[~1000 GH/sec] BTC Guild - 0% Fee Pool, LP, SSL, Full Precision, and More

[eleuthria]

New server to act as a load balancer has just been made available.  Hoping to get it deployed this evening.  Current priorities are:

1)  Real load balancing (not Round-Robin DNS)
2)  Moving the website off of US West's pool server
3)  Setting up US Central (Chicago)

[1714199646]

1714199646

[1714199646]

1714199646

[Clipse]

mmm no matter what server i manually select or balance loader, the connections keep resetting to btcguild while mining.

[iCEBREAKER]

US West is going at half the rate of the other three.

That's not good, right?

[evlew]

never had so many miner is idle messages.... very disappointing considered I just switched two nights ago.  Apparently a shitload of other people did too, and I understand, but at this point 2% fee is more acceptable than losing work......

I am back to slush's till this gets worked out

[IlbiStarz]

Funny thing is, Deepbit is having problems too....

Where to switch now lol

[heavyb]

Funny thing is, Deepbit is having problems too....

Where to switch now lol

for real, today has been so frustrating.

[||bit]

Mh/s  glitch?

I just started mining about 12 hours ago using BTCGuild. Let me say first, it was a lot easier to set up than I thought
The GUIminer I'm using did seem to have several times where it could not communicate with the RPC whatever.

Here's what's odd, unless it can be explained as a glitch on BTCGuild. By the hardware comparisons chart on the bitcoin wiki, we can see that the 6970 had a range of about [323 Mh/s - 423 Mh/s]. I am using one 6970 with a desktop and churning about 358 Mh/s. [tried tweaking a little, but it didn't go up and is fine while I take in the big picture of the process.] On BTCGuild it shows one's hash rate at the bottom and I assume it's close estimate of recent activity... it showed closer to 300 Mh/s. Maybe lower becasue of some averaging function that factored in time when the miner was offline for rebooting etc - e.g. discovering websites with video ads can crash it.  

After being away from the system for a while and the monitors went to sleep, I came back and logged in to inspect the activity, and  saw that there was 443 Mh/s on the account. If it's true, then it is a value greater than the range of 6970's setups in the bitcoin wiki.

Is this a glitch with BTCGuild or did the miner suddenly become more efficient?

The system is simple:
Windows 7
CPU: Intel i7 2600
GPU: 1 x 6970
Miner: Guiminer
ADD SDK: v. 2.4

At the this time, the pool account is showing a lower hash rate (257 Mh/s) than the Guiminer is showing 351 Mh/s (almost the same all day). The system had no down time for several hours. That also seems odd, but perhaps, it is due to BTCGuild being down or something, and then diluting it with averaging over time, maybe?  But I can't see how the higher hash rate could be calculated.

Any ideas on why BTCGuild read such a higher hashrate that time?

[IlbiStarz]

Mh/s  glitch?

I just started mining about 12 hours ago using BTCGuild. Let me say first, it was a lot easier to set up than I thought
The GUIminer I'm using did seem to have several times where it could not communicate with the RPC whatever.

Here's what's odd, unless it can be explained as a glitch on BTCGuild. By the hardware comparisons chart on the bitcoin wiki, we can see that the 6970 had a range of about [323 Mh/s - 423 Mh/s]. I am using one 6970 with a desktop and churning about 358 Mh/s. [tried tweaking a little, but it didn't go up and is fine while I take in the big picture of the process.] On BTCGuild it shows one's hash rate at the bottom and I assume it's close estimate of recent activity... it showed closer to 300 Mh/s. Maybe lower becasue of some averaging function that factored in time when the miner was offline for rebooting etc - e.g. discovering websites with video ads can crash it.  

After being away from the system for a while and the monitors went to sleep, I came back and logged in to inspect the activity, and  saw that there was 443 Mh/s on the account. If it's true, then it is a value greater than the range of 6970's setups in the bitcoin wiki.

Is this a glitch with BTCGuild or did the miner suddenly become more efficient?

The system is simple:
Windows 7
CPU: Intel i7 2600
GPU: 1 x 6970
Miner: Guiminer
ADD SDK: v. 2.4

At the this time, the pool account is showing a lower hash rate (257 Mh/s) than the Guiminer is showing 351 Mh/s (almost the same all day). The system had no down time for several hours. That also seems odd, but perhaps, it is due to BTCGuild being down or something, and then diluting it with averaging over time, maybe?  But I can't see how the higher hash rate could be calculated.

Any ideas on why BTCGuild read such a higher hashrate that time?

Your GUIMiner is the one that is correct.

The reads on the website is just an estimate. It calculates your rate by seeing how many shares you have submitted in the last 15minutes. You got 443Mh/s just because you were lucky, it solved a lot in shares in that 15 minutes.

My 1.2Gh/s rig goes anywhere from 900 - 1500Mh/s.

You are getting 257mh/s right now either do to unluckiness, or because of idles and connection problems from BTCGuild, which should be fixed soon.

