[ANN] LeaseRig.net Rent & Hire Scrypt(Jane/Nfactor)/SHA3/SHA256/X11 HashPower!

[Blaater]

Miaviator, the new thingy where you get a message of underperforming rig is annoying, my rig has not been rented once since.

I run a rig with Gridseed Infinity's and 1 gridseed G-Blade, CGMiner does not recognise the G-blade as it just tells the API it is a single infinity aswell, the pool however does see the right speed.
CGMiner API output --> http://usbminers.nl/monitoring/  <-- Notice ASC9 & ASC10 their higher accepted, those are the 2 blades from the G-Blade, but speed still shows only 340 KH.
Now look at the pool it is mining at --> http://blackcoinpool.com/?miner=BN2LrM4bo5R1SebVBMPXxVZg8iHEv9d6S8 <-- Pool is reporting 8 MH/s+ like it is really outputting.

Any way to work around this @ leaserig to let it show the correct speed?

------Edit------

Just tried with LeaseRigProxy, but having the same issue.

------Edit2-----

Nevermind, when you disable your mining rig in provider, it does not update the hashing speed anymore. I just enabled it and now it's showing higher speeds.

[1715120405]

1715120405

[1715120405]

1715120405

[1715120405]

1715120405

[1715120405]

1715120405

[martynw2000]

Hi Monty,

Just so you know, I couldn't get the speed reporting working properly with BFGminer either. I tried all sorts of combinations of port numbers and whatever, but it seems it just doesn't like the API commands. I'm using gridseeds too, so a similar setup I would imagine. Once I switched back to CGminer everything was fine. Also, I noted that when running BFG miner with 20 gridseeds, a few of the gridseeds either didn't hash properly, or not at all. The effect seemed random it was different gridseed units each time (I checked the serial numbers). All in all, CGminer seems to be better (although you have to turn off the damn USB hubs before you run it, which is a pain).

The API commands seem to work fine with the gridseed version of CGminer. Not had a problem since I switched back.

Tested CGminer for a few hours now and it seems stable regarding to speed reports. PLUS I didn't even need to deactivate the USB hubs. Had to hotplug the Gridseeds though after starting CGminer to be recognised so I am a little worried what happens if the rig goes down for some reason and I am not around. Any idea how to solve this?

@SlipperySlope
ipominer.com is one of the pools I am using in times my rig is not leased. You have to keep an eye on the multipool though as it sometimes is not the most profitable solution but ipominer.com is - in general - better than most other multipools you find on poolpicker.eu.

No, I haven't figured out how to hotplug the gridseeds remotely yet (in case of some unexpected error that requires a restart). In Windows 7, you can disable the hubs from the device manager, and then re-enable them again, but this doesn't seem to work fantastically well. Last time I did this only 14/20 gridseeds were discovered. I then tried again and only 8 were discovered. Seems the only reliable way is to physically disconnect the hubs, which obviously requires you to be there.

What is really required is a USB hub that can be activated or deactivated via an IP-switch. I suppose that might do the trick.


AS A SEPARATE ISSUE...

Can we PLEASE have some kind of tolerance (-+ 5% perhaps) on what the site thinks is an underperforming rig?

For example, my rigs operate at 7.23 almost constantly. I've however put the rated speed at 7.2 to make sure it's nearly always reported at running okay. BUT, occasionally a pool goes down and it drops the rate down a bit, even though the rig is working fine. Right now the site is telling me my rig is underperforming because it's reported at 7.18 not 7.2!! Seems a bit harsh to me! Especially as you get that damn annoying pop-up saying "are you really sure you want to hire an underperforming rig?". It's only 0.02 off it's speed FFS!

[WireIT]

Can we PLEASE have some kind of tolerance (-+ 5% perhaps) on what the site thinks is an underperforming rig?

For example, my rigs operate at 7.23 almost constantly. I've however put the rated speed at 7.2 to make sure it's nearly always reported at running okay. BUT, occasionally a pool goes down and it drops the rate down a bit, even though the rig is working fine. Right now the site is telling me my rig is underperforming because it's reported at 7.18 not 7.2!! Seems a bit harsh to me! Especially as you get that damn annoying pop-up saying "are you really sure you want to hire an underperforming rig?". It's only 0.02 off it's speed FFS!

+1
+10 to the pop-up saying are you sure you want to rent a rig that is .01 below the rated rate for the last 2 minutes???

And as someone mentioned earlier, the color coding of the rigs should be enough. The icons just clutter everything IMHO.

[Zosimos]

Can we PLEASE have some kind of tolerance (-+ 5% perhaps) on what the site thinks is an underperforming rig?

For example, my rigs operate at 7.23 almost constantly. I've however put the rated speed at 7.2 to make sure it's nearly always reported at running okay. BUT, occasionally a pool goes down and it drops the rate down a bit, even though the rig is working fine. Right now the site is telling me my rig is underperforming because it's reported at 7.18 not 7.2!! Seems a bit harsh to me! Especially as you get that damn annoying pop-up saying "are you really sure you want to hire an underperforming rig?". It's only 0.02 off it's speed FFS!

+1
+10 to the pop-up saying are you sure you want to rent a rig that is .01 below the rated rate for the last 2 minutes???

And as someone mentioned earlier, the color coding of the rigs should be enough. The icons just clutter everything IMHO.

I agree, the pop-up and icons are not needed. I have had to put one of my rigs down to 37.50MH/s when it is outputting over 38MH/s just to avoid the negative implications of both the Pop-up and icon. With a slight disconnect to the main server it drops the average. (Rig is still mining)

[mpdas108]

Can we PLEASE have some kind of tolerance (-+ 5% perhaps) on what the site thinks is an underperforming rig?

For example, my rigs operate at 7.23 almost constantly. I've however put the rated speed at 7.2 to make sure it's nearly always reported at running okay. BUT, occasionally a pool goes down and it drops the rate down a bit, even though the rig is working fine. Right now the site is telling me my rig is underperforming because it's reported at 7.18 not 7.2!! Seems a bit harsh to me! Especially as you get that damn annoying pop-up saying "are you really sure you want to hire an underperforming rig?". It's only 0.02 off it's speed FFS!

+1
+10 to the pop-up saying are you sure you want to rent a rig that is .01 below the rated rate for the last 2 minutes???

And as someone mentioned earlier, the color coding of the rigs should be enough. The icons just clutter everything IMHO.

I agree, the pop-up and icons are not needed. I have had to put one of my rigs down to 37.50MH/s when it is outputting over 38MH/s just to avoid the negative implications of both the Pop-up and icon. With a slight disconnect to the main server it drops the average. (Rig is still mining)

You all know that the new "under performing" system is still not working with "averages", it is only using your immediate hashrate.. which like I posted earlier is totally unacceptable if your rig fluctuates +/- 5% . mine averages out fine, but it fluctuates ever so slightly, so one minute i get a "yellow of death", then the next minute refresh the page, I get "green goodies" ... but anyways I haven't really noticed it affecting my rentals at all.

[snipsnoop]

A last 5 min avg would fix this under performing issue.
To me it looks like it's literally every single checkpoint that could kick this off.

[miaviator]

Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed.  Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results.  As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools.  Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.

[WireIT]

What does everyone think about not letting rehires to happen for x amount of minutes?

I'm getting more people renting my rigs for 1 hour and instantly rehiring it for additional hours at a lower rate. I like the discount incentive to rehire, but not when it's used just to lower my rates...

[hutnik]

I just noticed, there's no option to add pool directly from preconfigured pools in owners rig pool management page like it was in the good ol days

[Monty-Python]

Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed.  Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results.  As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools.  Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.

Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible.

As I posted earlier - trash the current rating system and implement a feedback system for customers on the leaserig website.

[SlipperySlope]

Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible.

Yes, that is exactly what I have done from the moment I connected with LeaseRig as a provider. I knew that I was in competition with other rig providers and was attempting to optimize renter satisfaction. I monitored my rigs over weeks and adjusted the claimed hashing rates so that I had the cushion you mention. My rigs are never below the claimed rate.

I know that I receive less revenue as a result - but that is factored into my decision to use LeaseRig, another leasing outfit, or to point at some pool myself. Customer satisfaction is the key. Now there are only about 19 scrypt-mining rigs on LeaseRig that have more rented hours than my three GPU rigs.

Typical readings from the provider page for my rigs . . .

[byt411]

Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed.  Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results.  As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools.  Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.

Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible.

As I posted earlier - trash the current rating system and implement a feedback system for customers on the leaserig website.

May I also add, that the rig is "underperforming" means nothing, since there is variance, and it should be more fair if it was "rig is underperforming right now but was above expected for the last 72 hours".

[Monty-Python]

Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed.  Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results.  As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools.  Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.

Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible.

As I posted earlier - trash the current rating system and implement a feedback system for customers on the leaserig website.

May I also add, that the rig is "underperforming" means nothing, since there is variance, and it should be more fair if it was "rig is underperforming right now but was above expected for the last 72 hours".

