How to Avoid DDoS and Other Downtime

[phelix]

I had a feeling that I would get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU. Also one should only trust the hashrate measured at the pool(s).

[1715582459]

1715582459

[1715582459]

1715582459

[1715582459]

1715582459

[1715582459]

1715582459

[1715582459]

1715582459

[keybaud]

I had a feeling that I would get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU. Also one should only trust the hashrate measured at the pool(s).

I run 2 Phoenix clients per GPU (I have 3 x HD5870) and I run them both at the same Aggression. This splits the work between them evenly until one of the pools has a hiccup. My total hash rate is slightly higher than running one instance of Phoenix per GPU.

Why would you get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU?

The hash rate at the pool is an estimate, so nowhere near as accurate as the client reported hash rate.

[phelix]

I had a feeling that I would get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU. Also one should only trust the hashrate measured at the pool(s).

I run 2 Phoenix clients per GPU (I have 3 x HD5870) and I run them both at the same Aggression. This splits the work between them evenly until one of the pools has a hiccup. My total hash rate is slightly higher than running one instance of Phoenix per GPU.

Why would you get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU?

The hash rate at the pool is an estimate, so nowhere near as accurate as the client reported hash rate.

I did the same thing happily for a while but now I am not so sure any more if it is the optimum.

Theoretically you get more stales because your workers are slower compared to the other workers in the pool. I get lots of stales but there might be some other reason I have yet to find.

---edit---
For my system the gain in hashrate using two miners is three to five times larger than the loss from stales. I will keep running two miners per GPU.

[backburn]

I've notice lately that many users have our pool at BitClockers.com set as a fail-over for the larger pools. We jumped to over 250GHash during the Deepbit/Slush DDoS. Why not just mine with us 24/7

I guess we'll take what we can get until people figure out that its not advantageous to run with a giant pool. Any pool that can manage 2 blocks a day has no real drawbacks from variance. Mining isnt a race, a block found somewhere doesnt "reset" anything. Any hash has the chance to be a block... Mine with pools that care, have stability, and a rocking community.

[mmortal03]

I had a feeling that I would get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU. Also one should only trust the hashrate measured at the pool(s).

I've actually gotten a couple hundred megahash rate HIGHER on the pools' stated hashrates before than what I should be getting from my card model, so I don't know that you can trust the pools to be accurate, either.

[mmortal03]

I had a feeling that I would get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU. Also one should only trust the hashrate measured at the pool(s).

I run 2 Phoenix clients per GPU (I have 3 x HD5870) and I run them both at the same Aggression. This splits the work between them evenly until one of the pools has a hiccup. My total hash rate is slightly higher than running one instance of Phoenix per GPU.

Why would you get more stale shares using more than one miner per GPU?

The hash rate at the pool is an estimate, so nowhere near as accurate as the client reported hash rate.

I did the same thing happily for a while but now I am not so sure any more if it is the optimum.

Theoretically you get more stales because your workers are slower compared to the other workers in the pool. I get lots of stales but there might be some other reason I have yet to find.

---edit---
For my system the gain in hashrate using two miners is three to five times larger than the loss from stales. I will keep running two miners per GPU.

This is what I do.  The only thing I've noticed is that I've had some disconnection problems arise when running multiple miner connections when I have had two computers both running two instances (four total connections) through the same mobile broadband connection. I don't know if it is a port issue with the router or what exactly, but it is something to be aware of.

[phelix]

when people brag about their hashrates I wonder if they just sum up their multiple miners' hashrates or if they crank up aggression all the way to 16...

[dishwara]

-f flag is not equal to AGGRESSION.
If you put -f 120, you will see NO mining until main server down & then it starts & hash rate will be some 10-20 Mhash/s less only.

But if you try with AGGRESSION, that completely different.
AGGRESSION=6 will make a 5870 to mine at 230 Mhash/s
while AGGRESSION=12 will make to mine at 430 Mhash/s.


Using -f flag works only if you use poclbm & phoenix with phatk gives more hash than pcolbm. 

[tiberiandusk]

Phoenix Rising makes it really easy to setup a backup pool. Set your timeout options and it will automatically change to a backup server or even restart phoenix.exe.

[Meatball]

Maybe it's just my setup, but I've tried using Pheonix (both with/without phatk) on multiple cards including 5850's, 5830's and a 6950 and I can never get the same hashing rates I can get from just using Poclbm (with GUIMiner on the front end).