|
wolfey2014
|
 |
March 20, 2014, 08:08:28 PM |
|
It just occurred to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have, as an option, all miners locally combined to equal one big hashing miner? What ever the number, you have them combined so they all receive work and report completed work 'yays' to the pool?
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
lol, cgminer does this. That's why so many of us want to use cgminer and not 50 instances of cpuminer.  Can someone else using cgminer confirm this claim? lolololololololololrofllololteeheeheeheehee Yes. I have all 20 of my gridseeds pointed at 1 instance of a built from source cgminer on ubuntu. So are you solo mining or pool mining? What does their end see? All 20 individual miners reporting hash rates and shares or... only 1 instance / 1 miner reporting the sum total of hashes and shares of all 20 miners - AS ONE miner? Please specify. Thanks w2014 I'm running on ScryptGuild.com as one worker. On the cgminer instance it shows each gridseed with it's hashrate. This is standard, like when you have any multiple of gpu, fpga, asics, ect. These are all connected via USB to one laptop running ubuntu. Okay, thanks. So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied? I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way? Does one method make more money than the other? That's the point of this discussion, after all  Wolfey2014 |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
wolfey2014
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:09:39 PM |
|
sure I get a few HW errors, but my reported hash rates are higher so I'll roll with it.
higher hash rates = more moolah!
moolah is good yes! maximum moolah!  |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
|
jjj0923
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:13:25 PM |
|
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all Wink
Wolfey2014 it's all going into the same wallet eventually so I don;t think there's any advantage to having a worked for each GS instance - unless you like to see the difference in has rates and it can be dramatic - I have 20 works set up for my 20 GS's and that has rates can run from 260 up to 415 sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
wolfey2014
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:26:14 PM |
|
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all Wink
Wolfey2014 it's all going into the same wallet eventually so I don;t think there's any advantage to having a worked for each GS instance - unless you like to see the difference in has rates and it can be dramatic - I have 20 works set up for my 20 GS's and that has rates can run from 260 up to 415 sometimes. Right, thanks! I can see the same results 'averaged out' on my litecoinpool.org gui. rates run anywhere from 238 on up to 545KH/s at any given time. Average for entire group (6) runs around 2130KH/s. I'm seeing averages per unit at round 400+ a lot of the time. So I'm good with it. So it would seem that one method is not more profitable than the other, so far. I wonder what others' experiences are though. Anyone else want to chime in? Wolfey2014 |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
CartmanSPC
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:36:31 PM |
|
It just occurred to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have, as an option, all miners locally combined to equal one big hashing miner? What ever the number, you have them combined so they all receive work and report completed work 'yays' to the pool?
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
lol, cgminer does this. That's why so many of us want to use cgminer and not 50 instances of cpuminer. Can someone else using cgminer confirm this claim? lolololololololololrofllololteeheeheeheehee Yes. I have all 20 of my gridseeds pointed at 1 instance of a built from source cgminer on ubuntu. So are you solo mining or pool mining? What does their end see? All 20 individual miners reporting hash rates and shares or... only 1 instance / 1 miner reporting the sum total of hashes and shares of all 20 miners - AS ONE miner? Please specify. Thanks w2014 LOL |
|
|
|
usao
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1109
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:36:37 PM |
|
It just occurred to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have, as an option, all miners locally combined to equal one big hashing miner? What ever the number, you have them combined so they all receive work and report completed work 'yays' to the pool?
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
lol, cgminer does this. That's why so many of us want to use cgminer and not 50 instances of cpuminer. Can someone else using cgminer confirm this claim? lolololololololololrofllololteeheeheeheehee Yes. I have all 20 of my gridseeds pointed at 1 instance of a built from source cgminer on ubuntu. So are you solo mining or pool mining? What does their end see? All 20 individual miners reporting hash rates and shares or... only 1 instance / 1 miner reporting the sum total of hashes and shares of all 20 miners - AS ONE miner? Please specify. Thanks w2014 I'm running on ScryptGuild.com as one worker. On the cgminer instance it shows each gridseed with it's hashrate. This is standard, like when you have any multiple of gpu, fpga, asics, ect. These are all connected via USB to one laptop running ubuntu. Okay, thanks. So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied? I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way? Does one method make more money than the other? That's the point of this discussion, after all Wolfey2014 I don't think it matters, shares are accumulated at the user level, not the worker level on all the pools im familiar with. Most PPLNS pools try to discourage pool-hopping by spreading out the payout for shares over a broad timeframe (rounds). Your earnings start small for any given hashrate because you don't have recent history, then over time (rounds) the earnings grow per share as long as you keep mining. If you go away and come back later, then you have to start over again building up the earnings. I would think it's better to combine multiple GPU's and/or GSD's into "rigs" and assign a given rig as a "worker". However, I can see that if you have 20-40 GSD's on as a single worker, it may be difficult to notice slight variations in performance indicating a possible issue with one or more GSDs. If your "worker" houses (probably) 10 or less GSDs, then it would be easier to notice any variation in KH/s... Just my 0.02BTC |
