Idle worker notification emails are working again 
2 more Version2 blocks found on Stratum while I slept
Good times
Sleep more! 2 more Version2 blocks found on Stratum while I slept
Good times
Topic: [0Th]Ozcoin Pooled Mining |DGM 1%|Stratum+VarDiff port 80|NEW CN mining| - page 76. (Read 398185 times)
November 08, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
November 08, 2012, 07:58:17 PM
Idle worker notification emails are working again
2 more Version2 blocks found on Stratum while I slept
Good times
2 more Version2 blocks found on Stratum while I slept
Good times
November 08, 2012, 12:08:51 PM
Why doesn't the unpaid PPS balance pay out along with your DGM balance when you get an automatic payout? I've got a little bit in my PPS balance, but not enough to trigger a payout.
they should both pay out when the combined amount is higher than your thresholdif that isn't happening we will need to investigate
November 08, 2012, 12:03:31 PM
Why doesn't the unpaid PPS balance pay out along with your DGM balance when you get an automatic payout? I've got a little bit in my PPS balance, but not enough to trigger a payout.
November 08, 2012, 09:30:04 AM
Any ideas about my config in CGMiner? Should I try to create a new worker? I also tried it like this:
{
"url" : "stratum.ozco.in:3333",
"user" : "UserName.MinerName",
"pass" : "MinerPassword"
},
{
"url" : "stratum.ozco.in:3333",
"user" : "UserName.MinerName",
"pass" : "MinerPassword"
},
does it work if you change only the one line from:
"url" : "http://stratum.ozco.in:3333",
to
"url" : "http://us.ozco.in:8332",
November 08, 2012, 09:21:44 AM
Thanks for the input Sam 
Great news!!!!!!!!!!
http://blockchain.info/tx/1302c9dd38f46b6798eb5f38d1a8bf5ea2bc404ce467ace6fc337547a6c76efd
CoinBase
03a92803062f503253482f04f37f9b5008f800002d0000033f102f6f7a636f696e2f73747261747 56d2f
(decoded) �(/P2SH/��P�-?/ozcoin/stratum/
1st block found on stratum server
steady 300GH on it currently
Great news!!!!!!!!!!
http://blockchain.info/tx/1302c9dd38f46b6798eb5f38d1a8bf5ea2bc404ce467ace6fc337547a6c76efd
CoinBase
03a92803062f503253482f04f37f9b5008f800002d0000033f102f6f7a636f696e2f73747261747 56d2f
(decoded) �(/P2SH/��P�-?/ozcoin/stratum/
1st block found on stratum server
steady 300GH on it currently
November 08, 2012, 08:03:11 AM
One thing I see possibly wrong about the shares output that was first posted, is that it was also against different blocks, and possibly across different time spans.
Yes they are different blocks, 8 in a row, 4 stratum and 4 getwork.
That being said, last night, there was also a hiccup in the server, where miners got disconnected unintentionally. That issue has been resolved. Today, about 20 min ago, we had to bounce the stratum server to implement a minor change.
Unless there was a hiccup on each of the four stratum blocks I doubt that was the cause.
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
Yes, I agree that would be the best test. But I only have the one rig with two different GPU's, so I can't do that. But I will run it again over the weekend while keeping an eagle eye on SS.
Again I'm just posting information while the testing is/was going on.
Thanks,
Sam
November 08, 2012, 07:51:54 AM
Well here are my results using stratum vs. getwork
These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332. My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873 2012-11-07 12:41:51 4,393 0.03354776
206808 2012-11-07 02:54:22 806 0.03152941
206800 2012-11-07 01:11:42 1,592 0.03447590
206778 2012-11-06 21:53:48 2,368 0.03428086
These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333. My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752 2012-11-06 17:35:01 757 0.02448683
206736 2012-11-06 15:03:56 1,054 0.02756680
206723 2012-11-06 12:44:48 946 0.02476589
206709 2012-11-06 08:56:48 3,747 0.02780425
I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam
These were on the standard getwork us.ozco.in:8332. My hash rate was 520Mhs U:7.5 WU:7.5
206873 2012-11-07 12:41:51 4,393 0.03354776
206808 2012-11-07 02:54:22 806 0.03152941
206800 2012-11-07 01:11:42 1,592 0.03447590
206778 2012-11-06 21:53:48 2,368 0.03428086
These were on Stratum stratum.ozco.in:3333. My hash rate was 523Mhs U:6.7 WU:7.3
206752 2012-11-06 17:35:01 757 0.02448683
206736 2012-11-06 15:03:56 1,054 0.02756680
206723 2012-11-06 12:44:48 946 0.02476589
206709 2012-11-06 08:56:48 3,747 0.02780425
I've gone back to us.ozco.in:8332 for now.
Thanks,
Sam
I've observed the same thing here. I had 2 miners pointing to stratum, one around 660mh (one 7970), one around 2gh (3x7970). The one 7970 is running up to par. But the 3x7970 is running subpar. All cards were running at 650 or less, and unit output is decreased. I generally get a unit work of 9.1/7970. The 3x7970 was running at 22, should be around 27. (I have another 3x7970 on p2pool, and it's at 26.)
So I've switched my 3x7970 back to LP on oz, for now I'm leaving my 1x7970 on stratum.
M
Unless you're getting lots of disconnects with stratum, and your SS: count has risen, then there is no way to blame this on stratum.
Nope no disconnects nor stales. I'm not blaming anything. I'm just posting the results of my payouts between stratum and getwork for 8 blocks in a row, four blocks each, and my payout was significantly lower on stratum.
