Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 02:36:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 [145] 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [~1000 GH/sec] BTC Guild - 0% Fee Pool, LP, SSL, Full Precision, and More  (Read 358728 times)
freedenizen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 03:27:23 AM
 #2881

Just did a tracert to uswest and this came back... Doesn't look good to me, but not really sure if the timeouts are causing all of my stales or not (I did xxxx a couple things out). I am on ATT Uverse at 30+ mbps.  Could ATT have some network issues that are causing my stales?

Code:
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  3    21 ms    21 ms    22 ms  76-216-52-2.lightspeed.xxxxx.sbcglobal.net [xx.16.52.2]
  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    21 ms    21 ms    20 ms  151.164.103.236
  8    31 ms    29 ms    29 ms  cgcil02jt.ip.att.net [12.122.81.17]
  9    47 ms    47 ms    48 ms  ae3.chi10.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.29]
 10    78 ms    79 ms    80 ms  ge-7-0-0.lax22.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.185.222]
 11   213 ms   203 ms   202 ms  aiix-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.129.186]
 12    78 ms    78 ms    78 ms  aiix-10ge5-1.cr1.lax3.awknet.com [67.220.95.14]
 13    79 ms    78 ms    78 ms  69.42.216.173

You do realize that you just told everyone that your IP is 76.216.52.2 right?  First of all your hostname from lightspeed has your IP as part of it.  Second you should x out the 3rd and 4th, or 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets of the IP, not the first.

Now as for the timeouts, that is normal, those hosts just don't reply to ICMP packets.  Really you need to do a ping, on windows ping -t, let it run for an hour, see what sort of PL you have.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480905381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905381
Reply with quote  #2

1480905381
Report to moderator
1480905381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905381
Reply with quote  #2

1480905381
Report to moderator
1480905381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905381
Reply with quote  #2

1480905381
Report to moderator
fcmatt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 04:27:07 AM
 #2882

Just did a tracert to uswest and this came back... Doesn't look good to me, but not really sure if the timeouts are causing all of my stales or not (I did xxxx a couple things out). I am on ATT Uverse at 30+ mbps.  Could ATT have some network issues that are causing my stales?

Code:
 1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  3    21 ms    21 ms    22 ms  76-216-52-2.lightspeed.xxxxx.sbcglobal.net [xx.16.52.2]
  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    21 ms    21 ms    20 ms  151.164.103.236
  8    31 ms    29 ms    29 ms  cgcil02jt.ip.att.net [12.122.81.17]
  9    47 ms    47 ms    48 ms  ae3.chi10.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.29]
 10    78 ms    79 ms    80 ms  ge-7-0-0.lax22.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.185.222]
 11   213 ms   203 ms   202 ms  aiix-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.129.186]
 12    78 ms    78 ms    78 ms  aiix-10ge5-1.cr1.lax3.awknet.com [67.220.95.14]
 13    79 ms    78 ms    78 ms  69.42.216.173

You do realize that you just told everyone that your IP is 76.216.52.2 right?  First of all your hostname from lightspeed has your IP as part of it.  Second you should x out the 3rd and 4th, or 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets of the IP, not the first.

Now as for the timeouts, that is normal, those hosts just don't reply to ICMP packets.  Really you need to do a ping, on windows ping -t, let it run for an hour, see what sort of PL you have.

I highly doubt his IP is what you think it is. His Nat router shows up as 1.1. the 2nd hop should be his default gateway at the ISP.
The 3rd hop is that default gateway's next hop.

But what I do agree with is what you are saying about how routers act very odd when you direct traffic right at them instead
of through them. Sometimes using traceroute as a tool to look for loss does not work very well. Best to fire up a ping for 15 minutes
and then look for the percentage loss. If you see a huge amount of loss that is when traceroute works very well to see where things
are stopping. With all that said I would be pissed with a traceroute like that if that was my ISP. My customers would never tolerate
that crap.

And as for what software I use.. i am on win 7 64 bit, guiminer using pocblm and pheonix 1.5 with phatk 2.2. 5830s, a 5850, and 6950s.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
 #2883

OK, but whatever you do, don't type "host 76.216.52.2" Tongue

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
freedenizen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 04:32:52 AM
 #2884

I highly doubt his IP is what you think it is. His Nat router shows up as 1.1. the 2nd hop should be his default gateway at the ISP.
The 3rd hop is that default gateway's next hop.

That's true, I wasn't paying enough attention, it does reveal geographic proximity though that I believe they were trying to hide by adding xxxx to the fqdn
mike85123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 04:53:47 AM
 #2885

yea  was trying to mask location, but not very well.  ran ping -t and only got 1 unreachable over 15 mins. trying to think what has changed from when i was getting sub 1% stales. frustrating...
Knighty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 08:31:04 AM
 #2886

Been running off of BTC Guild for the last few days, really like the pool, even with my lowly 400Mh/s Cheesy
carlo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 07:51:37 PM
 #2887

my stales did also go up to 1.9% using uscentral ... dont know what happend the pool.
staraptor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 08:32:35 PM
 #2888

ddos?  hash rate down ~25-30% across the board
fcmatt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
 #2889

everything looks good here except this monster round we are trying to solve. it really eats into
the 24 hour rewards for a day.
mike85123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 11:08:48 PM
 #2890

Had an approximately 2 second block solve, US West didn't catch it in time.  I updated the aggression for server sync'ing already, but it still has a 5 second pause if a sync fails.  Since the round was so short, US West ended up sync'ing after the round was already over.  As usual, if a server shows 0 shares during a round, the calculation script stops for manual inspection in case something really bad happened.  When I woke up, I forced it to calculate the round and it caught up with the backlog after a few minutes.

