Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 324. (Read 837101 times)
February 09, 2012, 05:04:29 PM
my stales for btc have been running .07% and honestly ive only seen one or two on nmc
February 09, 2012, 04:54:41 PM
Thanks for the hard work, Doc.
Glad you like it
For my bitcoin username, my BTC reject rate is about 0.4% but it's 5.5% for NMC. I have 2 x 5830's a 5850 and a 6950, all running about the max overclock i could get. You know of any reason my NMC reject rate is so much higher than my BTC reject rate and the pool reject rate? Are my overclocks not as stable as I think they are, lol?
Reject rates now seem very different from user to user. Currently I have 12 (0.02%) rejects from 36 hours of mining. That's on BTC. On NMC I have 1 reject (0.01%).
High rejects could be not only stales but also invalid shares due to overclocking too high. The BitMinter client will show a count of miscalculated proofs of work (next to the bomb icon), and not send them to the server. I believe DiabloMiner also detects miscalculations. What happens is the CPU double-checking the proofs of work generated by the GPU. Not sure about other miners. Some miners might send them to the server which would result in rejects.
The NMC rejects always or often being higher than BTC rejects might be the miner ignoring long poll notifications because it sees the bitcoin block isn't changing to using a new parent block hash. BitMinter client won't do this, and I believe new versions of cgminer won't do it either. Or do you need to use an option for it to work well with merged mining?
Hmm, can't think of any other reasons for high stales at the moment.
February 09, 2012, 04:45:50 PM
holy s***
February 09, 2012, 04:36:21 PM
looks like fox has unleashed something f*****G awesome!
February 09, 2012, 04:17:37 PM
For my bitcoin username, my BTC reject rate is about 0.4% but it's 5.5% for NMC. I have 2 x 5830's a 5850 and a 6950, all running about the max overclock i could get. You know of any reason my NMC reject rate is so much higher than my BTC reject rate and the pool reject rate? Are my overclocks not as stable as I think they are, lol?
February 09, 2012, 12:33:29 AM
Personal best record I think. 1 4970, 2 5870's
Very nice :-)
You're hanging with my 5970 and XFire Mobility Radeon 5870s, which are presently doing a total of 1007 MH/s. Sadly, two Mobility 5870s go about as fast as a single desktop version 5870.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 08, 2012, 08:29:51 PM
Personal best record I think. 1 4970, 2 5870's
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 07, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
bossland has returned 
February 07, 2012, 04:03:19 AM
Wow, 0.08% stales... I think I'm in love.
Thanks for the hard work, Doc.
Thanks for the hard work, Doc.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 07, 2012, 12:31:57 AM
bah. we'll git'r done without him then.
February 07, 2012, 12:29:01 AM
February 07, 2012, 12:28:34 AM
I want to have my avatar on the forums display my speed I am pushing through bitminter but when I copy and paste the code I get a blank box.
Never mind I figured it out just a dumb moment. February 07, 2012, 12:04:13 AM
I want to have my avatar on the forums display my speed I am pushing through bitminter but when I copy and paste the code I get a blank box.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 06, 2012, 06:28:41 PM
where did bossland go? 
February 05, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
Thanks for all those votes of confidence earlier.
New version of pool backend up today. Big performance improvements. GPUmax took the server to 220 GH/s total and I could barely see any load.
Last problem to fix for the pool to work better with GPUmax is to get better in sync with the big pools. GPUmax uses their long polling regardless of which pool they are mining at (it doesn't watch our long poll at all). This has to do with how work from different pools gets sent through GPUmax to the same miner, and a long poll signal from them to that miner would cause it to throw away all the work, regardless of which pool it is from.
Anyway, that's a GPUmax specific problem. For normal miners we can now take a very high hash rate. So fire up every machine you've got!
As always with big changes on the system, please let me know if you notice anything wrong.
New version of pool backend up today. Big performance improvements. GPUmax took the server to 220 GH/s total and I could barely see any load.
Last problem to fix for the pool to work better with GPUmax is to get better in sync with the big pools. GPUmax uses their long polling regardless of which pool they are mining at (it doesn't watch our long poll at all). This has to do with how work from different pools gets sent through GPUmax to the same miner, and a long poll signal from them to that miner would cause it to throw away all the work, regardless of which pool it is from.
Anyway, that's a GPUmax specific problem. For normal miners we can now take a very high hash rate. So fire up every machine you've got!
As always with big changes on the system, please let me know if you notice anything wrong.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 04, 2012, 09:54:13 PM
Doctor Haribo, Curing the bugs that ail you, one line at a time 
February 04, 2012, 09:37:07 PM
Ztex software has long polling. I have now 0.14% stale rate with 1k2 GH FPGA power. Looks like Doc killed the bugs 
February 04, 2012, 09:25:40 PM
I'm not sure what's causing some workers to get high stales still. I'm working on some ideas to lower stales further though.
Could it be due to FPGA workers?
I am running 1.1gh at about 1-2% stales on fpga. This stale rate is mainly due to no miner software support yet for LP.
On the up side I am doing it for 47w power usage
February 04, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
Hmm yes, the results are a bit unexpected.
Currently I have 2 (0.08%) rejected and 2,431 accepted in the block rounds. And I have 0 rejected and 545 accepted in the current shift.
I'm not sure what's causing some workers to get high stales still. I'm working on some ideas to lower stales further though.
Anyone who is running BitMinter client and haven't restarted it since we switched server, please try shutting it down and starting it back up. Then it will connect directly to the server in Germany, instead of going to the US and then through a tunnel to Germany. This could improve stales somewhat.
Currently I have 2 (0.08%) rejected and 2,431 accepted in the block rounds. And I have 0 rejected and 545 accepted in the current shift.
I'm not sure what's causing some workers to get high stales still. I'm working on some ideas to lower stales further though.
Anyone who is running BitMinter client and haven't restarted it since we switched server, please try shutting it down and starting it back up. Then it will connect directly to the server in Germany, instead of going to the US and then through a tunnel to Germany. This could improve stales somewhat.
Looks like some local network issues were part of the high stales. Now i'm at 0.35%. I hope it will continue to fall.
February 04, 2012, 04:58:08 PM
Would you say that minimizing the client accomplishes the same thing speed-wise as switching it to Performance Mode? The reason I ask is because I'm wondering whether adding a check box under Options for "Start in Performance Mode" would essentially be a duplicate of "Start Minimized".
If there is a difference, would the option to start in performance mode be a good addition to the client?
If there is a difference, would the option to start in performance mode be a good addition to the client?
It's basically the same performance-wise, because both reduce the amount of screen updates so your GPU can mine instead. If you have 4-5 gauges being updated on the screen you can see some slowdown.
I think starting in performance mode can still be useful though. I'll add it to my list.
Jump to: