wogaut
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
|
|
August 19, 2012, 02:30:51 PM |
|
Perhaps it's on my end, but I have been trying everything I know, and it doesn't seem to help.
When I go to My Workers, and check the hashrates, they are considerably lower than what I am mining with, I have 2 miners, and they both show lower values than they should. Up until now, the hashrate estimation has been pretty much right. Any ideas?
Maybe there's something wrong with the pool. My currently shown hashrate is only 76% of my actual hashrate. Same here, and it doesn't change much over time. There's something wrong here.
|
|
|
|
wogaut
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
|
|
August 19, 2012, 02:32:53 PM |
|
There are a few really fast miners on the pool. Maybe it has problems handling the high hashing power?
|
|
|
|
CrazyGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1973
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 19, 2012, 02:54:04 PM |
|
I'm having the same issue this morning. Hash power was showing less than 50% of actual rate. I've switched to a backup pool until the issue is resolved.
|
ASICPuppy.net ASIC Mining Hardware and Accessories - Compac F in stock!
|
|
|
LazyOtto
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:08:16 PM |
|
Yeah, something is broke.
I pointed a miner at it for just short of half an hour. My side shows 359 shares accepted. Web site shows zero shares in current round and zero for last 15 minutes.
I'm going back to where I came from. (Just decided today to try EclipseMC for a while. Bad timing I guess.)
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:12:15 PM Last edit: August 19, 2012, 03:44:10 PM by Inaba |
|
Yeah, the shares are backed up at the moment, I am investigating the issue.
*EDIT* I've made some changes that should alleviate the problems.
I'm waiting for a new blockchain to download so I can distribute the load across an additional bitcoind. I think we were overrunning the capacity of what was currently up and going. The fact that it takes hours for the blockchain to download is really ridiculous and something definitely needs to be done about that.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
freeAgent
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:41:05 PM |
|
Yeah, the shares are backed up at the moment, I am investigating the issue.
I cannot log into my account on the site, either, due to it not liking my Yubikey. No bueno! EDIT: And almost immediately, it's back. It looks like my miner is going well too for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:48:05 PM |
|
Share processing should catch up in the next hour or so and all your shares will display. As soon as the new DC gets my stuff built like they should, I will be adding an additional US server in that location.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
peasant
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 272
Merit: 250
Cryptopreneur
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:50:57 PM |
|
The pool having problems then all of the sudden the the pool hashrate doubling doesn't seem like an accident. I smell something fishy.
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:56:43 PM |
|
The share processing is catching up, so for the hashrate calculations, it looks like there's more shares being submitted than there really are. Your hashrate(s) should double if you have been submitting shares all along as well. Once it catches up, things will return to normal.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:58:36 PM |
|
Thanks for the explanation Inaba. As always, you rock
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
peasant
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 272
Merit: 250
Cryptopreneur
|
|
August 19, 2012, 03:59:59 PM |
|
I thought it was getting attacked or something of the sort. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
evanesce
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
Look ARROUND!
|
|
August 19, 2012, 04:44:26 PM |
|
So, you're saying the 3.54THash is incorrect?
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 04:50:21 PM |
|
It is not correct. Share processing is almost caught up, it should be accurate within an hour.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
evanesce
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
Look ARROUND!
|
|
August 19, 2012, 05:00:27 PM |
|
It is not correct. Share processing is almost caught up, it should be accurate within an hour.
Inaba, much respect for you being on top of things, I appreciate all you do for us.
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 06:49:50 PM |
|
Ok... so the hashrate of the pool increased by 700 GH/s overnight. No idea where that came from and that's why things started getting backed up. I knew we were up against a hard limit on share processing and was the driving reason behind adding another DC to handle the load, but I didn't expect 700 GH/s overnight.
It's all good now though, I have it covered and I can deploy even another server (each server should be able to handle ~1.5 - 1.7 TH/s in it's current configuration) if need be in a few minutes.
Now let me ask this:
What do you guys think about doing away with difficulty 1 shares entirely and moving to difficulty 10 across the board? How many people would that impact ultimately?
