Was that miner on US2 or US3? US2 was fine during that whole time, but US3 was having some issues... but as I said, it should not have reported a found block regardless.
Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 34. (Read 499709 times)
December 24, 2012, 10:27:54 PM
December 24, 2012, 04:26:18 PM
You might have to ask Con about how block reporting works, I'm not sure. I know there was some question recently about a similar subject (I think it was a max share issue) that reported erroneous difficulty levels or shares. There was a problem with US3 yesterday, but I can't imagine the problem would result in reporting erroneous blocks. Do you have any idea what time that took place?
I'll ask Con about the possibility of erroneous block reports, but I just have no idea what time it was. All I can say if somewhere between the time I took those screenshots and the start timer on those screens. that's 21 hours I believe. I've got logs, if that helps.
December 24, 2012, 03:40:07 PM
You might have to ask Con about how block reporting works, I'm not sure. I know there was some question recently about a similar subject (I think it was a max share issue) that reported erroneous difficulty levels or shares. There was a problem with US3 yesterday, but I can't imagine the problem would result in reporting erroneous blocks. Do you have any idea what time that took place?
I'll ask Con about the possibility of erroneous block reports, but I just have no idea what time it was. All I can say if somewhere between the time I took those screenshots and the start timer on those screens. that's 21 hours I believe. I've got logs, if that helps.
December 24, 2012, 03:37:56 PM
You might have to ask Con about how block reporting works, I'm not sure. I know there was some question recently about a similar subject (I think it was a max share issue) that reported erroneous difficulty levels or shares. There was a problem with US3 yesterday, but I can't imagine the problem would result in reporting erroneous blocks. Do you have any idea what time that took place?
I'll ask Con about the possibility of erroneous block reports, but I just have no idea what time it was. All I can say if somewhere between the time I took those screenshots and the start timer on those screens. that's 21 hours I believe. I've got logs, if that helps. December 24, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
You might have to ask Con about how block reporting works, I'm not sure. I know there was some question recently about a similar subject (I think it was a max share issue) that reported erroneous difficulty levels or shares. There was a problem with US3 yesterday, but I can't imagine the problem would result in reporting erroneous blocks. Do you have any idea what time that took place?
December 24, 2012, 06:04:00 AM
Hey Inaba! What's up with blocks not being counted as found? I found one block within the last 21h, and its just not on the EMC website. Here are the screenshots. I'm waiting for an "in-debt explanation" 
December 23, 2012, 04:58:35 PM
Yeah, everything's back up. I'm connected to us1.
December 23, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Got a ticket in for it now ... should be up in a few minutes. Once I get US1 moved, I will pull US2 and get the RAM replaced.
December 23, 2012, 04:45:30 PM
I'm not able to get work from US2. Thanks for your diligence for keeping this pool running well for quite some time, Inaba.
December 20, 2012, 03:34:35 PM
Yeah, US1 is redirected to US2. As long as you aren't pointing to the IP directly, it should be mining on US2 now with no problems.
December 20, 2012, 02:47:37 PM
I've had my miners on us1 for awhile. I just noticed that it said it was "Moving", even though my miners are still connected to something and shares are being submitted. Is us1 being forwarded to us2/us3, or should I manually point my miners to one of the two other servers?
December 17, 2012, 12:48:33 AM
Oh, sorry for the confusion then. I thought you were thinking that it's fine as it is, when you were just asking if anyone has objections to the change.
I'm very good at being misunderstood and misunderstanding others myself!
I'm very good at being misunderstood and misunderstanding others myself!
December 17, 2012, 12:39:49 AM
That's what I am asking. Does anyone see a need for having actual shares displayed vs diff1 shares? Currently it's actual shares and I will change it to diff1 shares assuming there are no objections.
December 16, 2012, 11:44:15 PM
Actual share are not important as it is not much useful to the user/miner.
I think what juhakall wants is a SUM of total shares submitted in diff 1 format
I think what juhakall wants is a SUM of total shares submitted in diff 1 format
That's right, I even tried to demonstrate it with my example, but I believe Inaba somehow still misunderstood what I'm asking. I agree that the terms we're using here are not very well defined, for example what does "actual shares" mean to different people? I thought terms like "total amount of work done" would make sense to a pool op.
At least this part should be unambiguous: "If I have submitted 1000 diff1 shares, 1000 diff2 shares and 1000 diff4 shares, it doesn't make much sense to tell me that I've submitted 3000 shares."
December 16, 2012, 11:41:14 PM
I don't have a problem with that... does anyone else reading this still want "actual" shares vs diff1 shares in that column? If so, why?
Actual share are not important as it is not much useful to the user/miner.
I think what juhakall wants is a SUM of total shares submitted in diff 1 format
December 16, 2012, 11:39:18 PM
I feel like you don't really understand what I'm saying. I want to see diff1 shares in that column, because that's the actual measure of work done. I thought you would understand that as a pool op. It's currently showing the raw number of shares, which is very uninformative when the difficulty of those shares is not known.
December 16, 2012, 11:27:27 PM
I don't have a problem with that... does anyone else reading this still want "actual" shares vs diff1 shares in that column? If so, why?
December 16, 2012, 11:19:05 PM
I mean the total amount of work that's actually used in reward calculations. If I have submitted 1000 diff1 shares, 1000 diff2 shares and 1000 diff4 shares, it doesn't make much sense to tell me that I've submitted 3000 shares. Total accepted difficulty in this case would be 1000+1000*2+1000*4=7000. Or 3000 shares times the average difficulty of 2.333, just in a more useful format.
December 16, 2012, 06:24:13 PM
Hmm... ok, so when you say accepted difficulty, what do you mean specifically? Like an aggregate or average? I'm certainly willing to change it.
December 16, 2012, 10:59:24 AM
Knowing the amount of shares I submitted during a round isn't useful, when the shares have dynamic difficulty. For example, some shares may have been submitted at diff 2, others at diff 4, especially if my hashrate isn't constant. Total accepted difficulty would be a more meaningful stat. You already calculate this in a similar way on the "Diff1 Shares (Actual)" column - I presume the number in parentheses is the number of shares accepted, while the bigger number represents total accepted difficulty.
Jump to: