VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:1.64% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:30:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 21076.7 | Block: 35136 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 269.506 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.24 | Shares: 3519.78 | Rej: 0.588878% | Speed: 175.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 589.07 | Rej: 4.91 | Speed: 29.13MH/s|
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 620.8 | Rej: 3.86 | Speed: 29.31MH/s|
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 618.98 | Rej: 5 | Speed: 29.45MH/s|
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 543.51 | Rej: 1.82 | Speed: 29.07MH/s|
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 592.34 | Rej: 2.83 | Speed: 29.44MH/s|
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 555.08 | Rej: 2.43 | Speed: 29.61MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1899Mhz |
1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C | F:59% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:48C | F:49% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1927Mhz |
3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1894Mhz |
4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1931Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501 | [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340 | )
[12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4 | [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c | )
[12:29:06]Share: b1511593 | [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:36]Share: a6845026 | )
[12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931 | [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab | )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me. this is excellent...
that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted.
_________\ \ \____\ /| \ \_\ \ Y Y \ __________
\______ / \/\_/ |__|\______ /__|_| / /
\/ \/ \/ /
VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU: 0% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:40:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 20220.5 | Block: 35151 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum | POW: 1250 | Estimated coins/day: 40.8193 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved: 0 | Diff: 1.12 | Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 0.52666% | Speed: 29.79M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 623.29 | Rej: 3.3 | Speed: 29.03MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:54C | F:72% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1950Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9 | [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt
[12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1 | ed
[12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2 | [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum
[12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7 | .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C
[12:36:31]Share: 86e53529 | onnection refused
[12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4 | [06:16:32]Retry in 30s
[12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3 | [06:17:29]Retry in 30s
[12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9 | [06:19:34]Retry in 30s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs.
for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc. the issue is participation. and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently.
at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs. if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block. 2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm.
multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for. i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now.
like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back
tanx for the thorough insight ...
what you are mentioning is a common issue at the moment - where the smaller rigs do choke on high diff shares ...
there is a solution i can propose ... but it will mean that EVERYONE has to comply with it ...
here is my proposition ...
1 - lower the difficulty of the lodiff port ( 2000 ) to an acceptable level where small rigs can mine easily without interruption ... this means that ALL smaller machines will be required to enter the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares to be distributed fairly and equally among the smaller rigs - no matter how many are on the port ...
2 - lower the difficulty of the hidiff port ( 6000 ) to start at a lower rate - but increase enough to cater for the larger machines and farms alike ... this means that ALL larger machines will be required to REMOVE the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares of higher difficulty to be freely shared among all the larger rigs - and still be able to submit enough shares to the pool so ALL miner have a better opportunity to solve a block ...
if this proposal is acceptable - i can have it sorted very quickly ... this will include the denarius pool ( tribus ) for those mining on the dnr pool as well ...
but i must reiterate - ALL miners must adhere to the correct port for their systems ... if a large miner slams the lodiff port and floods the stratum - we will implement a much more aggressive blocking system for the ip that do that ...
this will be in effect for ALL miners mining at our pool - not just CWIgm miners ...
let me know your thoughts - and any better ideas ...
tanx ...