[1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!

[cyberlync]

EU Server (208.110.68.114) is down since some time now.

EDIT:
down since 3 hours.

EU server? afaik it has not been set up yet? it's just pointing to us1 or something?

yes "EU" server, some months back a server was called so (ask inaba), now its really pointing to us1.eclipsemc.com

Well, I know there has been one in the past, been mining here for quite some time, but it has been taken down, due to high cost. I also recall Inaba mentioning that he has been looking at some cheaper hosts, so there is a good chance it will be online again. In the meantime, while it points to us1 anyway, I just think it's confusing to newcomers to call it EU.

[P_Shep]

There may need to be some tweaking done to get efficency up (either to the pool, or cgminer). I'm getting the following results:

http://pool.maxbtc.com:8332      GW:668   A:10229   E:1531.3 %
http://us2.ozco.in:8332         GW:347   A:9074   E:2615 %   
http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337   GW:764   A:2723   E:356.4 %

I'm particularly looking at the Get Works. It's pretty well up there.

[-ck]

There may need to be some tweaking done to get efficency up (either to the pool, or cgminer). I'm getting the following results:

http://pool.maxbtc.com:8332      GW:668   A:10229   E:1531.3 %
http://us2.ozco.in:8332         GW:347   A:9074   E:2615 %   
http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337   GW:764   A:2723   E:356.4 %

I'm particularly looking at the Get Works. It's pretty well up there.

If you're mining at higher difficulty, you need to take that into account because at diff 3 for example you'll be getting 1/3 the accepted amount and that's normal.

[kano]

There may need to be some tweaking done to get efficency up (either to the pool, or cgminer). I'm getting the following results:

http://pool.maxbtc.com:8332      GW:668   A:10229   E:1531.3 %
http://us2.ozco.in:8332         GW:347   A:9074   E:2615 %   
http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337   GW:764   A:2723   E:356.4 %

I'm particularly looking at the Get Works. It's pretty well up there.

If you're mining at higher difficulty, you need to take that into account because at diff 3 for example you'll be getting 1/3 the accepted amount and that's normal.

Yeah use the API 'pools' and look at:
"Difficulty Accepted", "Difficulty Rejected", "Getworks"

To compare "A:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" instead

To compare "R:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Rejected" instead

To compare "E:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" / "Getworks"

which I'd call DA: DR: and DE:

Edit: "Accepted difficulty shares:" and "Rejected difficulty shares:" are also reported in the summary when you exit cgminer

Edit2: oh yeah ... 2.7.6

[dave3]

Looks perfect. Note how the WU is identical on both counts, and that the dynamic server is changing the diff on more than one occasion. It will start at diff 1 and slowly converge on the best balanced diff over time.

Inaba, notice what I have reported before how there are 2 longpolls 15 seconds apart on dynamic diff though? cgminer can tell when a longpoll is associated with a new block or just a request for a work restart. This 2nd longpoll still seems wrong.

Does it only happen on the test server or on the regular servers as well? 

I'm not noticing the 2 longpolls on the regular server lately.  I am getting mostly difficulty 1 work on the regular servers, though, vs. difficulty 3-4 on the old dynamic test server.

Code:

 cgminer version 2.7.6 - Started: [2012-09-26 12:10:13]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):1649.6 (avg):1597.3 Mh/s | Q:1574  A:22040  R:98  HW:0  E:1400%  U:15.9/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 3  SS: 0  DW: 79  NB: 138  LW: 55791  GF: 1  RF: 0  WU: 21.9
 Connected to http://us3.eclipsemc.com:8337 with LP as user ---
 Block: 0000057befa5e4ea1f12b6b56fa989a5...  Started: [11:11:32]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 BFL 0:  60.2C         | 803.1/798.7Mh/s | A:11041 R:49 HW:2 U: 7.98/m
 BFL 1:  63.4C         | 803.5/798.6Mh/s | A:11001 R:49 HW:0 U: 7.96/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [2012-09-27 11:09:57] Accepted afa33bbb Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:13] Accepted 1a3b9d2e Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:14] Accepted 44666613 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:14] Accepted 602149e8 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:18] Accepted 62f0fa16 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:20] Accepted 2c49a385 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:25] LONGPOLL from pool 0 detected new block
 [2012-09-27 11:10:36] Accepted 1fc2f51b Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:36] Accepted 500a382d Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:38] Accepted 2e9dc75e Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:52] Accepted 43b06466 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:58] Accepted 636b4a48 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:58] Accepted 3eb0c5cb Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:10:59] Accepted 7cd95ce8 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:03] Accepted 7f7e4a38 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:30] Rejected 3466ea5f Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0 (stale-prevblk)
 [2012-09-27 11:11:31] Rejected 39d00c82 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0 (stale-prevblk)
 [2012-09-27 11:11:32] LONGPOLL from pool 0 detected new block
 [2012-09-27 11:11:43] Accepted 795269f0 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:44] Accepted 45d8e560 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:48] Accepted 7432e540 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:49] Accepted 5669dba7 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:54] Accepted 64fac8bb Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:11:59] Accepted 28c1cdaa Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:05] Accepted 3c1a1f4a Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:10] Accepted 1ed1da11 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:10] Accepted 8c657058 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:15] Accepted 367221cb Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:15] Accepted 55ebc308 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:31] Accepted 8bae2d32 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:31] Accepted 6e2f41cd Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:36] Accepted 78a3ead1 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:42] Accepted 3ed611cc Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:47] Accepted 675e97e7 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:12:47] Accepted 602b37bd Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:13:03] Accepted 38d160d6 Diff 1 BFL 0 pool 0
 [2012-09-27 11:13:03] Accepted 2d07a0a8 Diff 1 BFL 1 pool 0

[K1773R]

EU Server (208.110.68.114) is down since some time now.

EDIT:
down since 3 hours.

EU server? afaik it has not been set up yet? it's just pointing to us1 or something?

yes "EU" server, some months back a server was called so (ask inaba), now its really pointing to us1.eclipsemc.com

Well, I know there has been one in the past, been mining here for quite some time, but it has been taken down, due to high cost. I also recall Inaba mentioning that he has been looking at some cheaper hosts, so there is a good chance it will be online again. In the meantime, while it points to us1 anyway, I just think it's confusing to newcomers to call it EU.

i missed that, good to know ty

[P_Shep]

There may need to be some tweaking done to get efficency up (either to the pool, or cgminer). I'm getting the following results:

http://pool.maxbtc.com:8332      GW:668   A:10229   E:1531.3 %
http://us2.ozco.in:8332         GW:347   A:9074   E:2615 %   
http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337   GW:764   A:2723   E:356.4 %

I'm particularly looking at the Get Works. It's pretty well up there.

If you're mining at higher difficulty, you need to take that into account because at diff 3 for example you'll be getting 1/3 the accepted amount and that's normal.

Yeah use the API 'pools' and look at:
"Difficulty Accepted", "Difficulty Rejected", "Getworks"

To compare "A:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" instead

To compare "R:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Rejected" instead

To compare "E:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" / "Getworks"

which I'd call DA: DR: and DE:

Edit: "Accepted difficulty shares:" and "Rejected difficulty shares:" are also reported in the summary when you exit cgminer

Edit2: oh yeah ... 2.7.6

I'm looking at absolutes... Higher difficulty shares is drastically reducing up traffic as expected, but at the expense of down traffic. I'm thinking there's an optimal trade-off between difficulty and traffic. Inaba basically arbitrarily chose where to put the difficulty. With a little experimentation the optimal Hashrate/difficulty ratio could be found. ...Or function, perhaps it's not linear.
As a comparison with the original diff 1 shares I was getting efficiencies of 700-800% at EMC. CGminer is telling me difficulty peaks at ~9 ( I have 5000MH/s)
It's not a problem, after all most Internet connections have a high download rate. Just thought I'd raise the issue.

[-ck]

There may need to be some tweaking done to get efficency up (either to the pool, or cgminer). I'm getting the following results:

http://pool.maxbtc.com:8332      GW:668   A:10229   E:1531.3 %
http://us2.ozco.in:8332         GW:347   A:9074   E:2615 %   
http://us1.eclipsemc.com:8337   GW:764   A:2723   E:356.4 %

I'm particularly looking at the Get Works. It's pretty well up there.

If you're mining at higher difficulty, you need to take that into account because at diff 3 for example you'll be getting 1/3 the accepted amount and that's normal.

Yeah use the API 'pools' and look at:
"Difficulty Accepted", "Difficulty Rejected", "Getworks"

To compare "A:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" instead

To compare "R:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Rejected" instead

To compare "E:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" / "Getworks"

which I'd call DA: DR: and DE:

Edit: "Accepted difficulty shares:" and "Rejected difficulty shares:" are also reported in the summary when you exit cgminer

Edit2: oh yeah ... 2.7.6

I'm looking at absolutes... Higher difficulty shares is drastically reducing up traffic as expected, but at the expense of down traffic. I'm thinking there's an optimal trade-off between difficulty and traffic. Inaba basically arbitrarily chose where to put the difficulty. With a little experimentation the optimal Hashrate/difficulty ratio could be found. ...Or function, perhaps it's not linear.
As a comparison with the original diff 1 shares I was getting efficiencies of 700-800% at EMC. CGminer is telling me difficulty peaks at ~9 ( I have 5000MH/s)
It's not a problem, after all most Internet connections have a high download rate. Just thought I'd raise the issue.

You missed the point then. If your average difficulty is 9 then your effective efficiency is 356.4 * 9.

[P_Shep]

Peaks at 9... There's no way EMC some how had over 20000 shares (equivilent) submitted in the same time the others has 10000.
Forget about submitted shares.
I'm just talking about Get works. EMC has more get works over the same time than the other pools. That shouldn't be the case.

[-ck]

Peaks at 9... There's no way EMC some how had over 20000 shares (equivilent) submitted in the same time the others has 10000.
Forget about submitted shares.
I'm just talking about Get works. EMC has more get works over the same time than the other pools. That shouldn't be the case.

Oh I see.  Maybe has a shorter rolltime set, dunno. Anyway soon with stratum and friends all these statistics become irrelevant.

[kano]

Peaks at 9... There's no way EMC some how had over 20000 shares (equivilent) submitted in the same time the others has 10000.
Forget about submitted shares.
I'm just talking about Get works. EMC has more get works over the same time than the other pools. That shouldn't be the case.

Again you need to look at the API to get conclusive numbers to compare pool performance (or any performance) due to the effect of difficulty.
Yes the number of GetWorks is relevant, but the figures I mentioned before MUST be used in the comparison to ensure that EMC is being compared properly (since EMC can have >1 difficulty shares also)
Also, the API stats report has information in it that may need to be considered in a comparison also (e.g. roll-n-time info)
I'm not saying any numbers are right or wrong, but simply that those API report figures must be looked at in any comparison.

[P_Shep]

I haven't coded up Anubis to display that yet (get to it soon), but the stats say that maxbtc has roll time of 60, and oz/emc of 120. So I was expecting similar GW to oz.

[jamesg]

Just moved ~50Gh in eclipse and the variable diff stuff is awesome! The network definitely has a lot less traffic now.

[Inaba]

Don't forget about GBT, either.  It basically reduces the outbound traffic (replacing Getwork) to 1 connection every 2 minutes regardless of your hashrate.  

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?

[jamesg]

Don't forget about GBT, either.  It basically reduces the outbound traffic (replacing Getwork) to 1 connection every 2 minutes regardless of your hashrate.  

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?

This is the one piece I don't fully understand yet. How does GBT let the pool know how fast I am hashing so the pool knows what proportion of blocks to give me? This is pretty straight forward with getwork as I am submitting shares whether they are winners or not.

[Inaba]

You are still submitting shares (at the appropriate variable difficulty) - you just don't need to request work constantly as you already have the block template and you build the block on your end, instead of the pool building it for you.  Every two minutes or a LP will get you an updated template to build the block off of.

[The00Dustin]

You are still submitting shares (at the appropriate variable difficulty) - you just don't need to request work constantly as you already have the block template and you build the block on your end, instead of the pool building it for you.  Every two minutes or a LP will get you an updated template to build the block off of.

Just out of curiosity, I have wondered for a long time, but given this basic description of GBT, it is time to ask.  Is there something the pool has (which would be hard to regenerate) that the miner doesn't (beyond the block template)?  I should imagine there is, because surely I'm not the only one who would think that otherwise a block witholding attack could becomea  block stealing attack if the miner can submit the real blocks on their own since they have the template.

[Inaba]

You have the template for the pools block, not a solo block... so it has to be submitted through the pool to be a valid block, otherwise the key won't match the template.

[The00Dustin]

You have the template for the pools block, not a solo block... so it has to be submitted through the pool to be a valid block, otherwise the key won't match the template.

Makes sense, so to be much more specific, what the pool has that the miner doesn't is the pool's private key for the address being generated against, correct?

[-ck]

Don't forget about GBT, either.  It basically reduces the outbound traffic (replacing Getwork) to 1 connection every 2 minutes regardless of your hashrate.  

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?

Anyway soon with stratum and friends all these statistics become irrelevant.

That's what I was referring to.

I haven't decided what to do with the efficiency metric. Either I'll make up something or just not use it.