|
The00Dustin
|
 |
May 11, 2012, 09:09:45 AM |
|
Sounds like your main pool does support nrolltime and you do that on the work you are given with the LP, but the pool is still too overloaded to give out work when you finish it. Are you using --failover-only? If you aren't, then maybe the work after the LP is for a different pool and your main pool is that far behind. If you are, then the failover takes longer now, that's listed in the changelog, so that could explain the idle time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abbeytim
|
|
May 11, 2012, 05:17:14 PM |
|
oh ignore the time on that pc it was less than an hour ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
jddebug
|
|
May 11, 2012, 09:09:45 PM |
|
Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862. |
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4620
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
May 11, 2012, 10:14:10 PM |
|
Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862. Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right? As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once. (so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also) |
|
|
|
|
jddebug
|
|
May 11, 2012, 10:22:53 PM |
|
Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862. Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right? As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once. (so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also) I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later. |
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4284
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
May 11, 2012, 10:28:10 PM |
|
Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862. Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right? As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once. (so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also) I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later. I wonder... if it's a recurring problem and you confirm it every time, it is possible the device isn't actually hashing at that rate and is conveniently losing work... |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4620
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
May 12, 2012, 12:49:09 AM |
|
Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862. Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right? As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once. (so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also) I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later. I wonder... if it's a recurring problem and you confirm it every time, it is possible the device isn't actually hashing at that rate and is conveniently losing work... Damn - looks like I gotta setup a windows USB boot and flash my BFL to see what's going on ... Only available on Windows ... yeah that was a good idea ... NOT |
|
|
|
|
abbeytim
|
|
May 12, 2012, 02:01:57 AM |
|
yah my U: is 11.62 and its been pretty steady all day and my pool hashrate has shown an increase i am very happy with it.
also after i flashed it the first time it was slower but when i flashed it the second time and unpluged it was faster so id reccommend unpluging it and plugging it back in and flashing it again. mine is a rev 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
terrytibbs
|
|
May 12, 2012, 09:04:05 PM |
|
But I have the first reply to this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fuzzy
|
|
May 12, 2012, 10:43:44 PM |
|
Just saw BFLs next offering:  666 Terahashs/s ALL the kilowatts |
|
|
|
|
Inaba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 12, 2012, 10:52:42 PM |
|
If you only knew how close to the truth that is!
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
BFL-Engineer
|
|
May 12, 2012, 10:54:22 PM |
|
Just saw BFLs next offering: 666 Terahashs/s ALL the kilowatts Epic !!! |
|
|
|
|
Fuzzy
|
|
May 12, 2012, 11:21:45 PM |
|
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the user interface...  |
|
|
|
|
|
BlackPrapor
|
|
May 13, 2012, 04:28:58 AM |
|
 both are just epic
|
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
In blockchain we trust
|
|
|
|
|
bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
|
|
May 14, 2012, 10:35:58 AM |
|
nah
|
|
|
|
|
ice_chill
|
|
May 14, 2012, 11:11:16 AM
Last edit: May 14, 2012, 12:42:40 PM by ice_chill |
|
I hope they reply otherwise I am ordering my bank to reverse my Mini-Rig payment.I overreacted  sorry |
|
|
|
|
bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
|
|
May 14, 2012, 11:13:59 AM |
|
dont be scurred
|
|
|
|
|