I often regret putting utility in as a counter in cgminer because it is a measure of hashrate x luck and people often blame stretches of bad luck on whatever their last software change was.
I have received your admonishments several times now about how luck is involvled with the Utility counter , but it is an objective measure of how many shares you are submitting a minute, so I really like it. I always keep in mind that luck is involved with it.Now if it is an issue of lost shares due to disconnects, that's another story. The SS counter will tell you that.
Nope, didn't notice any disconnects nor stales. I may retest for a longer period of time over the weekend.
EDIT: It's also worth noting most people are noticing a universal rise in their hashrate, which makes sense given the lack of dropout in work between getworks that stratum exhibits. Hashrate being an objective figure unrelated to luck.
Yes, I did notice that hashrate was a bit higher and that is in my original post. But my payout was definitely lower.
Sam
November 08, 2012, 06:23:35 AM
Yeah, I thought I was doing it correctly and based on how I did it with the auto workers I was. The only thing I can think of is I used very long passwords in the name of security with custom workers. I have now pointed over 4GH towards stratum test server with US1 as backup...
-Wave
cool-Wave
the only thing anyone can do with your workername and worker password is mine for you, my worker passwords are literally p, if it wasn't for software requirements I wouldn't need passwords at all for workers
Hope stratum is good for you,
looks like ~300Ghash on stratum.ozco.in currently
Cheers
Graet
Oz broke the 1th barrier again! woohoo!!
M
November 08, 2012, 05:38:01 AM
Yeah, I thought I was doing it correctly and based on how I did it with the auto workers I was. The only thing I can think of is I used very long passwords in the name of security with custom workers. I have now pointed over 4GH towards stratum test server with US1 as backup...
-Wave
cool-Wave
the only thing anyone can do with your workername and worker password is mine for you, my worker passwords are literally p, if it wasn't for software requirements I wouldn't need passwords at all for workers
Hope stratum is good for you,
looks like ~300Ghash on stratum.ozco.in currently
Cheers
Graet
November 08, 2012, 02:02:32 AM
Yeah, I thought I was doing it correctly and based on how I did it with the auto workers I was. The only thing I can think of is I used very long passwords in the name of security with custom workers. I have now pointed over 4GH towards stratum test server with US1 as backup...
-Wave
-Wave
November 08, 2012, 01:12:11 AM
OK, created an auto worker, updated config miner name and password to match and boom, working now!
Would prefer to keep the same worker, but oh well!
-Wave
glad you got going Would prefer to keep the same worker, but oh well!
-Wave
strange you needed new worker, I have been bouncing around different old workers while testing the stratum servers
November 08, 2012, 01:11:03 AM
OK, created an auto worker, updated config miner name and password to match and boom, working now!
Would prefer to keep the same worker, but oh well!
-Wave
Would prefer to keep the same worker, but oh well!
-Wave
November 08, 2012, 01:05:11 AM
Thanks Graet, hopefully I can get it figured out.
Tried all the URL's and I have now tried a new worker. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know so I can move my hashes over to help test.
-Wave
Tried all the URL's and I have now tried a new worker. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know so I can move my hashes over to help test.
-Wave
November 08, 2012, 01:00:58 AM
you shouldn't need to create new worker
I use .bat files so not much help with the config
Good news
au.ozco.in:3333
is now open for your stratum hashing pleasure
eu stratum server coming soon
Then the coders will need a break to attend some IRL stuff before we get into completing var diff.
I use .bat files so not much help with the config
Good news
au.ozco.in:3333
is now open for your stratum hashing pleasure
eu stratum server coming soon
Then the coders will need a break to attend some IRL stuff before we get into completing var diff.
November 08, 2012, 12:15:55 AM
Any ideas about my config in CGMiner? Should I try to create a new worker? I also tried it like this:
{
"url" : "stratum.ozco.in:3333",
"user" : "UserName.MinerName",
"pass" : "MinerPassword"
},
{
"url" : "stratum.ozco.in:3333",
"user" : "UserName.MinerName",
"pass" : "MinerPassword"
},
November 07, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
thanks guys
vardiff is next to do after we bring au and eu stratum servers to production
vardiff is next to do after we bring au and eu stratum servers to production
November 07, 2012, 08:26:36 PM
...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
... ignoring statistical variation ...Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...
Mine converges within a few hours, never to change, unless I switch pools or something goes haywire.
So far it looks as if the folks here are right, stratum has nothing to do with it. My stratum rig has been running for a few hours and shows the proper output. Now if we can just get variable share difficulty we'll be all set for EOM.
M
November 07, 2012, 08:15:04 PM
...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
... ignoring statistical variation ...Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...
Mine converges within a few hours, never to change, unless I switch pools or something goes haywire.
So far it looks as if the folks here are right, stratum has nothing to do with it. My stratum rig has been running for a few hours and shows the proper output. Now if we can just get variable share difficulty we'll be all set for EOM.
M
November 07, 2012, 07:47:10 PM
...
Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
... ignoring statistical variation ...Suggestion for a true "share count" test:
Use 2 identical mining rigs, on 2 separate accounts.
Have one put on the getwork server (8332) and one on stratum (3333).
Let them run over time, and across a few blocks. That way, each block listed will show the proper amount of shares.
After that, then it should be a fairly clean test to see which is more efficient.
The number of share found is the source to calculate U
U converges towards it's expected value after a few days ...
Jump to: