[1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 262.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: DrHaribo on December 07, 2012, 03:15:27 AM

Pool having some issues. Working on it.

Everything up and running again. Sorry for the downtime. Sad

namecoind crashed as usual, but something more went wrong causing very high cpu usage. I'm looking into it (logs, heap dump) to make sure it won't happen again. The high cpu usage was also the reason that the website was unstable.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Pool having some issues. Working on it.

bigasic

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

this seems to always happen when the docs not around... SHit..

solari

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

Quote

Dead for me know too. Been acouple hours now.

+1

Dagger75

full member

Activity: 156

Merit: 100

Dead for me know too. Been acouple hours now.

loshia

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Quote from: LazyOtto on December 07, 2012, 12:39:08 AM

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 07, 2012, 12:32:58 AM

And now we are down. mining offline

Yep. Viva la backup pool.

Doc,
Pool is still dead for me..It happened an hour ago.When pool was dead I garbed latest cgminer 2.9.6 and something is wrong. From the other hand i see that some folks are mining...

juhakall

sr. member

Activity: 658

Merit: 250

Even though cgminer 2.9.7 indeed has very minimal rejects on BitMinter, should the vardiff code still be adjusted to avoid constantly changing difficulty? Have slightly different threshold levels for increasing/decreasing the difficulty, or use a longer time period for averaging shares per minute. I'm not sure if I correctly understood the information on cgminer's thread, but it seemed to indicate that changing difficulty has the potential for some lost work because of latency.

I see that my hashrate estimate has a lot more swings when mining on stratum. With higher difficulty shares, the averaging period should obviously be longer to get a meaningful estimate.

LazyOtto

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 07, 2012, 12:32:58 AM

And now we are down. mining offline

Yep. Viva la backup pool.

AfricanHunter

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

And now we are down. mining offline

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

The slightly higher rejects with stratum+cgminer on this pool should now be addressed in cgminer 2.9.7. If not, we need to examine why.

AfricanHunter

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 09:14:41 PM

Quote from: DrHaribo on December 06, 2012, 04:47:34 AM

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

The Approximate Mint speed in btc/day is still wrong for me. Do I need to download a newer version?

The fix is only in a beta version so far. One user has reported a performance drop, so this hasn't been released as a stable version yet. There are some changes to reduce CPU usage for FPGA mining, so I want to be sure I didn't break something.

Perhaps you can help test it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1378210

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

When do you anticipate being able to define other pools through the gui (as secondary or primary pools)?
When the different protocols (Stratum, GBT, etc) come online for prod, will you be able to choose in the gui as well as alter difficulty?
When do you anticipate these items being rolled out (if at all)?

Multi server and pool support will be coming. Most likely both GBT and Stratum too, which will be choosable in the GUI.

I may make it possible to alter difficulty, perhaps setting it on the website. Haven't decided on this yet.

I can't really say when things will be rolled out. As always, I will do my best to get the most important things out as quickly as possible.

Thanks and sure, will switch 1 bfl single to beta now.

Hasnt been running long but looks like from 70-95MH/s slower. CPU is the same as before, roughly 14%

Let me know if you need to know what worker I am on.

eta: added a 7970 and it performed as normal

Edit #2: I switched back to the prod version and speeds look ok within the Client UI but the Stats webpage shows my ghps at 0. I currently have 3 fpga singles running in geographically dispersed locations (all usa)

AfricanHunter

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Quote from: DrHaribo on December 06, 2012, 04:47:34 AM

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

The Approximate Mint speed in btc/day is still wrong for me. Do I need to download a newer version?

The fix is only in a beta version so far. One user has reported a performance drop, so this hasn't been released as a stable version yet. There are some changes to reduce CPU usage for FPGA mining, so I want to be sure I didn't break something.

Perhaps you can help test it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1378210

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

When do you anticipate being able to define other pools through the gui (as secondary or primary pools)?
When the different protocols (Stratum, GBT, etc) come online for prod, will you be able to choose in the gui as well as alter difficulty?
When do you anticipate these items being rolled out (if at all)?

Multi server and pool support will be coming. Most likely both GBT and Stratum too, which will be choosable in the GUI.

I may make it possible to alter difficulty, perhaps setting it on the website. Haven't decided on this yet.

I can't really say when things will be rolled out. As always, I will do my best to get the most important things out as quickly as possible.

Thanks and sure, will switch 1 bfl single to beta now.

lenny_

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

DARKNETMARKETS.COM

Short question: is var diff enabled on default port, for GetWork miners?

c4n10

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Receiving unusual error when trying to connect to BitMinter:

Code:

JSON stratum auth failed:

cgminer works fine at all the other pools I use it at though. Any ideas?

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

pool dropped out for a couple of minutes.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

The Approximate Mint speed in btc/day is still wrong for me. Do I need to download a newer version?

The fix is only in a beta version so far. One user has reported a performance drop, so this hasn't been released as a stable version yet. There are some changes to reduce CPU usage for FPGA mining, so I want to be sure I didn't break something.

Perhaps you can help test it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1378210

Quote from: AfricanHunter on December 06, 2012, 03:32:45 AM

When do you anticipate being able to define other pools through the gui (as secondary or primary pools)?
When the different protocols (Stratum, GBT, etc) come online for prod, will you be able to choose in the gui as well as alter difficulty?
When do you anticipate these items being rolled out (if at all)?

Multi server and pool support will be coming. Most likely both GBT and Stratum too, which will be choosable in the GUI.

I may make it possible to alter difficulty, perhaps setting it on the website. Haven't decided on this yet.

I can't really say when things will be rolled out. As always, I will do my best to get the most important things out as quickly as possible.

AfricanHunter

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

The Approximate Mint speed in btc/day is still wrong for me. Do I need to download a newer version?

Also;

When do you anticipate being able to define other pools through the gui (as secondary or primary pools)?
When the different protocols (Stratum, GBT, etc) come online for prod, will you be able to choose in the gui as well as alter difficulty?
When do you anticipate these items being rolled out (if at all)?

Thanks

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: kano on December 05, 2012, 03:35:24 PM

Actually, unless every pool that has been using LP since the beginning has been unable to support LP without sending out empty blocks, there is no excuse.

Faster long poll means less rejected work and fewer stale/orphan blocks, that's why.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: DrHaribo on December 05, 2012, 08:39:02 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on December 05, 2012, 07:01:57 AM

I was thinking, why aren't pool operators announcing LP is being retired and force ppl to upgrade? Even GBT is better than LP.

The protocol is getwork. Both GBT and getwork use long polling (LP) to detect block changes. With getwork the server has to generate work for the miners, while with GBT or Stratum the miners generate their own work. Long polling is much faster for getwork miners if you can generate the work beforehand, which is possible with empty blocks. With a few tricks like that, plus var diff and rollntime, getwork is still useable, even for ASICs. I'm not saying it's the best choice, though. Wink

Actually, unless every pool that has been using LP since the beginning has been unable to support LP without sending out empty blocks, there is no excuse.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: mdude77 on December 05, 2012, 07:01:57 AM

I was thinking, why aren't pool operators announcing LP is being retired and force ppl to upgrade? Even GBT is better than LP.

The protocol is getwork. Both GBT and getwork use long polling (LP) to detect block changes. With getwork the server has to generate work for the miners, while with GBT or Stratum the miners generate their own work. Long polling is much faster for getwork miners if you can generate the work beforehand, which is possible with empty blocks. With a few tricks like that, plus var diff and rollntime, getwork is still useable, even for ASICs. I'm not saying it's the best choice, though. Wink

Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 262. (Read 837122 times)