[ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com

[mm96817]

Thanks suchmoon for the response.  A=3908096/T=361680=10.8.  Yup. Right on the money; 10.8mhs exactly what cgminer is reporting.  What does anyone suggest to do next?  Give it more time?

Not sure now, I was kind of expecting it to be closer to CM numbers :-)

Can you check if you mined at CM all the time, no backup pools involved?

What does your 24-hour hashrate chart show?

Good points. I've been on the CM pool for the full 10hr.28min duration (no pool switches) and there was no downtime I could see (summary polled every 5 seconds).  The 24hr CM hash chart just came to life and it says I peaked out at 9.07 (which is close enough) during the 1st hour. The 2nd-5th hours dropped and peeked out at 7.6, and the final 3 hours are in the 5.1-5.8 range. The 9th-10th hours are not on the chart yet.  In my cgminer log, I've been a constant 10.8 throughout the 10.5 hour range.  I think it needs more time?

[1714654142]

1714654142

[1714654142]

1714654142

[1714654142]

1714654142

[1714654142]

1714654142

[suchmoon]

Thanks suchmoon for the response.  A=3908096/T=361680=10.8.  Yup. Right on the money; 10.8mhs exactly what cgminer is reporting.  What does anyone suggest to do next?  Give it more time?

Not sure now, I was kind of expecting it to be closer to CM numbers :-)

Can you check if you mined at CM all the time, no backup pools involved?

What does your 24-hour hashrate chart show?

Good points. I've been on the CM pool for the full 10hr.28min duration (no pool switches) and there was no downtime I could see (summary polled every 5 seconds).  The 24hr CM hash chart just came to life and it says I peaked out at 9.07 (which is close enough) during the 1st hour. The 2nd-5th hours dropped and peeked out at 7.6, and the final 3 hours are in the 5.1-5.8 range. The 9th-10th hours are not on the chart yet.  In my cgminer log, I've been a constant 10.8 throughout the 10.5 hour range.  I think it needs more time?

Let's go back to that formula. How did you get the T=361680? It doesn't add up to 10.5 hours for me. It should be ~37800 and with that I get

A * 65536 / T = 3908096 * 65536 / 37800 = 6775687 = ~6.8 MH/s

How is temperature around blades? Power supplies ok? Any USB errors in system logs?

[mm96817]

Thanks suchmoon for the response.  A=3908096/T=361680=10.8.  Yup. Right on the money; 10.8mhs exactly what cgminer is reporting.  What does anyone suggest to do next?  Give it more time?

Not sure now, I was kind of expecting it to be closer to CM numbers :-)

Can you check if you mined at CM all the time, no backup pools involved?

What does your 24-hour hashrate chart show?

Good points. I've been on the CM pool for the full 10hr.28min duration (no pool switches) and there was no downtime I could see (summary polled every 5 seconds).  The 24hr CM hash chart just came to life and it says I peaked out at 9.07 (which is close enough) during the 1st hour. The 2nd-5th hours dropped and peeked out at 7.6, and the final 3 hours are in the 5.1-5.8 range. The 9th-10th hours are not on the chart yet.  In my cgminer log, I've been a constant 10.8 throughout the 10.5 hour range.  I think it needs more time?

Let's go back to that formula. How did you get the T=361680? It doesn't add up to 10.5 hours for me. It should be ~37800 and with that I get

A * 65536 / T = 3908096 * 65536 / 37800 = 6775687 = ~6.8 MH/s

How is temperature around blades? Power supplies ok? Any USB errors in system logs?

Regarding T=361680. You're so right. 10hrs * 3600 = 360000 (oops should be 36000) + 28 mins * 60 = 1680. Total 37680 seconds. Geez the original 361680 gave me the magic number I was looking for that I did not even double check the math.  How coincidental is that? Furthermore, I did not even multiply A * 65536. What a brain fart on my part.  With the given correct number of seconds and using your formula A * 65536 / T, the new number is 3908096*65536/37680=6797265.909 or 6.8mhs.  You've got it.  Is that suppose to be an average of something?  Or is that how CM computes mhs at any given time?

My 2 blades run cool at the touch even around the voltage regulators.  I've got it clocked conservatively at 800mhz.  No usb errors ever in the system logs since I got them a little over a week ago.  And the first (and last) week on weminerltc, they ran at a steady 10-10.5mhs on their charts.

The 9th and 10th hour just came in at 5.41 and 5.24.  And the Last Hour Hashrate right now is 5.2mhs.  cgminer is still rocking at 10.8mhs.  I'm not sure what's going on.  Could you explain your formula a bit more?  Thanks much for the input.

