Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2024, 04:55:20 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
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] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!  (Read 499702 times)
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4620
Merit: 1851


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 09:50:46 AM
 #3461

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 - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1002


View Profile
October 01, 2012, 11:48:37 AM
 #3462

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4298
Merit: 1645


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2012, 11:53:52 AM
 #3463

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.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 850
Merit: 331



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 01:36:05 PM
 #3464

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4620
Merit: 1851


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 02, 2012, 02:16:04 PM
 #3465

...
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 - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 850
Merit: 331



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 02:31:09 PM
 #3466

...
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
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 02:56:18 PM
 #3467

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).

RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 03:10:05 PM
 #3468

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4298
Merit: 1645


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 02, 2012, 03:27:33 PM
 #3469

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.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
vitruvio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 850
Merit: 331



View Profile
October 02, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
 #3470


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: 242
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
 #3471

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

Activity: 784
Merit: 101



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 10:14:17 AM
 #3472

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.

WHALES HEAVEN
Custody-free Swapping Platform
◈  ────────  Reddit ⬝  BountyWebsiteTelegramTwitterGitHub  ────────  ◈
stevegee58
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 916
Merit: 1003



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 10:21:32 AM
 #3473

Eligius is in the middle of a 75 hour block right now.  That's gotta be frustrating.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
chrcoe01
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 147
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
 #3474

I am wondering if EMC will make use of stratum at any point in the future, anyone know?  Perhaps I am just a silly newb  Cry and I missed something, but I did not see anything about it on the site currently. 

"You may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again." -Benjamin Franklin
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 04, 2012, 02:29:24 PM
 #3475

We use GBT, which doesn't require any funky proxies or anything on your end now.  It just works magically behind the scenes if you're using BFGminer 2.8.0 or later.

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

Activity: 4620
Merit: 1851


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 04, 2012, 03:22:58 PM
 #3476

We use GBT, which doesn't require any funky proxies or anything on your end now.  It just works magically behind the scenes if you're using BFGminer 2.8.0 or later.

What level of implementation?

Since at full implementation, a miner using GBT isn't just talking to the pool, it's also talking to the bitcoin network and thus that also affects your mining performance: crap connection, low bandwith, busy connection has a bigger negative impact on mining than the other pool protocols since it also needs to track transactions and blocks ...
... and handle orphans and txn verification and invalid txns ... and other guff in bitcoind related to txns and blocks

Pool: https://kano.is - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
mufa23
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1001


I'd fight Gandhi.


View Profile
October 05, 2012, 02:45:12 AM
 #3477

Inaba,
For the past day or so I have noticed I have more unconfirmed BTC then blocks that are unconformed. I think a day or two ago when I helped solve a couple of blocks, it stayed in my unconfirmed balance even though the blocks already got confirmed. It seems that the only way to get the BTC is to "Cash Out".

My account is "mufa23" if you can fix/take a look at the glitch. Thanks

EDIT: Also my NMC seems to be stuck in Unconfirmed as well.

Positive rep with: pekv2, AzN1337c0d3r, Vince Torres, underworld07, Chimsley, omegaaf, Bogart, Gleason, SuperTramp, John K. and guitarplinker
ocminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1240



View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 09:21:05 AM
 #3478

I really wonder if luck ever comes back to EMC..

Bad luck since ~5 days... :-(


suprnova pools - reliable mining pools - #suprnova on freenet
https://www.suprnova.cc - FOLLOW us @ Twitter ! twitter.com/SuprnovaPools
Badonkadonk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 05, 2012, 11:08:08 AM
 #3479

I really wonder if luck ever comes back to EMC..

Bad luck since ~5 days... :-(



gogo PPS Smiley

ocminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1240



View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
 #3480

Will be switching for sure after this weekend if luck doesnt come back...

I really wonder if luck ever comes back to EMC..

Bad luck since ~5 days... :-(



gogo PPS Smiley

suprnova pools - reliable mining pools - #suprnova on freenet
https://www.suprnova.cc - FOLLOW us @ Twitter ! twitter.com/SuprnovaPools
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] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!