Does ms (milliseconds) Matter?

[davemanet]

Hi All, I'm trying out different pools, such as ethermine, dwarfpool, and nanopool.

I choose the location nearest my home, and I notice some range from 50-60 ms, and some 120ms (and these are big name pools).  Do you think the ms matter that much?   I plan to spread my systems around different pools instead of just one.

[Tidsdilatation]

Ive noticed that MS matters alot. Ive tried diffrent things. Lets say i have 20ms, then the website dashboard registers lets say 1000h/s. but if i have 100ms, the dashboard registers 700h/s. So its very important.

[smoolae]

Hi All, I'm trying out different pools, such as ethermine, dwarfpool, and nanopool.

I choose the location nearest my home, and I notice some range from 50-60 ms, and some 120ms (and these are big name pools).  Do you think the ms matter that much?   I plan to spread my systems around different pools instead of just one.

I have noticed that if my ms gets too high, I start to get stale shares a lot. The highest ms I have seen while mining (Nanopool) was around 17 000. I saw "Share found" and after a WHILE "Share accepted".

[blackhorse7]

So it could explain differencies between hashrates reported by miner and by pools - if you have differencies, search for another pool-server with lower ping?

[Tidsdilatation]

So it could explain differencies between hashrates reported by miner and by pools - if you have differencies, search for another pool-server with lower ping?

Yes, i think so.

[ica7000]

The quicker the latency - the quicker you can send a solved algo back to the chain.  The ping time matters a lot.  IF two different computers solve a "block" at the same time but one mines it or "reports" to the blockchain first......

[davemanet]

The quicker the latency - the quicker you can send a solved algo back to the chain.  The ping time matters a lot.  IF two different computers solve a "block" at the same time but one mines it or "reports" to the blockchain first......

What's weird for me is ethermine.org is 59ms, while nanopool is 120ms.  I've heard many good things about nanopool though, and I like the idea of splitting up my miners between different pools.

Would you guys still mine on nanopool if you got the same speed as me?

[davemanet]

Thank you guys.  I am going to now experiment with some different pools and try to find some with lower ms and hopefully get lower stale shares.

[ica7000]

I've regretted goofing around with set ups, and mining that work.  Reliability is first and foremost now.  (I really miss prohasher - had to give it up due to constantly getting miners thrown off)

If the pools that you have are reliable day in and day out then stick with it.  I don't have the numbers but it's probably only a few bucks a month either way.  

They all share and work off the same blockchain.  Splitting them up may provide protection the same way as a backup pool does.  OTOH, shares could be collected faster by clumping your miners to your (favorite and reliable) pool.  I'm not sure.

[QuintLeo]

When I ran my farm on a SAT connection (routinely 700 ms more or less) I would see perhaps 1% stales due to the slow connection.

 Anything under 150 ms you're not going to see a noticeable difference - but you WILL see higher packet loss rates on "overseas" connections that WILL cost you shares.

[Za1n]

The lower the network latency (measured in ms) the better, it means you are closer to the pool and are less likely to have packet drops or stale shares due to excessive latency. The 50-60 ms on your first pool is a pretty good value, but once you start getting over 100 ms you may start having problems, and I would avoid anything much over 150 ms if possible.