Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2018, 01:24:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3229 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 415 (10.3%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 371 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 4013

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 ... 1139 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [2.5+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 4325921 times)
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 28, 2011, 09:48:19 AM
 #3581

update phoenix to the latest -- still the same. accepts seem the same put rejects have gone through the roof  like twice the accepts

This looks like problem of phoenix which I described above. From logs I see that wast majority of your shares are accepted, which does not fit your observation. Btw can you please try poclbm if you'll see the same problems?

Quote
did the dificulty go up at the same time as slushes upgrade ?

This does not matter, submitting shares isn't related to "full" Bitcoin difficulty.

1524533069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524533069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524533069
Reply with quote  #2

1524533069
Report to moderator
1524533069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524533069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524533069
Reply with quote  #2

1524533069
Report to moderator
1524533069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524533069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524533069
Reply with quote  #2

1524533069
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524533069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524533069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524533069
Reply with quote  #2

1524533069
Report to moderator
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 28, 2011, 07:09:44 PM
 #3582

RobertRibbeck - There's no difference in score using multiple worker accounts or using all miners on one account. Your round reward will be still the same.

Quote
Is there any limit to the number of miners I can put on a single worker


There's not any hard limit, however when I detect some botnet activity, I'll suspend that account as I did many times before.

FoxMURDER
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 29, 2011, 07:51:13 AM
 #3583

beta seems to work just fine for me ...
less than 0.1% rejects
Q:13139  A:12557  R:11

although cgminer reported longpoll/new work three times at 9:40 at the same second (forgot to SS it Sad ) ... it seem like some kind of glitch, because there were just one block at that time ...
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2011, 01:47:18 PM
 #3584

although cgminer reported longpoll/new work three times at 9:40 at the same second (forgot to SS it Sad ) ... it seem like some kind of glitch, because there were just one block at that time ...

Interesting. Is that 9:40 CET? From logs at 11a:47 UTC I see that server broadcasted block only once to you (worker "hacked" looks like cgminer). Can you please copy log or make a screenshot next time? Thanks!

FoxMURDER
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 29, 2011, 02:03:17 PM
 #3585

although cgminer reported longpoll/new work three times at 9:40 at the same second (forgot to SS it Sad ) ... it seem like some kind of glitch, because there were just one block at that time ...

Interesting. Is that 9:40 CET? From logs at 11a:47 UTC I see that server broadcasted block only once to you (worker "hacked" looks like cgminer). Can you please copy log or make a screenshot next time? Thanks!
umm I probably got confused by cgminers internal new block detection. (though i'm pretty sure, there were just 3 equal lines and another accepted block. i will keep watching and let you know if i spot it again. for the time being excuse this false alarm.
Code:
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:34] New block detected on network before longpoll, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 15:49:35] LONGPOLL received after new block already detected
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2011, 02:52:19 PM
 #3586

FoxMURDER: That looks fine; it is probably one line per your core, right? There might be very short delay in longpolling broadcast and cgminer probably handle it in this way. Too bad that cgminer does not show also miliseconds, because that delay is definitely smaller than one full second as is recorded in your log (from my logs I see that all broadcasts were finished in 68 miliseconds after new block was accepted for this particular block).

FoxMURDER
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 29, 2011, 06:58:04 PM
 #3587

slush: actually it's doing just opencl with 2 threads ... not sure why it does that ... i'll try to patch milliseconds in and see if/when it happens again.
btw. beta broken? or is it just me?
Code:
[2011-09-29 19:45:05] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-09-29 19:45:05] Upstream communication failure, caching submissions
[2011-09-29 19:45:32] Server not providing work fast enough, generating work locally
[2011-09-29 19:45:46] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 19:45:46] Resuming with work from server
[2011-09-29 19:45:46] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-09-29 19:45:46] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:47] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:48] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:48] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:49] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:50] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:50] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:45:51] Stale share detected, discarding
[2011-09-29 19:49:19] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 19:49:19] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-09-29 20:01:23] LONGPOLL detected new block on network, waiting on fresh work
[2011-09-29 20:01:24] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
edit: release pool running just fine
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2011, 07:01:10 PM
 #3588

btw. beta broken? or is it just me?

yes, it should be back in 5 minutes (DNS timeout).

FoxMURDER
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 29, 2011, 07:25:07 PM
 #3589

yep. its working again Smiley tx.
got microseconds patched in ... will let you know when/if it shows up again ...
aistto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1021
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 30, 2011, 08:35:43 AM
 #3590

Hi Slash! what does it mean Huh

#   Block found   Duration   Total shares    Your reward    Block #   Validity
8209    2011-09-30 08:22:45    4:42:07    5528189    0.12766817    0    confirmed

pekv2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 30, 2011, 09:03:14 AM
 #3591

lol block num 0. I've got the same.

8209    2011-09-30 08:22:45    4:42:07    5528189    0.02003691    0    confirmed    1440.92   577.43
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
September 30, 2011, 12:06:15 PM
 #3592

lol block num 0. I've got the same.

This small error in stats is fixed Smiley.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2011, 09:43:00 AM
 #3593

Before few minutes one balancer crashed for unknown reason. It is up and running again, I'm currently investigating what happen.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
October 03, 2011, 05:37:49 PM
 #3594

During this day I'm turning on Long polling and NTime rolling for all backends. If you see any issues on your miners, you can manually turn off LP&NTime rolling on profile page for any worker. Pool needs some time (up to 30 minutes) to apply changed settings in pool core. If your miner have some problems with those features, you'll probably need to restart miner to stop using LP, too.

Don't forget to report this issue to info@bitcoin.cz

I'll write official announcement with latest changes on pool later, this is just quick how-to for fixing miner issues.

pekv2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 03, 2011, 09:33:59 PM
 #3595

Is this pool located in the UK?

I don't know what is going on but I am being hammered with rejected shares, only in ten minutes I had more than 25 rejected.

I swapped to deepbit as a test, been mining for an hour, I've only got one rejected so far.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
October 03, 2011, 11:34:20 PM
 #3596

Is this pool located in the UK?

Yes, in London.

Quote
I don't know what is going on but I am being hammered with rejected shares, only in ten minutes I had more than 25 rejected.

It is probably because of failed LP broadcast. You've problem with LP connectioins (as described in phoenix forum thread). When LP connection fails, miner don't know about new bitcoin block and he's still submitting shares from old job, which leads in wall of rejected...

If you read my bug reports in phoenix thread, some phoenix instances have very weird connection problems. Unfortunately it is more than week when I report those issues to phoenix developers via PM and I still don't have any response. However I know there are some pool users affected by those bugs and I'm pretty sure that you are one of them.

Generally I have following advices:
1) Changing phoenix to something more stable, at least until they fixed those weird connection bugs. From my experience poclbm is much more stable and is following protocol standards much better than phoenix.
2) Disable LP for those workers on profile page and after few minutes restart miners. Your miners will work in the same way as on pool version without LP.

Quote
I swapped to deepbit as a test, been mining for an hour, I've only got one rejected so far.

There are small differences between my pool and deepbit implementation, which probably lead to this:
a) My pool is officially supporting miner extension "X-Roll-NTime", so miner can use one job up to one minute, because he can modify "ntime" parameter of job.
b) Pool is rejecting submits from jobs older than 5 minutes even when there wasn't new bitcoin block.  I don't know how old jobs deepbit accepts, but this 5 minutes timeout (originally 60 second in X-Roll-NTime specs) is there because miners need to reload merkle tree time to time and 60 seconds are pretty good compromise.

Unfortunately one of phoenix bug is that he's sometimes reusing *very* old jobs for no reasons, so those shares are rejected. This was also reported and also without response...

Short summary: Turn off LP or change miner to poclbm, both ways will probably solve your issues.

vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1633
Merit: 1028

what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
October 03, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
 #3597

During this day I'm turning on Long polling and NTime rolling for all backends.

when will the :8331 backend be shutdown? should I switch all mine back to :8332 in the next couple days?
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
October 03, 2011, 11:42:41 PM
 #3598

Quote from: slush
I report those issues to phoenix developers via PM and I still don't have any response. However I know there are some pool users affected by those bugs and I'm pretty sure that you are one of them.

I'd like to be more specific. From all ~6000 connected miners only few (up to 20) of them have some troubles and _all_ of those are using phoenix. All other miners are performing better than without LP support. I wanted to fix phoenix before I enabled LP support on live pool, unfortunately because of missing interest from side of phoenix developers I decided to release new pool version and ask those affected users to change their miners. Phoenix is pretty good miner, but it has some really weird bugs which affect 0.1% of users and there's nothing what I can do for that on my side...

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1018



View Profile WWW
October 03, 2011, 11:45:31 PM
 #3599

when will the :8331 backend be shutdown? should I switch all mine back to :8332 in the next couple days?

8331 will be still working, I'll be using those miners for stress-tests for new pool features which are coming. So if you want to help me with that, leave your miner(s) connected here. Otherwise you can connect to "production" pool at 8332 at any time. At this moment, both "beta" and "production" are running same pool version...

pekv2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 03, 2011, 11:52:06 PM
 #3600

Is this pool located in the UK?

Yes, in London.

Quote
I don't know what is going on but I am being hammered with rejected shares, only in ten minutes I had more than 25 rejected.

It is probably because of failed LP broadcast. You've problem with LP connectioins (as described in phoenix forum thread). When LP connection fails, miner don't know about new bitcoin block and he's still submitting shares from old job, which leads in wall of rejected...

If you read my bug reports in phoenix thread, some phoenix instances have very weird connection problems. Unfortunately it is more than week when I report those issues to phoenix developers via PM and I still don't have any response. However I know there are some pool users affected by those bugs and I'm pretty sure that you are one of them.

Generally I have following advices:
1) Changing phoenix to something more stable, at least until they fixed those weird connection bugs. From my experience poclbm is much more stable and is following protocol standards much better than phoenix.
2) Disable LP for those workers on profile page and after few minutes restart miners. Your miners will work in the same way as on pool version without LP.

Quote
I swapped to deepbit as a test, been mining for an hour, I've only got one rejected so far.

There are small differences between my pool and deepbit implementation, which probably lead to this:
a) My pool is officially supporting miner extension "X-Roll-NTime", so miner can use one job up to one minute, because he can modify "ntime" parameter of job.
b) Pool is rejecting submits from jobs older than 5 minutes even when there wasn't new bitcoin block.  I don't know how old jobs deepbit accepts, but this 5 minutes timeout (originally 60 second in X-Roll-NTime specs) is there because miners need to reload merkle tree time to time and 60 seconds are pretty good compromise.

Unfortunately one of phoenix bug is that he's sometimes reusing *very* old jobs for no reasons, so those shares are rejected. This was also reported and also without response...

Short summary: Turn off LP or change miner to poclbm, both ways will probably solve your issues.

Slush, let me start of with a huge Thank you, for the great writeup of explanation in this thread and in gui mining thread.

I've been using poclbm since day one of me mining, dating back quite a few months ago.

I am looking into problems reported for the model of my router and modem see if I cannot find something atleast in any forums for a fix or something.

As of 20 min ago, I'm back on guiminer v2011-08-24, 20 min of mining I haven't received one error or rejected, I will take your suggestion if errors occur again and disable LP.

I'm sending a donation your way. I really really appreciate your help.

Thank you.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 ... 1139 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!