c00w (OP)
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:28:10 PM |
|
Um, I am running 400mhash through bitclockers from a single machine. I did not make a new account or get a new ip. The latest version shouldn't have any obvious errors. When you are running a lot of Mhash's through them what happens? Do they just lag out a lot quicker? b/c we could have the delagger run more often. Or is it just an artificially high reject rate? and is bitclockers the only pool where it appears?
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
muyoso
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:31:27 PM |
|
Um, I am running 400mhash through bitclockers from a single machine. I did not make a new account or get a new ip. The latest version shouldn't have any obvious errors. When you are running a lot of Mhash's through them what happens? Do they just lag out a lot quicker? b/c we could have the delagger run more often. Or is it just an artificially high reject rate? and is bitclockers the only pool where it appears?
Rejects are fine and pretty low. This is what happens: [14:22:16] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:18] btcmonkey: 3134237 [14:22:19] triple: 2620852 [14:22:23] bitclockers: 169721 [14:22:27] RPC request [2dddd000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:28] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:35] slush: 10355371 [14:22:39] RPC request [503e8000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:40] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:42] RPC request [97826000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:46] btcmonkey: 3134253 [14:22:46] triple: 2621078 [14:22:47] nofeemining: 4307955 [14:22:52] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:22:53] Server change to bitclockers, telling client with LP [14:22:53] LP triggered serving miner [14:22:53] LP triggered serving miner [14:22:54] rfc: 468991 [14:22:54] LP Call pool3.bitclockers.com:8332/LP [14:23:03] btcpool24: 697559 [14:23:03] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [14:23:09] RPC request [b6976000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:12] writing to database [14:23:13] triple: 2621292 [14:23:14] btcmonkey: 3134268 [14:23:23] bitclockers: 172216 [14:23:24] Server change to rfc, telling client with LP [14:23:24] RPC request [3e8c1000] submitted to bitclockers.com [14:23:24] LP triggered serving miner [14:23:24] LP triggered serving miner [14:23:24] LP Call pool.rfcpool.com:8332/LP [14:23:27] RPC request [d0bdf000] submitted to bitclockers.com [14:23:29] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:33] slush: 10370471 [14:23:33] RPC request [6b91d000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:36] polmine: 1060066 [14:23:37] RPC request [b54c2000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:41] triple: 2621511 [14:23:41] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:42] btcmonkey: 3134294 [14:23:46] RPC request [8aa82000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:48] nofeemining: 4308177 [14:23:51] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:23:57] rfc: 470617 [14:23:59] RPC request [85cae000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:24:02] RPC request [246cf000] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:24:02] slush: 10387871 [14:24:03] btcpool24: 697751 [14:24:03] RPC request [getwork] submitted to rfcpool.com [14:24:05] RPC request [6ddf8000] submitted to rfcpool.com I can get like 3-4 shares to bitclockers before it lags and then hops away. 30 seconds on bitclockers and then the server is changed to RFC. No clue why it happens but its gutting my payments.
|
I drink it up!
|
|
|
flower1024
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:33:56 PM |
|
Um, I am running 400mhash through bitclockers from a single machine. I did not make a new account or get a new ip. The latest version shouldn't have any obvious errors. When you are running a lot of Mhash's through them what happens? Do they just lag out a lot quicker? b/c we could have the delagger run more often. Or is it just an artificially high reject rate? and is bitclockers the only pool where it appears?
bitclocker is the only one. and it's mainly connection errors (delagger works fine; maybe you could change the it to percentage - means: last 10 getworks, more than 2% conn error -> lag) it is lagging really fast. it switches to bitclockers, stays for 3 secs (approx) and lag again. with multiple bithoppers i saw way less connection errors (it stays for about 10-20secs), and the bitclocker-guy where talking about some traffic control - so i thought i could just be the amount of getworks now i think i should make a new user and redirect my bitclockers traffic through a fresh ip
|
|
|
|
bitcoindaddy
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:34:08 PM |
|
Found a few pools that seems hoppable not in the list.
Swepool.net looks to be a proportional again now as of recently and operating at around 5Gh~. And Digbtc.net is another pool that is a small proportional pool that can be added I think.
Could someone pls add these two pools to the pool.cfg/user.cfg list?
thanks, digbtc is added, Swepoo would surely win the prize for the most simple and clean pool site ever, cant find nothing in there (shares for ex.) edit: oops, now I see the shares, but not the actual round ones Hey Para you can see the shares once you create the account and you are in the stats section while logged in. edit: current round share that is. This is a problem- swepool only shows you the share count if you're logged in - it won't work for bitHopper unless you're logged in on the same machine. I take that back - you can't use swepool unless bitHopper itself can login and save a cookie, I don't see that happening soon.
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:48:50 PM |
|
bitclockers: Yeah he's set us to be the lowest QOS. He did it a while ago. It looks like it was manual settings so get a new IP and User account and the latest version of bitHopper and you should be fine. We used to not masquerade very well and now we do.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:50:03 PM |
|
That is exactly the issue with bitclockers, for some reason it seems they restrict the maximum getwork per worker which is retarded and would affect any legit miner using one worker for all their gpu's, stupid by design.
If I mine <1gh I get no issues on bitclockers but when I route all my gpus through bithopper with one bitclockers account at ~30gh it fks out basicly immediately(anything more than 1gh per worker seems to go haywire) which brings me to another idea, cant we have bithopper login to multiple accounts and pull getwork across multiple accounts(perhaps we could preset with maximum getwork per account / no limit getwork per account)
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:51:23 PM |
|
bitclockers: Yeah he's set us to be the lowest QOS. He did it a while ago. It looks like it was manual settings so get a new IP and User account and the latest version of bitHopper and you should be fine. We used to not masquerade very well and now we do.
Ive done all this, read my previous post as I think that is more likely to be the issue here. Alot of non-bithoppers get same issues.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:55:06 PM |
|
Um we could set it up to use multiple accounts. currently you can hack it to use multiple pools with slightly different names. The issue is that we don't have work level slicing only time level slicing so we can't just send an even number of getworks per account. Thats the next goal once I figure out the DB issues.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 06:58:27 PM |
|
Um we could set it up to use multiple accounts. currently you can hack it to use multiple pools with slightly different names. The issue is that we don't have work level slicing only time level slicing so we can't just send an even number of getworks per account. Thats the next goal once I figure out the DB issues.
Cool, I can wait. Im sure it will take care of bitclockers aswell as make other things possible like continues shares from PPLNS/score pools at lower hashrate equivelants based on getwork throttling, would nullify their whole design
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
EskimoBob
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:00:01 PM |
|
who removed/renamed index.html? web.Server Traceback (most recent call last):
<type 'exceptions.IOError'>: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'index.html' /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/web/server.py, line 127 in process 125 try: 126 resrc = self.site.getResourceFor(self) 127 self.render(resrc) 128 except: Self site twisted.web.server.Site instance @ 0x9890acc <twisted.web.server.Site instance at 0x9890acc> ....
|
While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head. BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
|
|
|
flower1024
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:02:34 PM |
|
bitclockers is working fine.. just make a new account, thats enough
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:10:24 PM |
|
I moved it. I put a modified version back.
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:11:26 PM |
|
bitclockers is working fine.. just make a new account, thats enough
flowers I have, issues still remain when going >1gh of traffic. Its quite reliable to test from my side.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
flower1024
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:16:49 PM |
|
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
|
|
|
|
muyoso
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:17:40 PM |
|
bitclockers is working fine.. just make a new account, thats enough
Created a new account and its even worse for some reason. Now I cannot even submit a share before bithopper hops away.
|
I drink it up!
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:23:43 PM |
|
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
Yep, no bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers work semi stable <1gh , total wackjob >1gh , with bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers exact same results. Im still 99.9% sure its a getwork per worker issue. If you are really bored you can keep track on multiple refreshes on the bitclocks stats page showing the top hashers all dropping down and back up over and over, doesnt seem to be such an issue for low hashers of <1gh . So in essence, it seems bitclockers idea of QOS is getwork throttling per worker, lame.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
muyoso
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:26:32 PM |
|
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
Yep, no bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers work semi stable <1gh , total wackjob >1gh , with bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers exact same results. Im still 99.9% sure its a getwork per worker issue. I think I agree. I more than doubled my hashrate according to bitclockers by creating a new worker and running two instances of bithopper instead of one, each pointing to its own worker. Still only around half what it should be though.
|
I drink it up!
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:28:56 PM |
|
I moved it. I put a modified version back.
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
Cow, could you add sorting by name (ryo had that in his fork) , it just makes it more natural to read through the webui Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
joulesbeef
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
moOo
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:32:48 PM |
|
yes c00ws is stable.
bitclockers is a great pool which is why we try so hard. I barely push 300 and they go red all the time.
btcmp doesnt work. You can search this thread for why.
+1 to sorting by name
|
mooo for rent
|
|
|
muyoso
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:35:08 PM |
|
This might be part of the problem with bitclockers: [15:32:09] RPC request [c2577000] submitted to bitcoin.cz [15:32:14] Server change to bitclockers, telling client with LP [15:32:14] LP triggered serving miner [15:32:14] LP triggered serving miner [15:32:15] writing to database [15:32:15] LP Call pool3.bitclockers.com:8332/LP [15:32:15] slush: 117863 [15:32:15] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:32:16] RPC request [4ef05000] submitted to bitcoin.cz [15:32:16] btcmonkey: 3137405 [15:32:25] bitclockers: 6019 [15:32:27] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:32:31] nofeemining: 4323061 [15:32:32] triple: 2656095 [15:32:38] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:32:42] slush: 132366 [15:32:44] btcmonkey: 3137421 [15:32:44] btcpool24: 712236 [15:32:46] RPC request [52393000] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:32:50] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:32:59] triple: 2656319 [15:33:01] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:33:03] nofeemining: 4323274 [15:33:09] rfc: 567957 [15:33:09] slush: 146966 [15:33:12] btcmonkey: 3137445 [15:33:13] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com [15:33:15] writing to database [15:33:18] bclc: 5237051 [15:33:26] bitclockers: 8684 [15:33:26] triple: 2656742 [15:33:27] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com Why are there so many getworks being sent to bitclockers? I literally have 4x as many getworks as shares submitted everytime I connect. The last time I hopped to bitclockers I submitted 9 getworks and 3 shares on one of my workers. The other worker was similar. Do normal miners do this?
|
I drink it up!
|
|
|
|