I think this happened again!
fcmatt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 11:44:51 PM
 #2891

Had an approximately 2 second block solve, US West didn't catch it in time.  I updated the aggression for server sync'ing already, but it still has a 5 second pause if a sync fails.  Since the round was so short, US West ended up sync'ing after the round was already over.  As usual, if a server shows 0 shares during a round, the calculation script stops for manual inspection in case something really bad happened.  When I woke up, I forced it to calculate the round and it caught up with the backlog after a few minutes.

I think this happened again!

i am not so sure. a 5 hour round is not that unusual when you consider the pool speed and the difficulty.
deepbit is more then double the size and they have 1:30ish rounds which means for us to have some 3 hour
rounds is normal on occasion and a 5 hour round an usual but totally expected event.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 12:11:41 AM
 #2892

... and it is easy to work out Smiley

Follow my link in my sig: http://tradebtc.net/bitprob.php

Enter the pool hash rate (currently 2068.14 for west)
Then enter a number of hours and it will tell you the chance of failing to find a block for that long.

4 hours gives: 1.5230%
i.e. one in about 65 blocks ...

5 hours gives: 0.5350%
i.e. one in about 187 blocks

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
mike85123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 02:46:55 AM
 #2893

Had an approximately 2 second block solve, US West didn't catch it in time.  I updated the aggression for server sync'ing already, but it still has a 5 second pause if a sync fails.  Since the round was so short, US West ended up sync'ing after the round was already over.  As usual, if a server shows 0 shares during a round, the calculation script stops for manual inspection in case something really bad happened.  When I woke up, I forced it to calculate the round and it caught up with the backlog after a few minutes.

I think this happened again!

I was having the same issue with shares counting backwards, which is why I thought it was a similar issue.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 04:13:59 PM
 #2894

A few people probably saw funny looking stats in the last 6 hours.  Yesterday I put up a 4th pool instance on US West since it has been getting a bit more load than Central.  4th pool worked fine, except I missed the rpcallowip in bitcoin.conf.  The pool found a few blocks, but the master server couldn't poll bitcoind them to get the txid/fees included in the block.

This has been resolved.  Due to the way the servers handle rounds, no round share data was lost, simply the rounds for found blocks are slightly jumbled in their confirmation counts.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 01:20:14 AM
 #2895

Question: My accounts stats often show variations in hash rate and lower than expected hash rates. According to Phoenix output on my miner I'm getting consistent, steady 295+310=605 MHash/s. Why does this vary so much on the account stats? Sometimes I see 515 MHash/s when Phoenix is telling me the same steady values at 605. Isn't this value just reported based on how quickly I complete shares and shouldn't that be a direct result of my rate, not affected by probability or other user's rates?

Note: my stales is always about 0.2% so it's not that.

PS. The ads on the site seem to be for real-world mining equipment a lot of the time. You'd get a lot more click-thrus if you could select keywords/ads suitable for tech people, eg. web hosting, amazon gpu deals etc.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 04:06:36 AM
 #2896

Any pool estimate of hash rate is based on your share acceptance rate.

Since finding shares is random and thus is only a statistically expected value, the pool's estimate of your hash rate will of course vary and may even vary widely.

Once you go from a single sample to the (statistical) population of the pool - then the total shown by the pool is quite accurate.

There is no obvious solution to this since the only way for a pool to know your real hash rate would be for your software to supply it.
Then if people were to not report that correctly, the pool's estimate of their full hash rate would come in to doubt.

Since the pools report their total hash rate and using share rate is actually quite accurate over the full population, it is certainly best to use that.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 05:12:25 AM
 #2897

I'm talking about my own hash rate not the pool estimate. Isn't a share a fixed amount of work, or MHash calculations?  (That's a real question as I'm not sure.) I thought for each share I submit I do 2^32 hashs (or something like that) and given the server knows time between shares submitted, shouldn't it also know the exact hash rate I maintain? But it always reports varying rates different from what the miner reports.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 05:36:38 AM
 #2898

A share isn't a fixed amount of work.

There is a statistically expected number of shares in each work unit.

For calculation example just assume there is expected to be 1 share per 2G Hashes.
Thus if you find 2 shares in every 2G Hash work unit it would actually assume your hash rate is twice what it is.
Thus depending on how often your hash rate is calculated from your share acceptance, it is normally expected to vary.

In case it's not obvious, a block is just a share that has higher difficulty.

Comparison: There is currently expected to be one block per 7755544.3780275 G Hashes - however blocks don't appear exactly every 10 minutes, in fact one pair of blocks this morning (141,798 & 141,798) were 42 minutes apart - thus if you used the appearance of those 2 blocks (42 minutes) to estimate the total internet Hash rate over those 42 minutes, your estimate would most likely be about 1/4 of what it really was.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 06:16:21 AM
 #2899

Ok. I mistakenly thought a share was a fixed portion we did and only at the block level it was probabilistic.

Seems the BTC calculators project 0.334 BTC/day whereas I just got 0.289 in reality.
On BitClockers I had three days below 0.190/day. I siwtched here as I figured BTCGuild, finding blocks more quickly due to it's larger size, would smooth out the variance more and provide averages closer to the projected values.

If the shares are also statistical then I guess I should expect some days that are also above the 0.334 projection.
(value based on 600 MH/s).

PcChip
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 02:01:06 AM
 #2900

Oh god.  Now solidcoins.  What's next ??

All rates with Phoenix 1.50 / PhatK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5850 - 400 MH/s  |  5850 - 355 MH/s | 5830 - 310 MH/s  |  GTX570 - 115 MH/s | 5770 - 210 MH/s | 5770 - 200 MH/s
Pages: « 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 [145] 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!