[ANN][XMR] monero.crypto-pool.fr | Large Monero Mining Pool

[hrisa]

I am getting a lot of these recently:

Code:

Error in server response
: {"id":1,"jsonrpc":"2.0","error":{"code":-1,"message":"Lowdifficultyshare"}}
Stratum - connecting to 'xmr.crypto-pool.fr' <212.129.27.50> port 6666
Stratum - Connected

Anyone else have the same problem?

[perl]

You use what for mine ?
You are first personne notify the probleme
Send your address for look on MP if you want .

[hrisa]

Address is 45BAUpqqbTxKmJMFFFD6HT87Aa6SDYFRRho9LoMhEP2QaChAiryzT1fVMrDa3jSxUrjKdMUNch5dvat mxB6LMR8FEm93mCQ
Edit: I use Claymore CryptoNote GPU miner v 5.1, I tried older versions too and it has the same problem.

[perl]

Your are sure ? You have probleme only on my pool ?
I send in 3H two port only for you in MP.

You can check if probleme is present in both port .

[hrisa]

Yes I'm sure I get this problem only when mining at your pool.

[liteon]

Yes I'm sure I get this problem only when mining at your pool.

Try to change port.

[superresistant]

Yes I'm sure I get this problem only when mining at your pool.

Try to change port.

The problem has been solved.
hrisa was overclocking too much his GPU and he was getting errors when using Claymore GPU miner.

[5w00p]

Where did all the hashes go?

Less than a MHash on the pool now.

[5w00p]

We got problems at the pool?

looks like extremehash has 3MH+

just saw "failure" from yam miner, disconnected....headed elsewhere for now

[superresistant]

 
I just woke up. I'll ask perl (second admin) about what happened. We had a lot of DDoS attacks that didn't succeed in the last few days (didn't do anything). Last night I think an attack triggered the anti-DDoS protection, when it happen the hashrate goes lower but the pool stay online and still work. If the attack is strong enough though, the server may crash (it didn't happened). If I look at the block page, the attacker gave up after some times.

Everything seems ok now. If extremhash get a bigger hashrate, they are going to be the next target (unless the attacker is on that pool).

[Hilux74]

Anyone else notice a LARGE discrepancy between the hash rate that Claymore GPU software reports vs this pool?  I am consistently for at least the last couple weeks showing from 60% to 80% on crypto-pool.fr compared to the miner software.  When I run all my systems I have a client side reported hash of 672+635+1250+1888=4445h/s.  Very rarely on the pool stats do I see above 3500h/s reported and very often it is reporting around 2500h/s!  I also believe that earlier in time there used to be a pretty close match between the client and the pool.  What is at fault the pool or the mining software?

I know the pool doesn't display orphan/stale stats but could that account for up to 40% of my hash?

I've been with this pool pretty much since the beginning so not really interested in pointing my miners elsewhere if the discrepancy between between client and pool is the same at all pools now.

[superresistant]

Anyone else notice a LARGE discrepancy between the hash rate that Claymore GPU software reports vs this pool?  I am consistently for at least the last couple weeks showing from 60% to 80% on crypto-pool.fr compared to the miner software.  When I run all my systems I have a client side reported hash of 672+635+1250+1888=4445h/s.  Very rarely on the pool stats do I see above 3500h/s reported and very often it is reporting around 2500h/s!  I also believe that earlier in time there used to be a pretty close match between the client and the pool.  What is at fault the pool or the mining software?
I know the pool doesn't display orphan/stale stats but could that account for up to 40% of my hash?
I've been with this pool pretty much since the beginning so not really interested in pointing my miners elsewhere if the discrepancy between between client and pool is the same at all pools now.

The hashrate on the pool or the global hashrate is an estimate. It is never accurate and it's simply impossible to make it accurate.
The global hashrate could double instantly but you would not see any move in the estimate. The variations that we see already happened some times ago.
The truth is that when you mine Monero or any cryptonote, you cannot estimate your gain, there are too many factors and variables. Forget about the hashrate, the only thing that matter is what you get per day (or 48h).
I invite you to split your hashrate between different pool and see what you get after (at least) 24 hours.
If I say so, it is because it tested it before and other miners also, you'll get the same pay or a little more if the efficiency was higher or a little less if the efficiency was lower.

There is also the possibility that a pool get stuck, that bitmonerod process do not send the updated block to miners and that 100% of your hashrate is wasted. In that case the pool would still display your hashrate. Great but in fact you would mine for nothing. This cannot happen on our pool because we use multiple instances of bitmonerod that monitor the block count and move the miners to an other working instance while restarting.

To finish, remember that the Monero project is in its very early days and that it's still experimental. You cannot compare it to Bitcoin and its clones that have years of development. On Bitcoin, the hashrate is pretty stable and accurate but we don't have this (yet) on Monero. What we call "stratum protocol" on Monero pools is not a real stratum, it's still in beta testing. I would like to improve all these things but I'm not a developer. Monero's devs have a lot to do and the pool code is not their priority. We are reporting bug all the time to the devs but they just don't have the time.

