Proofer
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 36
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 06:49:15 PM |
|
Ok... I made some changes to US2. Let me know how that affects stales on US2 specifically and also possibly US1.
Um, is "US1" a nickname for us.eclipsemc.com or is it part of a new domain name? If the latter it's new enough that my DNS doesn't resolve it. Separately... After typing that question, I went to the web site to check. The only place I see a server domain name there is in two FAQ questions referring to specific mining software; the answers are command lines which include "us.eclipsemc.com:8337". I know there's pool domain info in the OP here; mightn't it be good to have basic info on the home page of the pool web site?
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 06:56:43 PM |
|
Sorry, US1 and US are synonymous at the moment. US2 is the only new hostname available.
I'm not familiar with the Phoenix miner ... does anyone know what that error indicates?
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
Math Man
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 08:11:01 PM |
|
Sorry, US1 and US are synonymous at the moment. US2 is the only new hostname available.
I'm not familiar with the Phoenix miner ... does anyone know what that error indicates?
I'll ask what that error means in the Phoenix miner thread. Since my reset, I have about 8000 shares with a reject rate of 0.91%. The My Workers page shows 0.42% stales. What causes the My Workers page to report less stales/rejects? Could it be a bad calculation on my end that is rejected before it is send back to the pool server to be verified? edit: By the way, the reject rate is half what is was compared to the past few days. Nice work.
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 08:14:27 PM |
|
No, the My Workers page stales is not calculating right. I wanted to get the stales under control before I looked into what was going on as far as why it's not calculating right.
In addition to that, when I restart the server, your client counts all the rejects and the server doesn't, so you'll get less listed on the server vs what's listed on your client.
And lastly - I think most clients increment the reject counter for any reason - the server only increments the counter for actual stales. So unknown, duplicate, etc... does not get counted.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 08:39:57 PM |
|
Did you just do something with the pools?
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 09:03:55 PM |
|
Not for awhile now (an hour at least) - why?
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 09:05:40 PM |
|
Must be my connection then, cards went on backup server. Approx half an hour ago.
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 09:10:16 PM |
|
That might have been about when I reset one of the servers ... but I thought it was a bit longer. In either case, it shouldn't have been down for more than a few seconds and both servers (us1 and us2) are up and taking requests right now.
I did make a DNS change, but it was just to add us1 to the dns table, I did not remove or change any existing records.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
JWU42
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 09:16:02 PM |
|
The stale /reject count was tracking fine for me after a reset but is now off - reporting about 50% of the rejects showing in CGminer.
Even with my higher reported rejects we are still under 1% -- about 0.85% after 3 1/2 hours on US2.*
|
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 09:16:29 PM |
|
Yeah, forgot to mention (d'oh) that I was back and mining within a few mins or so. Sorry for the hassle.
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 22, 2012, 11:04:16 PM |
|
I'm not going to touch the servers again tonight, so reset your miners if it's not too much of a hassle and see how the stale count tracks. If I do happen to have to restart the server(s) or if there is a problem with them, I will post here when the problem/reset occurred.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
twmz
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 04:59:06 AM |
|
Looks great now (0.6%): ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlEJ06.png&t=665&c=_lq3LITyGK2c_g)
|
Was I helpful? 1 TwmzX1wBxNF2qtAJRhdKmi2WyLZ5VHRs WoT, GPGBitrated user: ewal.
|
|
|
ThiagoCMC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1000
฿itcoin: Currency of Resistance!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 01:34:33 PM |
|
I hate "Invalid Blocks".
What we need to do for EclipseMC pay us for invalid blocks?!
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 02:28:49 PM |
|
I hate "Invalid Blocks".
What we need to do for EclipseMC pay us for invalid blocks?! I saw that invalid block and it made me wonder two things: 1) Didn't I read something about the scoring system leading to some (much less than normal) pay on invalid blocks? Was that the previous scoring system, is the block chart wrong, or is the calculation wrong? 2) How do the averages work with invalid blocks? Technically, doesn't "44% luck" on an invalid block equate to no luck, and shouldn't the average luck percentage (if not the next block luck percentage) include the time wasted on the invalid block but not the luck from it (avg divide by 49 instead of 50 or something)?
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 02:43:18 PM |
|
Well, I can institute something like an "invalid block insurance" at 3% "fee"... I hesitate to call it a donation, though, since a donation implies of someones free will. But like a couple pools have done in the past, they insure against invalid blocks with a forced donation of x amount. I'm certainly open to this if there's enough demand. 1) Didn't I read something about the scoring system leading to some (much less than normal) pay on invalid blocks? Was that the previous scoring system, is the block chart wrong, or is the calculation wrong?