Edit: I think I know what's going on.  Since the formula for the hash rate is based on accepted shares, all 4 of my blade boards had the proper hash rate, BUT 2 of them did not have the proper wu rates which led to improper accepted rates.  ahha.  I decided to reset the system and give it another whirl.  So far so good.  All 4 boards are logging expected numbers. Hopefully, the numbers will reconcile with CM's hash rate.  Thanks again for the road map and interesting conversation.

[suchmoon]

Regarding T=361680. You're so right. 10hrs * 3600 = 360000 (oops should be 36000) + 28 mins * 60 = 1680. Total 37680 seconds. Geez the original 361680 gave me the magic number I was looking for that I did not even double check the math.  How coincidental is that? Furthermore, I did not even multiply A * 65536. What a brain fart on my part.  With the given correct number of seconds and using your formula A * 65536 / T, the new number is 3908096*65536/37680=6797265.909 or 6.8mhs.  You've got it.  Is that suppose to be an average of something?  Or is that how CM computes mhs at any given time?

My 2 blades run cool at the touch even around the voltage regulators.  I've got it clocked conservatively at 800mhz.  No usb errors ever in the system logs since I got them a little over a week ago.  And the first (and last) week on weminerltc, they ran at a steady 10-10.5mhs on their charts.

The 9th and 10th hour just came in at 5.41 and 5.24.  And the Last Hour Hashrate right now is 5.2mhs.  cgminer is still rocking at 10.8mhs.  I'm not sure what's going on.  Could you explain your formula a bit more?  Thanks much for the input.

Edit: I think I know what's going on.  Since the formula for the hash rate is based on accepted shares, all 4 of my blade boards had the proper hash rate, BUT 2 of them did not have the proper wu rates which led to improper accepted rates.  ahha.  I decided to reset the system and give it another whirl.  So far so good.  All 4 boards are logging expected numbers. Hopefully, the numbers will reconcile with CM's hash rate.  Thanks again for the road map and interesting conversation.

cgminer's "A" is "difficulty 1 shares". In scrypt context a "diffculty 1" share has a probability of 1/65536 (2^16), i.e. on average one out of 65536 hashes will be a diff 1 share. Since we know the number of shares (A) and the probability of each share (1/65536) we can estimate how many hashes the miner calculated (A * 65536). Divided that by the number of seconds and you get hashes per second. The pool must be using something similar to calculate your hashrate, perhaps A+R instead of just A.

WU is directly related to that, I just don't remember the exact formula right now. If some of your boards had a much lower WU, then that's obviously an issue. You can calculate the estimated hashrate for each board separately using the same formula, and if it's been running long enough you can just eyeball the "A" for each board and see which ones are lagging. 10-20% could be normal variance, more than that is certainly suspicious.

I hope you'll get it sorted out.

[Xenocyde]

Anyone else missing the 10-minute graphs for hashrate and rejects from stats page?

[btcemo]

Anyone else missing the 10-minute graphs for hashrate and rejects from stats page?

I had a lot of rejects yesterday...

[Xenocyde]

Ya, but why can't I see those graphs in the stats page?

[Moria]

Anyone else missing the 10-minute graphs for hashrate and rejects from stats page?

yep they vanished last night around 9pm EST for me

Regards

M

[antimater]

Ya, but why can't I see those graphs in the stats page?

They've also disappeared for me. If this is a UI update of some sort, I'd really like them back. They where very useful for diagnosing problems with my mining rig.

[quakefiend420]

Ya, but why can't I see those graphs in the stats page?

They've also disappeared for me. If this is a UI update of some sort, I'd really like them back. They where very useful for diagnosing problems with my mining rig.

Same here.  I alternate between leasing my rigs and mining at Clever, so it's nice to be able to see that failover worked properly when I switch back.

[mm96817]

Regarding T=361680. You're so right. 10hrs * 3600 = 360000 (oops should be 36000) + 28 mins * 60 = 1680. Total 37680 seconds. Geez the original 361680 gave me the magic number I was looking for that I did not even double check the math.  How coincidental is that? Furthermore, I did not even multiply A * 65536. What a brain fart on my part.  With the given correct number of seconds and using your formula A * 65536 / T, the new number is 3908096*65536/37680=6797265.909 or 6.8mhs.  You've got it.  Is that suppose to be an average of something?  Or is that how CM computes mhs at any given time?

My 2 blades run cool at the touch even around the voltage regulators.  I've got it clocked conservatively at 800mhz.  No usb errors ever in the system logs since I got them a little over a week ago.  And the first (and last) week on weminerltc, they ran at a steady 10-10.5mhs on their charts.

The 9th and 10th hour just came in at 5.41 and 5.24.  And the Last Hour Hashrate right now is 5.2mhs.  cgminer is still rocking at 10.8mhs.  I'm not sure what's going on.  Could you explain your formula a bit more?  Thanks much for the input.

Edit: I think I know what's going on.  Since the formula for the hash rate is based on accepted shares, all 4 of my blade boards had the proper hash rate, BUT 2 of them did not have the proper wu rates which led to improper accepted rates.  ahha.  I decided to reset the system and give it another whirl.  So far so good.  All 4 boards are logging expected numbers. Hopefully, the numbers will reconcile with CM's hash rate.  Thanks again for the road map and interesting conversation.

cgminer's "A" is "difficulty 1 shares". In scrypt context a "diffculty 1" share has a probability of 1/65536 (2^16), i.e. on average one out of 65536 hashes will be a diff 1 share. Since we know the number of shares (A) and the probability of each share (1/65536) we can estimate how many hashes the miner calculated (A * 65536). Divided that by the number of seconds and you get hashes per second. The pool must be using something similar to calculate your hashrate, perhaps A+R instead of just A.

WU is directly related to that, I just don't remember the exact formula right now. If some of your boards had a much lower WU, then that's obviously an issue. You can calculate the estimated hashrate for each board separately using the same formula, and if it's been running long enough you can just eyeball the "A" for each board and see which ones are lagging. 10-20% could be normal variance, more than that is certainly suspicious.

I hope you'll get it sorted out.

Thanks for explaining the formula.  I read so many different meanings of "difficulty" that it's been difficult for me to figure out what difficulty is. I guess that's why its called difficulty. hahaha.  Once I reset cgminer which in turns reset the boards, everything got sorted out.  All 4 board's wu were in the 4.x range which is what it suppose to do based on the math, and the accepted shares were distributed nice and evenly.  And CM concurred by cranking up the hash rate chart with an avg of 10.2 in the past 7 hours.  I now have a better picture on what to look for.  Thanks again.  You've been a great help.

[antimater]

Ya, but why can't I see those graphs in the stats page?

They've also disappeared for me. If this is a UI update of some sort, I'd really like them back. They where very useful for diagnosing problems with my mining rig.

Same here.  I alternate between leasing my rigs and mining at Clever, so it's nice to be able to see that failover worked properly when I switch back.

Out of interest, where are you leasing your crypt rigs? And what are you thoughts, worth doing ?

[williamj2543]

Aww damn these profits are so low.

[Terk]

Real-time charts are back. It was a bug, I'm sorry.

[antimater]

Glad to have the charts back  . Was a bit worried it was a minimalistic UI update.

[eclipso]

Frankly guys, it's time to shut off the miners and find better ways to make a profit.  Sure BTC is moving up slightly, but there is no way the ALT-COIN market is going to recover.  There are more than 291 altcoins on the market with more coming out every week.  Even if BTC were to increase by 25-30% of it's current value there just isn't enough hash rate to go around and these new ASICs will NEVER ROI.  It's a losing proposition for everyone not on a free electric grid.  

I invested 2K in mining equipment and I have only recovered about 60-65% of my original investment (and I started in DEC of this year).  

At least 1K of it was in GPU's which I can now use on gaming, so not a total loss.  (I made back a little over 1.2K USD in "mining" after electricity and I pay .07/kilowatt - which is better than most.)

Prices are a fraction of what they were in JAN-FEB ... anyone who invests in new mining gear will be lucky to recoup 25% of their investment.

I keep checking back here to see if profits make an out of the ordinary jump like they did when white coin came out, but other than that I'm done.

 

[suchmoon]

I started in DEC of this year

This right here is your problem, going back in time can only yield negative ROI.

Seriously though, I think you can still do quite well with your GPUs and $0.07/kWh. Even Scrypt is still slightly profitable with that power cost, and Scrypt-N or X11 - definitely.

[mstrongbow]

I started in DEC of this year

This right here is your problem, going back in time can only yield negative ROI.

Seriously though, I think you can still do quite well with your GPUs and $0.07/kWh. Even Scrypt is still slightly profitable with that power cost, and Scrypt-N or X11 - definitely.

even with my avg cost of .08/kWh GPU mining is profitable

[z0n0]

Hi all,
sorry if this question was already posted in answered, but I really wanna know if there's any site with auto-switch X11 (not Scrypt) mining pool with auto-exchange to Bitcoins??
Maybe clevermining considering that in future?

[quakefiend420]

CA/US stratum appear to be down