[perl]

Anyone else notice a LARGE discrepancy between the hash rate that Claymore GPU software reports vs this pool?  I am consistently for at least the last couple weeks showing from 60% to 80% on crypto-pool.fr compared to the miner software.  When I run all my systems I have a client side reported hash of 672+635+1250+1888=4445h/s.  Very rarely on the pool stats do I see above 3500h/s reported and very often it is reporting around 2500h/s!  I also believe that earlier in time there used to be a pretty close match between the client and the pool.  What is at fault the pool or the mining software?

I know the pool doesn't display orphan/stale stats but could that account for up to 40% of my hash?

I've been with this pool pretty much since the beginning so not really interested in pointing my miners elsewhere if the discrepancy between between client and pool is the same at all pools now.

You have share rejected ?
Is possible you have have lower hashrate because, you send bad hash (overcloking,bug,other).

Jump pool accept you bad hash is not good solution . If pool accept 30% of hashrate pool as bad efficience.

The performance of the pool is not a miracle.
We use a code very different now . Test share with the module coded by Wolf for increase performance and best validation.

You can send your addresse for look at ? You mine with port 7777 ?
Test new port 8888 or 9999

[perl]

New server add
All is OK

[Eastwind]

I noticed that I'm getting WAY more shares accepted, though they are all of a much lower target diff than I usually get. Right now they're 7500, earlier they were 10000. Usually my 7970 rig submits shares in the 50000-100000 range. Is this something to do with the new diff adjustments you were talking about?
Also the overall pool mh/s is down to just over 1mh/s, error in hashrate reporting?
Once in a while I'm getting this error:
Error in server response
: {"id":1,"jsonrpc";"2.0","error":{"code":-1,"message":"Unauthenticated"}}
then it reconnects and resumes as usual, just wanted to let you know  
Still a great pool!

Yes we changed the difficulty settings.
Apparently some miners got disconnected during the change.
We wait for all of them to reconnect.
We'll wait for a day and see if we get an improvement.

We deleted the history of blocks to start calculation from zero.


------

What diff would you like ?

I also have this problem using Claymore's GPU miner.

I used port 7777,8888,9999 all have the same error. I do not have the same problem with other pools.

[perl]

Quote MP from Hilux,
Probleme seem present only new version clamored .

You can send you address for look pb side of pool.
Is badhash ? badhash lower ?

......
......
.......
From more research I believe the difference in reprted hashrate between client and pool lies with the Claymore client software not the pool.  I have seen a number of other posts in the last couple days of people claiming actual hashrate reductions at a pool using version 6.0 and 6.1 despite the software claiming a higher hash rate.  I am going to try moving my miners back to version 4.2 and see what happens as a test from my side.
regards,
Hilux74

[onetwentyfive]

Yes I'm sure I get this problem only when mining at your pool.

Try to change port.

The problem has been solved.
hrisa was overclocking too much his GPU and he was getting errors when using Claymore GPU miner.

I get this error with Claymore's CPU miner, how can that have to do with overclocking? My cpu is not over clocked. Also get it with GPU miner on 2 different rigs.

[superresistant]

Yes I'm sure I get this problem only when mining at your pool.

Try to change port.

The problem has been solved.
hrisa was overclocking too much his GPU and he was getting errors when using Claymore GPU miner.

I get this error with Claymore's CPU miner, how can that have to do with overclocking? My cpu is not over clocked. Also get it with GPU miner on 2 different rigs.

I guess Claymore use some tweaks to increase the raw-hashrate while sending more wrong shares.

Do you get this ?

Code:

Lowdifficultyshare

Does it happen all the time for you or recently ?

EDIT: Thx for your help Hilux74.

[Hilux74]

Quote MP from Hilux,
Probleme seem present only new version clamored .

You can send you address for look pb side of pool.
Is badhash ? badhash lower ?

......
......
.......
From more research I believe the difference in reprted hashrate between client and pool lies with the Claymore client software not the pool.  I have seen a number of other posts in the last couple days of people claiming actual hashrate reductions at a pool using version 6.0 and 6.1 despite the software claiming a higher hash rate.  I am going to try moving my miners back to version 4.2 and see what happens as a test from my side.
regards,
Hilux74

My comment is just a theory at this point based on other peoples comments in the Claymore GPU miner thread.  Also I'm not saying either side is doing anything intentionally, just trying to understand why the difference in reported hashrates in the client vs the pool, which seems to be a recent phenomena. 

I have not had a chance to test anything yet though so no data to share...too busy with non mining related things.

[primer-]

I too can confirm 30% difference in actual (client side) and pool reported hash rate. Using wolf's cpu miner.