profile
October 09, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
 #3534

I'm a GPU miner with about 600MH/s on one machine under one worker.  I haven't seen my Diff go higher than 1 during this whole testing phase, so it doesn't appear to be affecting my variance at all.
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 03:53:09 PM
 #3535


I was at 8 and that was too low... I moved it up to 16 and that still seems too low for some people.  Of course, when the ASICs are out, I think 10 is absolutely reasonable, if the minimum hashrate on a given unit is 4.5 GH/s.  Right now, though, I think 10 might be too low for GPU miners... not from a technical perspective, but from an emotional one: it drives their variance up too high for comfort is the feeling I get from people.

I think we might need to go back to the drawing board and shoot for a variable difficulty based on server load, vs a getwork target... though that adds quite a bit of complexity.  I'm not sure what metric would be the best to account for server load, as there are many other factors that come into play just looking at the system load in top or some such.

I would really like to see a scenario where:

  • Pool server checks for the X-Mining-Hashrate header and calculates a diff based on the reported hash rate similar to what conman originally suggested. The lowest diff is still 1.
  • If X-Mining-Hashrate doesn't exist, fall back to 20-30 shares per minute per worker target.
  • If the server load is too high, move the lowest diff allow from 1 to 2.

What do you think?
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
 #3536

As I mentioned a few pages back, do experimentations, gather data, build a table of results, draw graphs, then chose a method that works best for you. Pulling numbers out of the air is not a scientific method. Get numbers.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 08:13:41 PM
 #3537

Didn't organofcorti post somewhere the appropriate calculation?
(for vardiff)

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 08:17:30 PM
 #3538

I must have missed it if he did, anyone got a lead on it?

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

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 09, 2012, 11:30:35 PM
 #3539

I did some testing this afternoon using three workers on PPS.

I have 650-700MH/s per card. All cards are MSI R 7970 cards. I'm using BFGMiner.

I set up a worker for each card and pointed them at us1, us2, and us3.

To get it to run on different servers and to isolate each card I ran a separate instance of bfgminer for each card (Even the 2 which are on the same server)

with my rig, us3 produces the best return and I believe us1 produced the lowest return.

Also, all three devices on one worker produced lower returns than three workers on three servers.

Numbers:

combined daily earnings reported by website for all devices on 1 worker on us3. 0.61 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us1,us2,us3 0.64 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us3. 0.69 BTC/day

Hash rates reported by web server were 1.90Gh/s, 1.98GH/s, and 2.10GH/s
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 11:54:42 PM
 #3540

I did some testing this afternoon using three workers on PPS.

I have 650-700MH/s per card. All cards are MSI R 7970 cards. I'm using BFGMiner.

I set up a worker for each card and pointed them at us1, us2, and us3.

To get it to run on different servers and to isolate each card I ran a separate instance of bfgminer for each card (Even the 2 which are on the same server)

with my rig, us3 produces the best return and I believe us1 produced the lowest return.

Also, all three devices on one worker produced lower returns than three workers on three servers.

Numbers:

combined daily earnings reported by website for all devices on 1 worker on us3. 0.61 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us1,us2,us3 0.64 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us3. 0.69 BTC/day

Hash rates reported by web server were 1.90Gh/s, 1.98GH/s, and 2.10GH/s


Interesting.  How long did you do this test?

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  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!