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
randomguy7
|
|
August 19, 2012, 06:54:14 PM |
|
Just out of curiosity, how many servers do you currently run for your pool (if you don't mind sharing)? Is there a chance to add one in the eu?
|
|
|
|
evanesce
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
Look ARROUND!
|
|
August 19, 2012, 06:54:22 PM |
|
Ok... so the hashrate of the pool increased by 700 GH/s overnight. No idea where that came from and that's why things started getting backed up. I knew we were up against a hard limit on share processing and was the driving reason behind adding another DC to handle the load, but I didn't expect 700 GH/s overnight.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99954.0 is probably where the new hashes came from. I hope they respect this pool enough to give back via a donation. Kinda upsets me how so many waited till the.last minute to leech off of his 0% till the last freaking second before moving on. His 3% fee was implemented just overnight.
|
|
|
|
beekeeper
|
|
August 19, 2012, 07:34:24 PM |
|
Ok... so the hashrate of the pool increased by 700 GH/s overnight. No idea where that came from and that's why things started getting backed up. I knew we were up against a hard limit on share processing and was the driving reason behind adding another DC to handle the load, but I didn't expect 700 GH/s overnight.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99954.0 is probably where the new hashes came from. I hope they respect this pool enough to give back via a donation. Kinda upsets me how so many waited till the.last minute to leech off of his 0% till the last freaking second before moving on. His 3% fee was implemented just overnight. Yeah, when hashrate spiked on EMC i checked main pools and saw ozcoin seem to have lost around 800 GHs..
|
|
|
|
Epoch
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 922
Merit: 1003
|
|
August 19, 2012, 07:42:17 PM Last edit: August 19, 2012, 08:09:58 PM by Epoch |
|
Ok... so the hashrate of the pool increased by 700 GH/s overnight. No idea where that came from and that's why things started getting backed up. I knew we were up against a hard limit on share processing and was the driving reason behind adding another DC to handle the load, but I didn't expect 700 GH/s overnight.
It's all good now though, I have it covered and I can deploy even another server (each server should be able to handle ~1.5 - 1.7 TH/s in it's current configuration) if need be in a few minutes.
Now let me ask this:
What do you guys think about doing away with difficulty 1 shares entirely and moving to difficulty 10 across the board? How many people would that impact ultimately?
I suspect much of that 700GHps came from Ozcoin patrons who didn't want to pay the 3% fee instigated yesterday. It happens to match the hashrate drop at Ozcoin. To address your question: the only effect difficulty-10 shares should have is to increase variance. The specific details depend on the pool's DGM parameters. The payout expectation will not change so in the long run it makes no difference. It *should* have a positive effect on pool performance since it will only need to send out 1/10th of the getworks it is currently doing. My only concern would be the effect on stales. If a miner is working on a 10-difficulty work, will there be a significantly greater chance of stales? Since the miner would be reporting to the pool only 1/10th as often, intuitively it would seem that there would be a greater change of a work unit becoming stale when a new block is announced on the network (instead of miner throwing away, say 5 seconds of work, they could potentially be throwing away 50 seconds of work when that happens). I know you've been running a test server with a greater-than-1 share difficulty ... what were your results with that?
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2012, 07:55:24 PM |
|
There's a minimum of 5 servers running at any particular time at the moment.
Yes, there's a chance to add one in the EU. I'm making changes to make an EU server far more possible than in the past. Before, I needed a pretty beefy server, and it was wicked expensive. The changes I'm making will allow for a much more lightweight server, which means I can probably afford to host one in the EU now.
There's some math problems integrating DGM with mixed difficulty shares. Meni is pretty busy right now, so he's not as available as I had hoped, but right now, all servers are back to running 1diff shares. Everything is ok as long as everyone is running the same difficulty, but 10diff shares seem to generate more score than expected when compared to 1diff x 10 scoreing and I can't figure out why. I thought it was a precision issue, but after doing a bunch of experiments (pretty much spent all day yesterday), it doesn't appear to be the case. It, as of right now, appears to be a formula issue.
I thought I had it cracked yesterday when I found a bug in the code that was still assigning 1diff values to part of the score, but fixing that did not solve the issue sadly.
I guess I'll go stare at it again and hope for some inspiration.
As for variance, yeah, it could increase stales for really slow miners, however from my testing so far, it hasn't had much affect at 1 GH/s... not sure about slower than that though. I really want to get this working for everyone, not just 10diff across the board.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|