2) How do the averages work with invalid blocks? Technically, doesn't "44% luck" on an invalid block equate to no luck, and shouldn't the average luck percentage (if not the next block luck percentage) include the time wasted on the invalid block but not the luck from it (avg divide by 49 instead of 50 or something)? Nope, there's no less than normal pay on invalid blocks, unless you mean 0 pay? As much as I'd like to pay out on invalid blocks, I can't afford to pay 50 BTC out of my pocket. I'm not really making money on running the pool and my Ferrari is sadly still on layaway. Actually, I'll settle for an Lotus Exige or Ariel Atom at this point. I'm not sure I understand your question with regards to the block chart being wrong? As far as the averages, there's a few different ways you can look at an invalid block and each are equally valid but produce very different results. The convention, perhaps set by Deepbit and Slush et al in the beginning is to acknowledge invalid blocks as being a separate legitimate entity. From a purely continuity standpoint, this should not be so and invalid blocks should never be acknowledged as existing in the first place as far as pools go - thus they should just be passed over and the current block continues as normal. Convention and technical limitations make this more difficult in so far as it takes time for a block to be realized as invalid, so unless the pool delays the stats, an invalid block shows up in the chart until it's invalidated by the network. So, as far as luck goes for both the invalid and current block, since it's acknowledged as a separate entity from the current block, it takes with it it's luck. It's ultimately a semantics game, and through convention and technical limitations, you get what you see. If people would prefer another method/display/semantic convention, I am happy to oblige, I just chose the current method because that's what people are already familiar with and I am definitely not trying to hide anything. I would like to point out, with this latest invalid, we are right under the "average" as far as invalids go, since the start of the pool (400 blocks * 1.5% = 6 invalids).
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 04:10:00 PM |
|
I don't care one way or the other how the pool calculates the average, whatever is easier is fine, I was just curious as to how it was done. Regarding the less pay, maybe I read that in Meni's thread, but I thought it was in this one, because it seems like it possibly wasn't necessarily part of double-geometric, but was part of the previous method (and I didn't read THAT threa [presumably also of Meni's]). Doesn't really matter. Maybe I misintrepreted a comment and the idea is that the score from the invlaid block is still paid, but at a lower amount since it is paid on later blocks and has decayed. As far as invalid blocks go, they are part of it, an optional donation of 3% to get paid on invalids would be optional and therefore of free will, but probably require more coding. A 3% fee and paying on invalids might make some people happy and could theoretically earn (or perhaps cost) you more in the long run, but then you wouldn't be able to call the pool 0% (per your argument on the ABCPool thread).
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 04:51:17 PM |
|
Payout difference was about 1% per user between the invalid and next block, which would account of decay time if you did not factor in the invalid block.
I will consider how best to handle (if at all) an invalid block insurance plan.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 05:14:45 PM Last edit: January 25, 2012, 07:06:11 PM by Meni Rosenfeld |
|
I don't care one way or the other how the pool calculates the average, whatever is easier is fine, I was just curious as to how it was done. Regarding the less pay, maybe I read that in Meni's thread, but I thought it was in this one, because it seems like it possibly wasn't necessarily part of double-geometric, but was part of the previous method (and I didn't read THAT threa [presumably also of Meni's]). Doesn't really matter. Maybe I misintrepreted a comment and the idea is that the score from the invlaid block is still paid, but at a lower amount since it is paid on later blocks and has decayed. As far as invalid blocks go, they are part of it, an optional donation of 3% to get paid on invalids would be optional and therefore of free will, but probably require more coding. A 3% fee and paying on invalids might make some people happy and could theoretically earn (or perhaps cost) you more in the long run, but then you wouldn't be able to call the pool 0% (per your argument on the ABCPool thread).
You remember correctly, and I think this is implemented right in EMC even if Inaba isn't completely aware of why it's right (and even if I once erroneously commented on a PM that there's a problem in need of fixing). The previous method which was the geometric method, is a special case of double geometric, so the same issue with invalid blocks applied to it (and more strongly). But I hadn't yet examined invalid blocks thoroughly at that point, so what you're probably remembering are my comments in this thread about the current method. The thing is this - DGM features block decay, which means that whenever a block is found, every worker loses a portion of his score. So the question is whether to decay for invalid blocks as if they were normal blocks, or refrain from decaying as if there was never a block at all. Intuitively you might think that the block needs to be ignored. But a closer examination reveals that this would cause unfair losses to the operator (so on a 0-fee pool he would actually lose on average for running the pool). On the other hand, if blocks cause decay as if they were valid, the loss is shared equally between all parties. So if for example 1% of blocks are invalid, every miner will gain on average 1% less than he would have if all blocks were valid, and the pool op's profits, if the pool has fees, will also be reduced by 1% of the profit. This I think is the fair solution. It just so happens that the correct solution is also easier technically, so it is what we have by default. It should also be noted that with the parameters used in EMC, block decay is very weak so the issue has little consequence one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 06:37:34 PM Last edit: January 23, 2012, 06:56:12 PM by cyberlync |
|
I am currently watching cgminer showing "Pool 0 communication failure, caching submissions" and after a second, sometimes up to 6-7 secs later, it gets back and submits the shares. Pool 0 is us.eclipsemc.com:8337
edit: switched to us2 and now it all seems to work fine.
|
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
NetworkerZ
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 23, 2012, 07:03:25 PM |
|
Me too. Miner says connecting, then it mines for a few seconds and lose connection again. Also on us1 port 8337
Greetz NetworkerZ
|
|
|
|
|