[500 GH/s]HHTT -Selected Diff/Stratum/PPLNS/Paid Stales/High Availability/Tor - page 20.

spiccioli

legendary

Activity: 1379

Merit: 1003

nec sine labore

Quote from: fireduck on February 20, 2013, 09:58:20 AM

I have reason to believe it is exactly that. Seems to be working well.

Given the big numbers these things throw up for now, I'm thinking I should add a line to the payout logic which pays out if more than 1 BTC is owed rather than waiting 24 hours.

I'd say, find a way for a user to set a payout level

maybe 1address_difficulty_payoutLevel ?

spiccioli

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Quote from: spiccioli on February 20, 2013, 04:02:36 AM

There is a 66 GH user now... 66... maybe it is an Avalon unit

It is using difficulty 128, though, which is rather low for such a big hashing power.

spiccioli

I have reason to believe it is exactly that. Seems to be working well.

Given the big numbers these things throw up for now, I'm thinking I should add a line to the payout logic which pays out if more than 1 BTC is owed rather than waiting 24 hours.

spiccioli

legendary

Activity: 1379

Merit: 1003

nec sine labore

There is a 66 GH user now... 66... maybe it is an Avalon unit

It is using difficulty 128, though, which is rather low for such a big hashing power.

spiccioli

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Pool has been spotty for the last hour. I was upgrading the database schema again.

Now SockThing (the stratum pool software) saves share data into AWS Simple Notification Service which in turns queues them in Simple Queue Service. This way the share data can build up in SQS in the event of a database outage or slow down.

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Quote from: fireduck on February 19, 2013, 09:10:24 AM

So a share is considered "quite stale" if it is from a job at least two blocks behind. This should make it very rare unless you miner is ignoring the clear=true of the new jobs. I very much doubt that is happening.

I have code in to call shares from recent jobs "slightly stale" and still pay on them but I've never seen that happen so I'm guessing I have a bug in that code.

Found the bug, I had some logic inverted:

https://github.com/fireduck64/SockThing/commit/acc07a8ef3d407c45afd9570807516aac6a896ed

Stales should now show up as "slightly stale" and be paid correctly.

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

So a share is considered "quite stale" if it is from a job at least two blocks behind. This should make it very rare unless you miner is ignoring the clear=true of the new jobs. I very much doubt that is happening.

I have code in to call shares from recent jobs "slightly stale" and still pay on them but I've never seen that happen so I'm guessing I have a bug in that code.

techwtf

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lem on February 19, 2013, 06:09:26 AM

Aren't stale share paid anymore on stratum?

stratum protocol does not support resuming (when the connection is lost) unless pool and miner both support the experimental mining.resume extension, so your 2 shares are lost... Sad

Lem

newbie

Activity: 78

Merit: 0

Aren't stale share paid anymore on stratum?

I have two issues. First:

Code:

2013-02-19 02:37:18	N		quite stale	999	0.00000000

My cgminer says:

Code:

[2013-02-19 03:36:20] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
 [2013-02-19 03:36:20] Rejected 0028e704 Diff 1.6K/999 GPU 0 pool 0

Second:

Code:

2013-02-19 03:58:39	N		quite stale	999	0.00000000	
2013-02-19 03:58:35	N		quite stale	999	0.00000000

This time the situation is a bit different, with a possible stratum pool problem too. My cgminer says:

Code:

[2013-02-19 04:57:26] Switching to http://rpc.hhtt.1209k.com:3333
 [2013-02-19 04:57:40] JSON stratum auth failed: (null)
 [2013-02-19 04:57:40] Pool 0 http://rpc.hhtt.1209k.com:3333 not responding!
 [2013-02-19 04:57:40] Switching to http://pit.deepbit.net:8332
 [2013-02-19 04:58:51] Accepted c54857d1 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:58:54] Accepted 1485902d Diff 12/1 GPU 1 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:58:54] Accepted 49c168d7 Diff 3/1 GPU 1 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:58:57] Accepted 5f504435 Diff 2/1 GPU 0 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:59:04] Accepted e71eac09 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:59:06] Accepted 99bc9666 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 pool 2 
 [2013-02-19 04:59:11] Pool 0 http://rpc.hhtt.1209k.com:3333 alive
 [2013-02-19 04:59:11] Switching to http://rpc.hhtt.1209k.com:3333
 [2013-02-19 04:59:27] [b]Lost 2 shares due to stratum disconnect on pool 0[/b]

Thanks.

Lem

newbie

Activity: 78

Merit: 0

Quote from: nibor on February 18, 2013, 03:48:46 PM

All working fine on stratum to me.

Me too.

nibor

sr. member

Activity: 438

Merit: 291

All working fine on stratum to me.
Crashed when you switched over but fine since then.
Below are stats for BFL single with 128 diff shares since 15th Feb when it crashed.

Pool: http://rpc.hhtt.1209k.com:8337
Has own long-poll support
Queued work requests: 9925
Share submissions: 499
Accepted shares: 498
Rejected shares: 1
Accepted difficulty shares: 63744
Rejected difficulty shares: 128
Reject ratio: 0.2%
Efficiency (accepted / queued): 5%
Discarded work due to new blocks: 19817
Stale submissions discarded due to new blocks: 1
Unable to get work from server occasions: 9
Submitting work remotely delay occasions: 1

Only issue is all the old stats before 30th Jan have gone. Not that I really care that much!

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

As a cool new feature to give a little bonus to miners:

For any blocks found using the stratum protocol with HHTT, half of the transaction fees will be sent to the miner in the block coinbase transaction. This bonus goes to the miner who actually found the block.

ShadesOfMarble

donator

Activity: 543

Merit: 500

Switched back.

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Quote from: ShadesOfMarble on February 15, 2013, 07:36:05 AM

Quote from: fireduck on February 14, 2013, 09:32:12 PM

Yes, that is why they were rejected. They should start with zeros and if they don't have enough zeros they are rejected as something your client should never have submitted. Now, this shouldn't happen. For this to happen there needs to be some misunderstanding between the client and the server about what data you should be hashing. I'm not sure what caused that.

Anything I can do to help you debugging? I'm back on getwork for now, but can switch to stratum again if it helps.

That, it would be great to have you on stratum. I'd like to see if it reoccurs. If it is what I suspect it might have been it should be fixed now.

ShadesOfMarble

donator

Activity: 543

Merit: 500

Quote from: fireduck on February 14, 2013, 09:32:12 PM

Yes, that is why they were rejected. They should start with zeros and if they don't have enough zeros they are rejected as something your client should never have submitted. Now, this shouldn't happen. For this to happen there needs to be some misunderstanding between the client and the server about what data you should be hashing. I'm not sure what caused that.

Anything I can do to help you debugging? I'm back on getwork for now, but can switch to stratum again if it helps.

Lem

newbie

Activity: 78

Merit: 0

Quote from: eleuthria on February 15, 2013, 06:45:17 AM

Don't feel too bad. Your winning hash wouldn't have been valid anywhere but that pool.

Of course.

Quote

If you had been solo, you may not have found a single block yet

.

Almost sure I wouldn't. Luck is blind, but misfortune sees so well... which is just another way to spell the notorious Murphy's law: If something can go wrong, it will. Wink

))

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Lem on February 15, 2013, 06:33:03 AM

Damn, block!

This is my second block on HHTT, which is my favourite backup pool from hopping. I'm minimg with two 7970, one of which is now on half-service. Usually 1,35GH/s, now 1.05GH/s.

In less than 10 month of mining (with a pause since middle of december to late January, during which I've just been hopping and chilling out), I've found a total of five blocks (I know of five, at least). Two with deepbit, two with HHTT, one with slush. It would have been 225BTC on solo mining. Moreover, and much to my dismay, at current prices it would have been about 4500€, versus about 1400€ I've made so far with pool mining. Damn! Sad

Don't feel too bad. Your winning hash wouldn't have been valid anywhere but that pool. If you had been solo, you may not have found a single block yet

.

Lem

newbie

Activity: 78

Merit: 0

Damn, block!

This is my second block on HHTT, which is my favourite backup pool from hopping. I'm minimg with two 7970, one of which is now on half-service. Usually 1,35GH/s, now 1.05GH/s.

In less than 10 month of mining (with a pause since middle of december to late January, during which I've just been hopping and chilling out), I've found a total of five blocks (I know of five, at least). Two with deepbit, two with HHTT, one with slush. It would have been 225BTC on solo mining. Moreover, and much to my dismay, at current prices it would have been about 4500€, versus about 1400€ I've made so far with pool mining. Damn! Sad

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

In case anyone was paying attention, HHTT just had a 30 minute outage as a database table change took longer than I thought it would.

I'm going to change the stratum server to save shares via SQS rather than a database so that the pool can stay up for an outage like this. In that case, it would just delay processing and payments for shares but not block solving and all the shares would eventually be counted correctly.

Sorry for the trouble.

fireduck

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 251

Quote from: ShadesOfMarble on February 14, 2013, 11:15:16 AM

Quote from: fireduck on February 14, 2013, 09:01:47 AM

Is it possible that your client is reconnecting and trying to submit shares for jobs it learned about on a previous connection?

I'm using latest cgminer. If cgminer does that, then: yes.

But the hashes actually look very strange, don't they? Shouldn't the first 4 bytes always be zero?

Yes, that is why they were rejected. They should start with zeros and if they don't have enough zeros they are rejected as something your client should never have submitted. Now, this shouldn't happen. For this to happen there needs to be some misunderstanding between the client and the server about what data you should be hashing. I'm not sure what caused that.

ShadesOfMarble

donator

Activity: 543

Merit: 500

Quote from: fireduck on February 14, 2013, 09:01:47 AM

Is it possible that your client is reconnecting and trying to submit shares for jobs it learned about on a previous connection?

I'm using latest cgminer. If cgminer does that, then: yes.

But the hashes actually look very strange, don't they? Shouldn't the first 4 bytes always be zero?

Topic: [500 GH/s]HHTT -Selected Diff/Stratum/PPLNS/Paid Stales/High Availability/Tor - page 20. (Read 56565 times)