Bitcoin Forum
October 01, 2016, 03:13:23 AM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3152 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3916

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3859316 times)
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 10:18:15 AM
 #361

1) Could you update the System statistics page on bitcoin.cz to show the block we're currently working on as a group?

What specific stats about current block are you missing? Block history table is, ehrm, block _history_. Operational stats are above. Btw next block number is in my opinion non-relevant for pool stats.

Quote
2) If the current block is 100,084 and it is solved by someone else, the next network block would be 100,085.  Does that information get updated with the group or are we all still crunching away @ block 100,084?

Of course miners have up to date information. Miners are asking pool approximately every 5 seconds for new job to crunch.

1475291603
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475291603

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475291603
Reply with quote  #2

1475291603
Report to moderator
1475291603
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475291603

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475291603
Reply with quote  #2

1475291603
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1475291603
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475291603

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475291603
Reply with quote  #2

1475291603
Report to moderator
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 07:50:21 PM
 #362

1) Could you update the System statistics page on bitcoin.cz to show the block we're currently working on as a group?

What specific stats about current block are you missing? Block history table is, ehrm, block _history_. Operational stats are above. Btw next block number is in my opinion non-relevant for pool stats.

I'm not doubting you, but I noticed a few days ago that *after* the pool got a block, that my bitcoin client didn't get an update that the block was solved for ~4-5 minutes.  I'm just wondering if the opposite could also happen, hence, it be nice to know what block the pool is currently working on.


2) If the current block is 100,084 and it is solved by someone else, the next network block would be 100,085.  Does that information get updated with the group or are we all still crunching away @ block 100,084?

Of course miners have up to date information. Miners are asking pool approximately every 5 seconds for new job to crunch.

I thought so, but I just wanted to be sure. 
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 07:51:52 PM
 #363

Another question for you.  How many hashes are in a "share"?
Raulo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
December 30, 2010, 08:05:21 PM
 #364

Another question for you.  How many hashes are in a "share"?

2^32=4294967296. A share is a solved block with "difficulty of at least 1 but less than current difficulty (which will earn the pool a block).

1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 09:27:17 PM
 #365

it be nice to know what block the pool is currently working on.

OK, I added block# to stats page (in next release).

FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 11:16:06 PM
 #366

it be nice to know what block the pool is currently working on.

OK, I added block# to stats page (in next release).

Thank you very much!
Expect donations soon.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
December 30, 2010, 11:31:40 PM
 #367

I just set up high availability application cluster on the server. That means I will be able to upgrade application without any service outage.

(Thanks to amazing Nginx server I set up HA cluster without a second of outage, too :-).

Update: Huh, pool is currently down because of DB memory problems. Sorry for troubles, I'm working on it. That's Murphy law; first real pool outage few minutes after announcement of stability improvements :-).
Update: Memory problems fixed. Service was down for 10-15 minutes.

fabianhjr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


Do The Evolution


View Profile
December 31, 2010, 04:03:20 AM
 #368

Cool to know. Also, congratz, a block with just 83 shares xD

ColdHardMetal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 701



View Profile
December 31, 2010, 06:24:29 AM
 #369

Cool to know. Also, congratz, a block with just 83 shares xD

That was pretty sick. A new record lol. Beats the previous of 188 I think it was.

 I checked my time stamps and I didn't catch a piece of it unfortunately  Cry

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
 #370

I'm going to do a system kernel update. Service will be down for few minutes.

If your miner won't reconnect automatically after then, please update to newest miner version. If you already have newest version and have troubles with miner stability, please ask developers.

britschler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6


View Profile
January 01, 2011, 04:28:04 PM
 #371


If you are user of jgarzik's CPU miner, try also new 'cryptopp_asm32' algorithm. It is working well now and improve performance for many users (hashrate is same or better than in official bitcoin client). Thanks jgarzik!


Yes, changing the algorithm gave me a huge boost:

4way:
HashMeter(0): 16777216 hashes, 291.09 khash/sec
HashMeter(1): 16777216 hashes, 284.03 khash/sec
HashMeter(2): 16777216 hashes, 280.10 khash/sec
HashMeter(3): 16777216 hashes, 278.72 khash/sec

cryptopp:
HashMeter(0): 16777216 hashes, 446.86 khash/sec
HashMeter(1): 16777216 hashes, 434.61 khash/sec
HashMeter(2): 16777216 hashes, 419.85 khash/sec
HashMeter(3): 16777216 hashes, 417.87 khash/sec
Raulo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
January 03, 2011, 07:35:52 AM
 #372

We have new difficulty and the pool has completed 66 blocks since the last change in difficulty. However, with the total number of shares completed (1167791), it should have resulted in 78.65 blocks on average. This might be due to bad luck (Poisson distribution gives about 8% probability of such an outcome) but before the last difficulty change, there were also less blocks than one should expect (see post #312). Such a bad luck twice in a row is rather suspicious. I am wondering (and worrying) if something is (slightly) wrong with the pool server and if some work is duplicated.

Slush, did you check if all the shares are unique or if there are some stale/invalid shares?

1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 12:19:08 PM
 #373

I am wondering (and worrying) if something is (slightly) wrong with the pool server and if some work is duplicated. Slush, did you check if all the shares are unique or if there are some stale/invalid shares?

I know about this disbalance, too. I'm logging _all_ shares for few days ago (actually it is 355303 logged shares) and I'm working on uncovering possible problems. This can be still explained by probability and luck, but I want to be sure there is nothing bad behind those numbers.

To your question - yes, all shares are unique, except few re-submitted from miners when pool was unstable (yes, sometimes is database overloaded; I'll move pool to standalone server soon to avoid interferences with another services). But those re-submitted shares was not count twice.

So let me play with gathered shares, I'll try to find any possible problems here. I'm also interested, if there is anybody else with large hashing power to ask him if their miners have correct probability distribution.

I'll also publish share logs soon to allow other people to review share stats by self.

FreddyFender
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215


Shamantastic!


View Profile
January 03, 2011, 03:19:47 PM
 #374

278 seconds to find block 100810
9 seconds to find block 100809
52 seconds to find block 100808
88 seconds to find block 100807

342 seconds to find block 100806

Are the cartels onto something here or is this an anomaly?

Some mighty fast blocks, eh?

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 03:39:22 PM
 #375

Some mighty fast blocks, eh?

How is this related to pool thread? Those blocks was not found by pool.

FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 09:16:09 PM
 #376

I am wondering (and worrying) if something is (slightly) wrong with the pool server and if some work is duplicated. Slush, did you check if all the shares are unique or if there are some stale/invalid shares?

I know about this disbalance, too. I'm logging _all_ shares for few days ago (actually it is 355303 logged shares) and I'm working on uncovering possible problems. This can be still explained by probability and luck, but I want to be sure there is nothing bad behind those numbers.

To your question - yes, all shares are unique, except few re-submitted from miners when pool was unstable (yes, sometimes is database overloaded; I'll move pool to standalone server soon to avoid interferences with another services). But those re-submitted shares was not count twice.

So let me play with gathered shares, I'll try to find any possible problems here. I'm also interested, if there is anybody else with large hashing power to ask him if their miners have correct probability distribution.

I'll also publish share logs soon to allow other people to review share stats by self.

Just FYI, found these in my log:

02/01/2011 11:01, 49fd10bf, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 11:01, 0d157919, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 12:21, 493e637c, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 16:07, 6d716d59, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 16:07, 293de62e, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 16:10, 751cdf81, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 16:11, 4dc33d31, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 17:13, 5f8cf672, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 17:13, 7e306be7, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 19:00, 4603c922, invalid or stale
02/01/2011 19:01, 469d4616, invalid or stale

Hope this information helps you out somehow.
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 09:18:21 PM
 #377

Literally just had this show up:

2011-01-03 21:16:03 Found Hash!
Sending to server: {"method":"getwork","params":["00000001cca6575b326247fd9b8aa8
77735d86fb4b7eab51838297660003f7ef00000000f1bdf21a7dca2de2139aa60dae0877c3b2e31 9
f3be6b9c8a346f69251500b1ea4d223c561b0404cb16ae4de900000080000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080020000"],"id":1}
Retrying
Retrying
Retrying
Retrying
Retrying
Error while sending found block to server!
27242 khash/s
2011-01-03 21:16:06 Found Hash!
One or more of the blocks you are working on is stale.
You or the server might be having connection issues.
27931 khash/s
2011-01-03 21:16:23 Found Hash!
One or more of the blocks you are working on is stale.
You or the server might be having connection issues.
27976 khash/s

Now, I know you're working on the server right now, but wouldn't that just be our luck that I find another block (already found 2 blocks in the last week for the server!) and it doesn't get reported?

Do you think that could be the case?
While a "Block" get you 50 BTC when you find it (or the Pooled mining gets it in this case)....so when I see the word "BLOCK", I think 50bitcoins...
Or did puppinpop call all these "blocks" instead of "meta-hashes" or "mini-blocks", which helps confuse the crap out of everyone...IMO.
Poincare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
January 03, 2011, 10:10:55 PM
 #378

 I'm running miners on 18 machines at the moment, each connecting directly to slush's server. 15 are even at the same location. Does the number of connections matter for the performance? If so, maybe we should find a way to proxy the minders? It could give a count of my total M or k hash/s :-)

And off course I'm continously refreshing the Statistics and My bitcoin page. I'm probably not the only one...
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 261


View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 10:20:02 PM
 #379

I'm running miners on 18 machines at the moment, each connecting directly to slush's server. 15 are even at the same location. Does the number of connections matter for the performance? If so, maybe we should find a way to proxy the minders? It could give a count of my total M or k hash/s :-)

And off course I'm continously refreshing the Statistics and My bitcoin page. I'm probably not the only one...

I do not know the answer to your question....but...
I ran 64 *CPU* instances on Amazon's EC2 cluster...and it did VERY, VERY little work compared to a decent ATI Video card.
As a matter of fact, I'm going out and building a new box today with a couple ATI cards.

Just FYI...if you're using CPU....save your money, or sell some hardware, and get more GPU's. Wink


 
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
January 03, 2011, 10:20:30 PM
 #380

Hope this information helps you out somehow.

Yep, it is because server is overloaded. I'll move pool to standalone server, because it is pointless to tune Drupals, Joomlas and other stuff lying on current server to not interfere with pool...

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ... 1104 »
  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!