[POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com

[poolwaffle]

While its only a small amount of data, and it could _very_ easily be luck skewing the graphs, here's what my data is showing:



First yellow line is when we switched about 15% of the pool.  Somewhere after that (don't have an exact time), we switched to 25%.  Second yellow line is when we switched the rest of the pool (roughly).  Left side axis is BTC/MHs, right side is hashrate (you can see sfire pretty blatently on there)

[1714296909]

1714296909

[1714296909]

1714296909

[1714296909]

1714296909

[1714296909]

1714296909

[1714296909]

1714296909

[madian]

But you're also mining litecoin which was increasing in value and therefore the exchange ltc/btc was alot more beneficial to us, thus the increase in profitability on the graph?

(not jinxing it, just asking )

[phzi]

My rejects are through the roof... I have discovered 1000s of blocks for WafflePool, of which only a few were orphans.

What made WafflePool seem so fair previously, IMO, was that share generation was statistically consistent between mining fast coins and slow coins.  Now, a share is "worth more" then a slow coin share, because the slow coin will have less shares lost to 'rejects'.

[poolwaffle]

My rejects are through the roof... I have discovered 1000s of blocks for WafflePool, of which only a few were orphans.

What made WafflePool seem so fair previously, IMO, was that share generation was statistically consistent between mining fast coins and slow coins.  Now, a share is "worth more" then a slow coin share, because the slow coin will have less shares lost to 'rejects'.

What is "through the roof"?  Share value shouldn't change, as slow/fast coins are spread amongst servers evenly, so you'll have some sections of time where you mine fast coins (and get a slightly higher reject rate - I'm seeing 5% avg rejects on fast coins), and times where you'll mine slower coins (seeing 1-2% reject rate on lite/doge).  But those will even out to be the same for all miners.

[miless2111s]

Alrighty guys.
...new code...rejections...optimisation

OK, forgive me if these are daft questions but as I'm new I'll ask...
1) I know I can see the rejections in cgminer (A: xxxx R: yyyy for each card) but is there somewhere I can easily see the totals / % from the pool's point of view or do I need to add them all up across all my cards?  In other pools they have a stat which shows your total rejects but I don't know if I we have anything like this on WP
2) At what level should I start to take action?  What sort of % would you suggest should cause me to reduce intensity?
3) What action to take?   Now I know that seems like a silly question in that if the % is too high I need to reduce intensity but I assume I need to knock it back 1 or 2 at a time and then wait to see the impact on rejections but how long to wait?  Is it a pretty instance cause and effect or is it sensible to leave it for 1 hour or 1 day etc?  Or is there somewhere to go to see what intensity works for my cards?

I just want to make this as profitable for me and everyone else as possible and don't want my lack of knowledge to get in the way!  Especially as you're doing such hard work for us all

1) I'll be adding to the miners page shortly (it was never high enough to really put on there)
2) Its not % based unfortunately, its % compared to increase in hash power.  For example, early on bumps in intensity (say 8 to 9) will yield a TON more hashpower, for a very small increase in rejects (say +10% shares, +0.1% rejects, very obviously worth it).  Later intensity increases will yield a small bump in hash power, for a larger increase in rejects (say +1% shares, +2% rejects, probably not worth it).  It has to be done on a per miner basis unfortunately.  Typical ranges for rejects are around 2-3%, and aren't terribly worrysome.  10%+ is probably worrysome.  It also depends a lot on your latency to the stratum server...
3) Back off intensity, or try to use a "closer" (ping-wise) stratum endpoint.  If you're in asia, and you're using the USEast endpoint, you're probably doing it wrong

I'm in the UK so using the EU point as my primary.
I'm using the settings in Cryptobadger's blog :
 ./cgminer --scrypt -I 20 -g 1 -w 256 --thread-concurrency 24000 --gpu-engine 1050 --gpu-memclock 1250 --gpu-vddc 1.087 --temp-target 80 --auto-fan
With this I am getting fairly good hash levels but my rejects are between 2 and 9% (taking the % to be r/a for each of the cards and then averaging them) which seems high.
The cards are MSI 9750.  I guess I need to reduce my "I" setting?  Anyone got any suggestions as to what level to set it at to retain the performance?

Thanks

Miles

[poolwaffle]

Alrighty guys.
...new code...rejections...optimisation

OK, forgive me if these are daft questions but as I'm new I'll ask...
1) I know I can see the rejections in cgminer (A: xxxx R: yyyy for each card) but is there somewhere I can easily see the totals / % from the pool's point of view or do I need to add them all up across all my cards?  In other pools they have a stat which shows your total rejects but I don't know if I we have anything like this on WP
2) At what level should I start to take action?  What sort of % would you suggest should cause me to reduce intensity?
3) What action to take?   Now I know that seems like a silly question in that if the % is too high I need to reduce intensity but I assume I need to knock it back 1 or 2 at a time and then wait to see the impact on rejections but how long to wait?  Is it a pretty instance cause and effect or is it sensible to leave it for 1 hour or 1 day etc?  Or is there somewhere to go to see what intensity works for my cards?

I just want to make this as profitable for me and everyone else as possible and don't want my lack of knowledge to get in the way!  Especially as you're doing such hard work for us all

1) I'll be adding to the miners page shortly (it was never high enough to really put on there)
2) Its not % based unfortunately, its % compared to increase in hash power.  For example, early on bumps in intensity (say 8 to 9) will yield a TON more hashpower, for a very small increase in rejects (say +10% shares, +0.1% rejects, very obviously worth it).  Later intensity increases will yield a small bump in hash power, for a larger increase in rejects (say +1% shares, +2% rejects, probably not worth it).  It has to be done on a per miner basis unfortunately.  Typical ranges for rejects are around 2-3%, and aren't terribly worrysome.  10%+ is probably worrysome.  It also depends a lot on your latency to the stratum server...
3) Back off intensity, or try to use a "closer" (ping-wise) stratum endpoint.  If you're in asia, and you're using the USEast endpoint, you're probably doing it wrong

I'm in the UK so using the EU point as my primary.
I'm using the settings in Cryptobadger's blog :
 ./cgminer --scrypt -I 20 -g 1 -w 256 --thread-concurrency 24000 --gpu-engine 1050 --gpu-memclock 1250 --gpu-vddc 1.087 --temp-target 80 --auto-fan
With this I am getting fairly good hash levels but my rejects are between 2 and 9% (taking the % to be r/a for each of the cards and then averaging them) which seems high.
The cards are MSI 9750.  I guess I need to reduce my "I" setting?  Anyone got any suggestions as to what level to set it at to retain the performance?

2% seems fine, 9% seems high.  Unfortunately, you just need to tweak them and see what changes, it really depends on each card individually.  Turn it back a bit and see if you get overall more shares accepted than before.

[ycsi]

If you are getting high reject rate AND you set intensity high, try reducing I by 1 (i.e. I=19, change to I=18), then observe the rejects for at least 30 min.

[phzi]

What is "through the roof"?

From <1% rejected consistently to >10% rejected so far.

I am testing different configs on 2 rigs now to see if I can get the rejects down - hard to sample over a short period of time.  I do know that I hated this block reject scheme on clevermining, however.  I liked the reject scheme on waffle before. But, I will admit I am very interested to see what kind of reject rate sfire would have under this new scheme - it might made a big different on profits depending on how badly people were abusing this.

Can we get some reject % data, and maybe ourselves vs pool (along with shift info maybe)?

[lagster]

PW, i am sure that this is something pretty complex. but do you think it is possible to implement more intelligent version of "sell everything for btc" script to sell little coins proportionnaly to what miners have selected as their worker name - btc or ltc wallet.
is it possible at all without a huge amount of frontend and backend coding and making all miners to register?
if mined coin is not directly tradable from sh$tcoin to ltc -
1 you can trade it sh$itcoin-btc-ltc and i think that additional fees will be covered with no need to trade actually mined ltc.
2 you can trade less than 100% of mined ltc-btc to send what left to those with L wallet.
3 you probably now have enough btc/ltc for some kind of hot ltc wallet to use like a buffer to make payouts in ltc to those with L wallet. at least i hope you do. probably not, if our chinese cyborg will suddenly want to submit his L wallet))).
umm. it is complex indeed ).

[phzi]

PW, i am sure that this is something pretty complex. but do you think it is possible to implement more intelligent version of "sell everything for btc" script to sell little coins proportionnaly to what miners have selected as their worker name - btc or ltc wallet.
is it possible at all without a huge amount of frontend and backend coding and making all miners to register?

Given the current activity around LTC right now, I wouldn't mind holding the LTC I am mining either.  But, it seems like it would be quite difficult to implement given wafflepool's no-signup system

[igoork]

If we could make LTC payout system that would be perfect!
Everything is that LTC will have bigger rise(in %) of profit in coming days/months comparing to btc.

[lagster]

PW, i am sure that this is something pretty complex. but do you think it is possible to implement more intelligent version of "sell everything for btc" script to sell little coins proportionnaly to what miners have selected as their worker name - btc or ltc wallet.
is it possible at all without a huge amount of frontend and backend coding and making all miners to register?

Given the current activity around LTC right now, I wouldn't mind holding the LTC I am mining either.  But, it seems like it would be quite difficult to implement given wafflepool's no-signup system

you dont have to register to submit your L wallet as worker name instead of 1... i guess problems will be with coins wich are not directly tradable to ltc? lets wait for PW to do some more math for us )
i would love to add a picture of 3d cat with popcorn, but we ran out of popcorn.

[Clocker]

Still loving the low reject rate on the server, Waffle.  Great job!

phzi-
what cards are you running and what is your config?

https://i.imgur.com/MMA2UjP.jpg

[Rock6.3]

Earnings rate for 2.6 MH/s on the charts for the past 2 hours is almost zero??

[phzi]

Earnings rate for 2.6 MH/s on the charts for the past 2 hours is almost zero??

Lots of litecoin mining, but no litecoin blocks.  Variance sucks sometimes.

[comeonalready]

From <1% rejected consistently to >10% rejected so far.

I am testing different configs on 2 rigs now to see if I can get the rejects down - hard to sample over a short period of time.  I do know that I hated this block reject scheme on clevermining, however.  I liked the reject scheme on waffle before. But, I will admit I am very interested to see what kind of reject rate sfire would have under this new scheme - it might made a big different on profits depending on how badly people were abusing this.

Can we get some reject % data, and maybe ourselves vs pool (along with shift info maybe)?

So that would mean you were one of the miners who were taking up to 10% more of your fair share of profits from the pool, however unknowingly.  For the others who had their equipment tuned correctly for mining almost anywhere else than wafflepool, they were receiving up to 10% less of profits directly due to their efforts, depending upon the ratio of efficient to inefficient miners in the pool.  The actual percentages depend upon whether wafflepool was actually a pool of fools, and only poolwaffle knows that as he is the only one with access to the relevant statistics.

I too would be very curious about sfire's 20GH/s mining efficiency prior to the server changeover, which I consider to be a very welcome one.  Ironically, depending upon that statistic, it might not have been the largest miner that was keeping us from efficiently mining the lowest difficult coins, but the smaller miners instead!

[lagster]

From <1% rejected consistently to >10% rejected so far.

I am testing different configs on 2 rigs now to see if I can get the rejects down - hard to sample over a short period of time.  I do know that I hated this block reject scheme on clevermining, however.  I liked the reject scheme on waffle before. But, I will admit I am very interested to see what kind of reject rate sfire would have under this new scheme - it might made a big different on profits depending on how badly people were abusing this.

Can we get some reject % data, and maybe ourselves vs pool (along with shift info maybe)?

So that would mean you were one of the miners who were taking up to 10% more of your fair share of profits from the pool, however unknowingly.  For the others who had their equipment tuned correctly for mining almost anywhere else than wafflepool, they were receiving up to 10% less of profits directly due to their efforts, depending upon the ratio of efficient to inefficient miners in the pool.  The actual percentages depend upon whether wafflepool was actually a pool of fools, and only poolwaffle knows that as he is the only one with access to the relevant statistics.

I too would be very curious about sfire's 20GH/s mining efficiency prior to the server changeover, which I consider to be a very welcome one.  Ironically, depending upon that statistic, it might not have been the largest miner that was keeping us from efficiently mining the lowest difficult coins, but the smaller miners instead!

after all, it probably was not a bug, but a feature to counter chinese cyborgs.

[WTParker2]

Rediculously underutilized.  On our bigger boxes (EU/USE), we went from a load of 2-3 consistently, to a load of 0.3-0.35...  Can easily scale back our servers   Just want to wait until people start coming back from Ghash to make sure it stays that way

I will be back with your US servers once you swap to the new stratum and when Ghash's promotion is over.
 

[lagster]

Rediculously underutilized.  On our bigger boxes (EU/USE), we went from a load of 2-3 consistently, to a load of 0.3-0.35...  Can easily scale back our servers  Just want to wait until people start coming back from Ghash to make sure it stays that way

I will be back with your US servers once you swap to the new stratum and when Ghash's promotion is over.
 

it was a scam and not a promotion, and i hope they will get 0 out of it after it ends. i mean, who will ever say he is paying you +$50 for your first week and next day it is +$25 because FU. [random potato pic here]

[MiningInc]

I am running with the same configs as prior and still getting under .5% reject rate. I dont need to restart each miner/worker in order for new stratum connection to be established, correct? If I am wrong please let me know as id like to be on the best/right connection.