Yeah, we all know that it means more or less nothing but the warning message is really disturbing, especially when most of the rigs have a clean 24-hour history hashing above the declared speed. And - btw - I hate being "blamed" to underperform just because my hashrate is fluctuating withing normal limits.

[Gamer67]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

[byt411]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

LRP without hashrate monitoring with API is complete crap. I had only 75% of my real hashrate. So no thanks.
Direct is better.

[Gamer67]

Would also like to add that I have no problems with my scrypt rigs speed ratings and reporting. I have all of them set a bit lower than they actually perform. I always have since day one.

I am not going to give away 100GH though because LRP will not report the speed more accurately.

[Gamer67]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

LRP without hashrate monitoring with API is complete crap. I had only 75% of my real hashrate. So no thanks.
Direct is better.

Yes. Direct is much better. That is what I was saying. I was by no means suggesting that you or anyone else use it.

I only use LRP for sha because I have to. Antminers do not allow direct api access. At least not with all the commands needed for leaserig.

[Blaater]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

LRP without hashrate monitoring with API is complete crap. I had only 75% of my real hashrate. So no thanks.
Direct is better.

Yes. Direct is much better. That is what I was saying. I was by no means suggesting that you or anyone else use it.

I only use LRP for sha because I have to. Antminers do not allow direct api access. At least not with all the commands needed for leaserig.

Blaater Provider is using automated-refunds and cancellations   Dualminerrig Using LRP Only Stratum pools supported   8.00 Caution: Rig operating under declared speed!   0.01696250 accepts dogecoin accepts litecoin   397   99.93%   Hash. 6.82 MH/s   Available! hire

I'm getting 6.82 MHs now with direct speed with LRP, but same, I have absolutely no choice in using it cause I'm using the Gridseed G-Blade on a Raspberry Pi. I've also seen my speed on the homepage going up to 12 MH/s! I was surprised my rig wasnt rented the moment that happened.

[zneww]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

LRP without hashrate monitoring with API is complete crap. I had only 75% of my real hashrate. So no thanks.
Direct is better.

Yes. Direct is much better. That is what I was saying. I was by no means suggesting that you or anyone else use it.

I only use LRP for sha because I have to. Antminers do not allow direct api access. At least not with all the commands needed for leaserig.

Blaater Provider is using automated-refunds and cancellations   Dualminerrig Using LRP Only Stratum pools supported   8.00 Caution: Rig operating under declared speed!   0.01696250 accepts dogecoin accepts litecoin   397   99.93%   Hash. 6.82 MH/s   Available! hire

I'm getting 6.82 MHs now with direct speed with LRP, but same, I have absolutely no choice in using it cause I'm using the Gridseed G-Blade on a Raspberry Pi. I've also seen my speed on the homepage going up to 12 MH/s! I was surprised my rig wasnt rented the moment that happened.

Direct...is the way.

[Blaater]

LRP for SHA256 is not very accurate. I am not sure how LRP performs with scrypt as my scrypt machines all use the direct api access. But with sha it is a bit of a mess.

My sha rigs on LRP average over 1TH (my stated speed) but it can vary sometimes for a short period down to 900 and up to 1200. I think a little leeway for the LRP rigs would be helpful.

LRP without hashrate monitoring with API is complete crap. I had only 75% of my real hashrate. So no thanks.
Direct is better.

Yes. Direct is much better. That is what I was saying. I was by no means suggesting that you or anyone else use it.

I only use LRP for sha because I have to. Antminers do not allow direct api access. At least not with all the commands needed for leaserig.

Blaater Provider is using automated-refunds and cancellations   Dualminerrig Using LRP Only Stratum pools supported   8.00 Caution: Rig operating under declared speed!   0.01696250 accepts dogecoin accepts litecoin   397   99.93%   Hash. 6.82 MH/s   Available! hire

I'm getting 6.82 MHs now with direct speed with LRP, but same, I have absolutely no choice in using it cause I'm using the Gridseed G-Blade on a Raspberry Pi. I've also seen my speed on the homepage going up to 12 MH/s! I was surprised my rig wasnt rented the moment that happened.

Direct...is the way.

Direct is showing me 3.74 MH/s, check my CGMiner statistics @ http://usbminers.nl/monitoring/
Look @ ASC 9 & ASC10, they show the same speed in CGMiner as the other asic's, yet have a much higher accepted count, that is because their speed is a lot higher. CGMiner can't give a proper speed for the G-Blade in direct mode. I was forced into LRP cause of that.