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8922
https://bpip.org
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:42:31 PM |
|
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all Wink
Wolfey2014 it's all going into the same wallet eventually so I don;t think there's any advantage to having a worked for each GS instance - unless you like to see the difference in has rates and it can be dramatic - I have 20 works set up for my 20 GS's and that has rates can run from 260 up to 415 sometimes. Right, thanks! I can see the same results 'averaged out' on my litecoinpool.org gui. rates run anywhere from 238 on up to 545KH/s at any given time. Average for entire group (6) runs around 2130KH/s. I'm seeing averages per unit at round 400+ a lot of the time. So I'm good with it. So it would seem that one method is not more profitable than the other, so far. I wonder what others' experiences are though. Anyone else want to chime in? Wolfey2014 Here is some very thoughtful and well-researched analysis of cgminer vs cpuminer pros and cons: That's just a pitch to the unwary to sucker them into using cgminer. IMO, cgminer and bfdminer are still too much of a pain in the ars to use because they are line code intensive and you have to learn coding, albeit a somewhat higher language than assembly. Still, so much to memorise. Check the threads on them. You'll find tons of config errors, troubleshooting and very few are actually running stably with them, without having to babysit them. Skip all that mess and just use cpuminer if you want to get up and running in minutes instead of hours ,,, or years  !!! Scrap that other stuff and use this,, only... http://cryptomining-blog.com/?s=Download+cpuminer+for+Gridseed+5-chip+GC3355+ASICs+with+Reduced+Power+UsageGood luck! Wolfey2014 |
|
|
|
|
pjcltd
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1003
NodeMasters
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:42:43 PM |
|
just thought i would share this with you all i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi using a 49 port Hub  |
|
|
|
|
usao
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1109
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:45:08 PM |
|
just thought i would share this with you all i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi using a 49 port Hub Nice, how many do think the RPI can handle? Can you get all 49 going at once? That would be almost 20MH/s from one rig... |
|
|
|
|
pjcltd
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1003
NodeMasters
|
|
March 20, 2014, 08:46:26 PM |
|
just thought i would share this with you all i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi using a 49 port Hub Nice, how many do think the RPI can handle? Can you get all 49 going at once? That would be almost 20MH/s from one rig... well i have 3 more coming in tomorrow but from what i have read it should take 48 (i need 1 port to power the Ras-pi) without any problems |
|
|
|
|
|
wolfey2014
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:11:52 PM |
|
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all Wink
Wolfey2014 it's all going into the same wallet eventually so I don;t think there's any advantage to having a worked for each GS instance - unless you like to see the difference in has rates and it can be dramatic - I have 20 works set up for my 20 GS's and that has rates can run from 260 up to 415 sometimes. Right, thanks! I can see the same results 'averaged out' on my litecoinpool.org gui. rates run anywhere from 238 on up to 545KH/s at any given time. Average for entire group (6) runs around 2130KH/s. I'm seeing averages per unit at round 400+ a lot of the time. So I'm good with it. So it would seem that one method is not more profitable than the other, so far. I wonder what others' experiences are though. Anyone else want to chime in? Wolfey2014 Here is some very thoughtful and well-researched analysis of cgminer vs cpuminer pros and cons: That's just a pitch to the unwary to sucker them into using cgminer. IMO, cgminer and bfdminer are still too much of a pain in the ars to use because they are line code intensive and you have to learn coding, albeit a somewhat higher language than assembly. Still, so much to memorise. Check the threads on them. You'll find tons of config errors, troubleshooting and very few are actually running stably with them, without having to babysit them. Skip all that mess and just use cpuminer if you want to get up and running in minutes instead of hours ,,, or years !!! Scrap that other stuff and use this,, only... http://cryptomining-blog.com/?s=Download+cpuminer+for+Gridseed+5-chip+GC3355+ASICs+with+Reduced+Power+UsageGood luck! Wolfey2014 Thank you SuckMoon! Very helpful! ..... |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
|
wolfey2014
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:15:16 PM |
|
just thought i would share this with you all i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi using a 49 port Hub Nice! Got a link for that 49 port hub I can visit? Is it working 100% stably? Thanks Wolfey2014 |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
|
wolfey2014
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:18:50 PM |
|
It just occurred to me. Wouldn't it be cool to have, as an option, all miners locally combined to equal one big hashing miner? What ever the number, you have them combined so they all receive work and report completed work 'yays' to the pool?
Instead of the pool seeing 10 different miners and combining and averaging them on that end, do it locally and have the pool see only 1 miner that is the equivalent of 10 hashers-hashing
lol, cgminer does this. That's why so many of us want to use cgminer and not 50 instances of cpuminer. Can someone else using cgminer confirm this claim? lolololololololololrofllololteeheeheeheehee Yes. I have all 20 of my gridseeds pointed at 1 instance of a built from source cgminer on ubuntu. So are you solo mining or pool mining? What does their end see? All 20 individual miners reporting hash rates and shares or... only 1 instance / 1 miner reporting the sum total of hashes and shares of all 20 miners - AS ONE miner? Please specify. Thanks w2014 I'm running on ScryptGuild.com as one worker. On the cgminer instance it shows each gridseed with it's hashrate. This is standard, like when you have any multiple of gpu, fpga, asics, ect. These are all connected via USB to one laptop running ubuntu. Okay, thanks. So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied? I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way? Does one method make more money than the other? That's the point of this discussion, after all Wolfey2014 I don't think it matters, shares are accumulated at the user level, not the worker level on all the pools im familiar with. Most PPLNS pools try to discourage pool-hopping by spreading out the payout for shares over a broad timeframe (rounds). Your earnings start small for any given hashrate because you don't have recent history, then over time (rounds) the earnings grow per share as long as you keep mining. If you go away and come back later, then you have to start over again building up the earnings. I would think it's better to combine multiple GPU's and/or GSD's into "rigs" and assign a given rig as a "worker". However, I can see that if you have 20-40 GSD's on as a single worker, it may be difficult to notice slight variations in performance indicating a possible issue with one or more GSDs. If your "worker" houses (probably) 10 or less GSDs, then it would be easier to notice any variation in KH/s... Just my 0.02BTC Thanks! Very good and useful insight! Wolfey2014 |
I Modify Miners Professionally! PM me for details!
|
|
|
miaviator (OP)
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 686
Merit: 519
It's for the children!
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:22:03 PM |
|
Which cgminer are you running on the Pi? just thought i would share this with you all
i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi
using a 49 port Hub
|
|
|
|
|
jamieb81
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:24:13 PM |
|
Okay, thanks.
So the question still remains. Is it advantageous to do it that way or to have each miner reporting separately to the pool to there be added up and tallied?
I mean, is it more profitable to combine total hash rates etc. at the origin point (local) or at the receipt point? Or does it matter at either way?
Does one method make more money than the other?
That's the point of this discussion, after all Wink
Wolfey2014 it's all going into the same wallet eventually so I don;t think there's any advantage to having a worked for each GS instance - unless you like to see the difference in has rates and it can be dramatic - I have 20 works set up for my 20 GS's and that has rates can run from 260 up to 415 sometimes. Right, thanks! I can see the same results 'averaged out' on my litecoinpool.org gui. rates run anywhere from 238 on up to 545KH/s at any given time. Average for entire group (6) runs around 2130KH/s. I'm seeing averages per unit at round 400+ a lot of the time. So I'm good with it. So it would seem that one method is not more profitable than the other, so far. I wonder what others' experiences are though. Anyone else want to chime in? Wolfey2014 Here is some very thoughtful and well-researched analysis of cgminer vs cpuminer pros and cons: That's just a pitch to the unwary to sucker them into using cgminer. IMO, cgminer and bfdminer are still too much of a pain in the ars to use because they are line code intensive and you have to learn coding, albeit a somewhat higher language than assembly. Still, so much to memorise. Check the threads on them. You'll find tons of config errors, troubleshooting and very few are actually running stably with them, without having to babysit them. Skip all that mess and just use cpuminer if you want to get up and running in minutes instead of hours ,,, or years !!! Scrap that other stuff and use this,, only... http://cryptomining-blog.com/?s=Download+cpuminer+for+Gridseed+5-chip+GC3355+ASICs+with+Reduced+Power+UsageGood luck! Wolfey2014 Good to know, as I'll have only 4/5 GS guess I'll just use cpuminer |
|
|
|
|
pjcltd
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1003
NodeMasters
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:28:33 PM |
|
Which cgminer are you running on the Pi? just thought i would share this with you all
i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi
using a 49 port Hub
Hi its 3.7.2 i got it from this thread the Rpi is running Scripta Os |
|
|
|
|
miaviator (OP)
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 686
Merit: 519
It's for the children!
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:35:44 PM |
|
Which cgminer are you running on the Pi? just thought i would share this with you all
i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi
using a 49 port Hub
Hi its 3.7.2 i got it from this thread the Rpi is running Scripta Os Well It's either the wheezy image I'm using or the pi won't do 10 instances. Either way the pi just dies after launching 10 cgminer instances. |
|
|
|
pjcltd
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1003
NodeMasters
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:37:56 PM |
|
Which cgminer are you running on the Pi? just thought i would share this with you all
i have 18 Gridseed miners running on a Ras-pi
using a 49 port Hub
Hi its 3.7.2 i got it from this thread the Rpi is running Scripta Os Well It's either the wheezy image I'm using or the pi won't do 10 instances. Either way the pi just dies after launching 10 cgminer instances. err why are you running 10 instances ?? and the image is not wheezy  ? what ever that is |
|
|
|
|
pjcltd
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1003
NodeMasters
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:46:23 PM |
|
another pic its real honest  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
