Bitcoin Forum
September 29, 2016, 05:00:09 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 - 3151 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3915

Pages: « 1 ... 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 [424] 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3857303 times)
MyOldGeForce
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 05:28:53 PM
 #8461

I believe this is the workaround (pics and all in there to make it easy)

http://bitclockers.com/forums/index.php?topic=7.0

Then that isn't the problem. I measured the corresponding pins on the monitor when it was unplugged, I got about 80 ohms.

Now I have tried running only a 4870 and also only the 4850 that worked before. Now they don't. Driver: 13-1 legacy. I'm beginning to think something in Windows is corrupted. For speed reasons, we deactivated windows update when we installed this machine, and then forgot about it. Now I have re-activated it to see if that does the trick. It will take some time, so I'll try it tomorrow. It's 10:50PM here in Sweden.

Have you tried using one of the older full Catalyst Suite drivers that support the HD4xxx cards as opposed to the legacy drivers? (not available for Windows 8 ).  The legacy driver set doesn't support hardware accelerated OpenGL support, (no Minecraft  Cry ) so perhaps OpenCL is compromised or removed too.

Yes I have. The legacy driver set for Windows 7 supports OpenCL, it even worked before I tried using two cards.



I have tried to install different drivers for the cards, and I have tried installing a previous version that supports both cards. Neither worked. It seems to be the combination of the new card and anything but the new driver that makes GUIMiner not start.

Now, when I am running only the new card, Phoenix and Stratum Proxy, it stopped working tonight, a few hours after I started it. I restarted the miner this morning and it worked again. I hope it's a one time occurance, but I doubt it. It didn't happen with Phoenix and BCPool. Any guesses?


This happened to me when I upgraded Catalyst from 3.1 to 3.4 using only a single card (7770).  Catalyst 3.4 fixed some display problems (flickering pixels) but slowed my miner around 20%.  I wanted to revert back to 3.1 so I uninstalled all AMD software (including the driver via device manager) and then installed Catalyst 3.1.  GUIMiner failed to start after this with no error message.

I can only speculate, but I believe that the OpenCL package is not removed when Catalyst is uninstalled. Software developers frequently leave support packages, such as OpenCL in place because they cannot determine if other software not written by them may be using the interface.

So when the older reinstalled Catalyst 3.1 attempts to use the newer OpenCL from Catalyst 3.4, its probably misusing a changed interface causing an error that GUIMiner doesn't know how to handle.

Thanks! Could Windows' system restore function help? I think I'll try that.

My name is confusing, I began mining using an old GeForce card. Now I have ATI cards.
1475125209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475125209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475125209
Reply with quote  #2

1475125209
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1475125209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475125209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475125209
Reply with quote  #2

1475125209
Report to moderator
1475125209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475125209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475125209
Reply with quote  #2

1475125209
Report to moderator
autonomous42
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 05:37:28 PM
 #8462

Try this tool: http://sites.amd.com/us/game/downloads/Pages/catalyst-uninstall-utility.aspx
I used it when downgrading from 13.1 to 12.8 to use vanitygen. It actually removes everything and gives you a clean slate. Just run it, reboot, and install again.

1LoLTipsbSPgkeBEMvSx2WRe5A6SRHdymb
MyOldGeForce
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 05:38:18 PM
 #8463

Nope. I didn't have any restore point that was old enough. I'll try to search a bit on the web, otherwise I'll just have to reinstall it. And take a Ghost copy in case something happens again.

Edit: Thanks autonomous42, I'll try that first.

My name is confusing, I began mining using an old GeForce card. Now I have ATI cards.
MyOldGeForce
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 06:33:37 PM
 #8464

The uninstall utility didn't do the trick.

With some configurations that doesn't work, I get an error message when starting Windows, that kdbsync.exe has stopped working. Could this be a clue? I searched it, and it seems to have something to do with the APP SDK. The only "solutions" I find is to remove or inhibit start of APP SDK. It's not like that's an option here...

My name is confusing, I began mining using an old GeForce card. Now I have ATI cards.
autonomous42
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 06:44:33 PM
 #8465

There are other cleaning utilities you can try but AMD doesn't recommend them. You can't uninstall the SDK? Do you have time for a clean install of Windows? That will do the trick for sure. With the luck in the pool lately, I doubt you'll miss much.