[Moussekateer]

Mh/s  glitch?

I just started mining about 12 hours ago using BTCGuild. Let me say first, it was a lot easier to set up than I thought
The GUIminer I'm using did seem to have several times where it could not communicate with the RPC whatever.

Here's what's odd, unless it can be explained as a glitch on BTCGuild. By the hardware comparisons chart on the bitcoin wiki, we can see that the 6970 had a range of about [323 Mh/s - 423 Mh/s]. I am using one 6970 with a desktop and churning about 358 Mh/s. [tried tweaking a little, but it didn't go up and is fine while I take in the big picture of the process.] On BTCGuild it shows one's hash rate at the bottom and I assume it's close estimate of recent activity... it showed closer to 300 Mh/s. Maybe lower becasue of some averaging function that factored in time when the miner was offline for rebooting etc - e.g. discovering websites with video ads can crash it.  

After being away from the system for a while and the monitors went to sleep, I came back and logged in to inspect the activity, and  saw that there was 443 Mh/s on the account. If it's true, then it is a value greater than the range of 6970's setups in the bitcoin wiki.

Is this a glitch with BTCGuild or did the miner suddenly become more efficient?

The system is simple:
Windows 7
CPU: Intel i7 2600
GPU: 1 x 6970
Miner: Guiminer
ADD SDK: v. 2.4

At the this time, the pool account is showing a lower hash rate (257 Mh/s) than the Guiminer is showing 351 Mh/s (almost the same all day). The system had no down time for several hours. That also seems odd, but perhaps, it is due to BTCGuild being down or something, and then diluting it with averaging over time, maybe?  But I can't see how the higher hash rate could be calculated.

Any ideas on why BTCGuild read such a higher hashrate that time?

The hashrates seen on on pool websites are estimates only. The only thing they can do is count the rate you're sending shares back, which is pretty crude because the time to solve one can vary greatly. So don't worry about it, the only true hashrate for your graphics card is the one shown in the miner. Hope that helps.

[eleuthria]

An attempt was made at using HAProxy as a sticky load balancer / failover redirect this evening, but it was quickly overloaded.  The volume of connections that the pool makes, in addition to the geographic spread of the servers was causing the latency to freeze up HAProxy.

More work being done tomorrow, and hopefully the US Central server will be up as well.


In other news, BTC Guild now has a mascot that showed up at my door this afternoon: https://i.imgur.com/0MOIB.jpg

[Miner-TE]

Now that is one cool looking cat.   

[Isepick]

They're so cute when they're little My old lady wants to always have a kitten in the house. We're up to 3 cats so far.

[IlbiStarz]

OMGMOGMGOM SO CUTEEEE <333333333333333

[kjj]

The real question is, does he want cheezburger?

[||bit]

An attempt was made at using HAProxy as a sticky load balancer / failover redirect this evening, but it was quickly overloaded.  The volume of connections that the pool makes, in addition to the geographic spread of the servers was causing the latency to freeze up HAProxy.

More work being done tomorrow, and hopefully the US Central server will be up as well.


In other news, BTC Guild now has a mascot that showed up at my door this afternoon: https://i.imgur.com/0MOIB.jpg

What will you name the kitten?  Little Bit?

[heavyb]

They're so cute when they're little My old lady wants to always have a kitten in the house. We're up to 3 cats so far.

I have to conciously avoid spca's and adoption sections of pet stores for this reason....I have a spca and trash dumpster cat already, always super tempted to adopt more. MUST RESIST THE KITTY FEVER

[BiggieJohn]

In other news, BTC Guild now has a mascot that showed up at my door this afternoon: https://i.imgur.com/0MOIB.jpg

Cute, yes, yes it is.

BUT

cat hair + 2000 CFM of airflow = BAD!!!!

[eleuthria]

I knew the kitten would keep out the complaints/questions long enough to get a good night of sleep.

The pool is going to be receiving a few updates soon, possibly tonight, but more likely tomorrow:
   1) New custom DNS server that will cause users to "stick" to a specific pool server when using generic btcguild.com
     1b)  The custom DNS server may also be able to keep loads truly balanced if it can handle the initial traffic we put onto it.

   2) Difficulty 2 shares.  I'm working with the IRC channel to make sure we properly modify pushpoold to run on a difficulty 2 share system.  The net benefit of this is it will cut the SQL load in half, and roughly cut the getwork load in half, which will result in much higher capacity per server.
      2b)  This will give a slightly higher variance in rewards, but it would even out very quickly over a few rounds.  Each share will count as '2', so that people could compare our shares per block to the average without doing any extra math.

   3)  US Central and NL2 servers will be up by next weekend.  With the switch to difficulty 2, this should mean our pool's network could handle roughly 4 TH/sec given an even distribution among the the servers.

[bitcanada]

What will you name the kitten?  Little Bit?

How about BitKat?

[Carnth]

I knew the kitten would keep out the complaints/questions long enough to get a good night of sleep.

I knew you were clever, but that was downright cunning.