1LoLTipsbSPgkeBEMvSx2WRe5A6SRHdymb
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 19, 2013, 07:04:36 PM
 #8466

What is a normal rate for invalid blocks, we seam to have a lot of those lately on top of bad luck. I remember 2 yesterday and now two today.

Invalid is just bad luck, too -- more machines hashing with increasing hash power = greater chance of "collision"
Not such hi number... Thinking that 4 in 2 days is normal is stupid... Last time Slush was fixing things when we had 2 in 4 days or something like that...
nottm28
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 19, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
 #8467

What is a normal rate for invalid blocks, we seam to have a lot of those lately on top of bad luck. I remember 2 yesterday and now two today.

Invalid is just bad luck, too -- more machines hashing with increasing hash power = greater chance of "collision"
Not such hi number... Thinking that 4 in 2 days is normal is stupid... Last time Slush was fixing things when we had 2 in 4 days or something like that...

Not quite 4 in 2 days

block=start_time,duration,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
236729=2013-05-18 09:52:02,1:06:34,9169,0.61,11187257,invalid
236657=2013-05-17 20:34:35,2:27:43,9905,0.95,11187257,invalid
236442=2013-05-16 12:10:31,0:35:00,9526,0.84,11187257,invalid
236382=2013-05-16 01:59:30,0:25:24,9361,0.71,11187257,invalid

But unusually, I find myself tending to agree with Lucko for once - it does look a bit odd and we have had a problem before with bitcoind not having a fast enough connection to the outside world (so when we find a block we can report it the world as fast as is humanly (or computingly) possible).

But if we see this invalid rate drop off over the next few days then it probably was just bad luck.

donations not accepted
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 19, 2013, 08:08:55 PM
 #8468

Not quite 4 in 2 days
Sorry my mistake. I thought that RayJay counted that correctly... But then again it is only 8 hours more...

EDIT: Also looking at this: Pool luck (1 day, 7 days, 30 days):   91%, 83%, 97%.
7 days is doping but this is not enough to say it is a problem, but 30 days is a good indicator. If it goes down too much. Now it is hard to say anything. It is still normal. But if we see it below 85% is a really big chance that pool is really malfunctioning. 90% would be start thinking that it is not only counting shares but also other things...
nottm28
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 19, 2013, 08:22:53 PM
 #8469

Not quite 4 in 2 days
Sorry my mistake. I thought that RayJay counted that correctly... But then again it is only 8 hours more...

EDIT: Also looking at this: Pool luck (1 day, 7 days, 30 days):   91%, 83%, 97%.
7 days is doping but this is not enough to say it is a problem, but 30 days is a good indicator. If it goes down too much. Now it is hard to say anything. It is still normal. But if we see it below 85% is a really big chance that pool is really malfunctioning. 90% would be start thinking that it is not only counting shares but also other things...

I've been checking luck on other pools - most of the ones I look at are running with low luck and is not incomparable to ours. One exception stands out strongly - you'll never guess - BTCGuild - they are flying with luck atm. Bitminter's luck is even worse than ours... It'll change (I hope) - that's what luck does.

donations not accepted
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 19, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
 #8470

I've been checking luck on other pools - most of the ones I look at are running with low luck and is not incomparable to ours. One exception stands out strongly - you'll never guess - BTCGuild - they are flying with luck atm. Bitminter's luck is even worse than ours... It'll change (I hope) - that's what luck does.

BitMinter had less bad luck than Slush the week that just ended. Looks like BTCguild had very bad luck 6 weeks in a row - not what I call flying with luck. But yes, it seems to be finally turning around for them today. The pool that stands out is actually Itzod with some crazy good luck recently.

More fun statistics: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 20, 2013, 12:02:59 AM
 #8471

Well hire is another one...

18100   2013-05-19 08:25:54   0:06:07   770695   236893   25.06852200    invalid
Trongersoll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


Retired Software Engineer


View Profile
May 20, 2013, 12:25:04 AM
 #8472

Well hire is another one...

18100   2013-05-19 08:25:54   0:06:07   770695   236893   25.06852200    invalid

I can't help but wonder if this is a symptom of the increase in hashing speed. I wonder if once the difficulty compensates for the increased speed if these occurances will decrease as well.

*insert appropriate begging line here* 
BTC: 1CS6AV7VnjcPLxaTFoUhTjXK4mQCTzfSxE
Doge: DB22tiynvXKg7SyPpnH9jyfitKLTZb6ejc
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 20, 2013, 12:45:30 AM
 #8473

Well hire is another one...

18100   2013-05-19 08:25:54   0:06:07   770695   236893   25.06852200    invalid

I can't help but wonder if this is a symptom of the increase in hashing speed. I wonder if once the difficulty compensates for the increased speed if these occurances will decrease as well.
I can't figure out how. The block generation is still same. If the block generation speed would increase then yes but it doesn't since difficulty increases. And the next difficulty change estimation is only 8% so the block generation is just a bit faster no a lot...

EDIT: We had much bigger changes in the past and this didn't happened.
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2013, 01:45:31 AM
 #8474

I've been checking luck on other pools - most of the ones I look at are running with low luck and is not incomparable to ours. One exception stands out strongly - you'll never guess - BTCGuild - they are flying with luck atm. Bitminter's luck is even worse than ours... It'll change (I hope) - that's what luck does.

BitMinter had less bad luck than Slush the week that just ended. Looks like BTCguild had very bad luck 6 weeks in a row - not what I call flying with luck. But yes, it seems to be finally turning around for them today. The pool that stands out is actually Itzod with some crazy good luck recently.

More fun statistics: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/


Not quite - for the last few days we've consistently discovered more blocks than Bitminter. Looking earlier today - for 18th they had 10 and we had 14 (if I remember correctly - 12 are still visible on the stats page), then again - for 19th they had 16, we had 18.
And it's not just the last two days - on multiple occasions over the last few weeks when I checked - we always had same or more blocks per day.

Considering that they have 20-20% more hashpower than us - that says their luck is considerably worse than ours. So - no complaints from me about the luck. Smiley

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
 #8475

I've been checking luck on other pools - most of the ones I look at are running with low luck and is not incomparable to ours. One exception stands out strongly - you'll never guess - BTCGuild - they are flying with luck atm. Bitminter's luck is even worse than ours... It'll change (I hope) - that's what luck does.

BitMinter had less bad luck than Slush the week that just ended. Looks like BTCguild had very bad luck 6 weeks in a row - not what I call flying with luck. But yes, it seems to be finally turning around for them today. The pool that stands out is actually Itzod with some crazy good luck recently.

More fun statistics: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/


Not quite - for the last few days we've consistently discovered more blocks than Bitminter. Looking earlier today - for 18th they had 10 and we had 14 (if I remember correctly - 12 are still visible on the stats page), then again - for 19th they had 16, we had 18.
And it's not just the last two days - on multiple occasions over the last few weeks when I checked - we always had same or more blocks per day.

Considering that they have 20-20% more hashpower than us - that says their luck is considerably worse than ours. So - no complaints from me about the luck. Smiley

That's pretty much what DrH said, except in more detail.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Vasilis
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35



View Profile
May 20, 2013, 08:52:51 AM
 #8476


http://piccy.info/view3/4596970/2e86cc6caff56ff888e000399c8d0e53/orig/
Smerks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15


View Profile
May 20, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
 #8477

Im a bit new to all this and have one question, with all this uncertainty in the last few days with invalids and improperly calculated blocks that fix themselves in time is it normal for Slush to not respond or is this out of the ordinary?
GuiltySpark343
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 20, 2013, 03:33:16 PM
 #8478

... is it normal for Slush to not respond or is this out of the ordinary?

Everyone can say what they want about the weird blocks, bad luck, late/missing payments, etc. But the one thing that worries me is the noticeable absence of Slush. Not only personally (seriously I do hope he's ok), but also for the pool's well-being.

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
Ƀ:17wbDetEw2aESM5oWXbm5ih9NSdDruyWNT
minerapia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
May 20, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
 #8479

Rate of invalid blocks is getting ridiculous,
18120    2013-05-20 15:38:18    0:04:08    Processing...    237069    25.16931001    99 confirmations left
Is not even found in blockchain.info

donations -> btc: 1M6yf45NskQxWXknkMTzQ8o6wShQcSY4EC
                   ltc: LeTpCd6cQL26Q1vjc9kJrTjjFMrPhrpv6j
Uliss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
May 20, 2013, 03:52:28 PM
 #8480

Server can keep up with the work?


Works fine




Found 1 block




Found 1 + 1 block 

Pages: « 1 ... 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 [424] 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 ... 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!