Topic: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com - page 224. (Read 554387 times)

With the settings used for the past few days, I've been below 5% which was way below the pool hash rate of 10%~. You are right, so I just expect to fall below the pools reject rate. If I find performance is worse ie over the pool hash rate, that indicates to me the settings have some affect and I'll go back to use them. As results proof to me they have an affect with this pool and so the stratum protocol in use is not following the standard based on Kalroths comments and my results.

Just read Kalroth's responses, interesting that he believes its the pool at fault since there is no more tweaking to be done on my end. Also reject rate does matter as its the accepted rate that is paid. So if I get a really large reject rate it will negatively affect my earnings.

I already have the tcp fix installed, I used this on Win7: http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13581-LeatrixLatencyFix.html

I just want to thank Terk for all his hard work. After trying CM over and over and seeing rejects go sky high, I'm finally running stable for a long while at <7% rejects and a very strong hash rate. Thanks again for your efforts!

I know a lot of people are very impatient waiting for EU and Asia servers. There were just too many things going on which made me to work on them instead of the new servers. I saw some market conditions and decided that we can take advantage. Today's profitability is the result of this and lots, really lots of manual trades which I've been doing in between fighting DDOS and optimizing servers. I didn't even have time to chat here or on IRC channel.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm here working almost 24/7 on what appears to have the biggest priority at any given moment. In the last 24 hours DDOS and manual trading opportunities were more important to deal with than launching new servers and so they got my attention. I'm back to working on new servers now.

hi, when will the asia sever go up?

hmm... it's a good start, I guess, although I'm curious to actual payouts instead of self-reported payouts at poolpicker, since "accepted hashrate" is an important variable between pools that should be part of the comparison.

It's most likely because your address isn't correct in the end. You might started mining with an incorrect address (e.x. one lowercase letter in place of uppercase) and later corrected it, but your username was created with wrong capitalization and the first/original username is the address which is tried for withdrawals.

PM me with your username and I will check.

A bunch of us have done that on this subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/multimining
I did wafflepool vs middlecoin for 5 days and wafflepool came out ahead.
Also there is this site: http://poolpicker.eu/ (he talks about how he gets those stats on his twitter https://twitter.com/Webbson_/ )
That website gets its data from the pool's reported stats, so you would have to trust the pools not to pad their stats.
I might split my GPUs up between clevermining and another pool, but several of these pools look the same when looked at on the long term, I'm not sure if it matters.

So yeah, ignore rejects, all that matters is how much Bitcoins get into your wallet over the long term.

I don't know the inner workings of Terks pool setup, it is likely be something entirely else. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes; multiple coin stratum servers with a proxy redirecting people to the right internal server, adjusting worker count based on coin difficulty, storing share results, importing exchange trades, etc. etc. I've got very little experience when it comes to the actual operation of a mining pool, so all I really can do is to make a bunch of assumptions and that won't help anyone.

All I do know is that Clevermining gives me a higher reject ratio than anywhere else and there isn't much that I can do about it on my side. But in the end it's the payouts that matter. :)

So the server (@Terk) need to tweak these settings ?

It's literally impossible to judge how these settings perform (or rather, whether or not they have any impact at all) by trying them on different days. The pool's reject rate varies heavily, right now the average is ~5%, but if we mine faster coins again or the pool's hashrate grows, we might get 10% or 15% tomorrow. And then you'll say "Kalroth is wrong, these settings suck"

For what it's worth, my Linux rig with 280Xs is currently sitting at a 3.15% reject rate - with all three settings at default.
My Windows rig with 290s is over double that, at ~8% in the same time span and from the same connection - also with all three settings at default.

On Wafflepool I saw around 0.5% on the 280X rig and ~1-2% on my Windows rig. On a regular non-switching mining pool those numbers are cut in half, nearly zero on the 280X rig and below 1% on my Windows rig. With the exact same settings that gives me 3-8% on this pool.

I'm not entirely certain why there is a difference between the two systems, but I suspect the issues may lie within the differences between both OS' TCP configuration. At least I know there's been issues with Windows and it's TCP implementation previously. There's also been several fixes* for online games previously, another genre that also requires a fast and stable internet connection. Note that this last paragraph is just a wild guess on my part - I'm merely curious and raising the question, I haven't done any leg work yet.

* http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/15500-Smart_fix_allows_you_to_drop_your_ping_by_150
* http://www.justanswer.com/computer/3du1a-rid-200ms-delay-tcp-ip-ack-windows.html

You are more knowledgeable than me. I've removed the settings and restarted the miner, after 18hrs using the settings I'm at 3.5% reject. Shall be interesting if I'm around 3.5% after 18hrs with the settings removed.

If not the server may not be compliant with the stratum protocol. Terk has stated it runs its own version of stratum, so I guess we will see (if the settings are required for his servers).

Proof will be in the pudding? I run sgminer 4.1 with the zuikkis kernel fwiw.

See this thread for a comparison of 5 switching pools
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/compare-pools-middlecoinclevermininghashcowswafflepoolhashbros-456564

People find the payouts better or worse than TradeMyBit?

We just got kalroth'd  
I figured out this pool will have high rejects and after 2 weeks i learned what is normal and honestly it hasnt affected my payouts so i can live with 8% rejects and yes my rig is optimize for my needs.

Yes, exactly - which is why I said there should be two identical rigs (I suppose I didn't specify "running simultaneously", although that was my intent)

Yes, the Kalroth just educated you guys

You're Kalroth???    Boy thanks for the advice! 

This is an important distinction.

--

Also there's a lot of poor and misguided advice on how the expiry, scan-time and queue settings actually influence the rejections you're experiencing.
A lot of these settings were made for HTTP communication and not the much more efficient stratum protocol*.

--expiry
This setting defines how long time it takes before a work share is declared stale.
It is not used on stratum servers, since stratum servers supply it with work shares.
Only exception is when the statrum server is broken, then the setting is used as a fallback value.

Recommendation: Leave at default setting. Server will supply a proper setting.

To verify above simply follow the opt_expiry variable in cgminer.c source file.

--scan-time
This setting defines how long time, in seconds, the client should spend scanning current active work.
Again a setting that is not used on stratum servers, since stratum servers supply it with work shares.
Only exception is when the setting is lower than the server supplied setting, then it'll potentially generate more stale work.

Recommendation: Leave at default setting, which is 30 seconds for scrypt.

To verify above simply follow the opt_scantime variable in cgminer.c source file.

--queue
This setting defines how many work items you minimum got waiting in queue.
It is only relevant to prevent downtime when the stratum server is too slow at serving new work shares.

Recommendation: Leave at default setting, which is 1.

To verify above simply follow the opt_queue variable in cgminer.c source file.

* Stratum mining protocol: http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stratum-mining and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-stratum-mining-protocol-asic-ready-108533

TL;DR try to get your rejects as low as possible for a given pool. Don't compare reject % from one pool to another pool.


Optimizing reject percentage makes sense in order to get the best results you can with your setup on a given pool. Do whatever you can to bring rejects down as low as you can FOR A GIVEN POOL.

Comparing your reject percentage from one pool to another pool (especially coin-switching pools) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As soon as you say something like, "my rejects at CM are much higher than my rejects at _____", then you are focusing on the wrong issue and there is never going to be a satisfactory answer.

The only thing that makes sense to compare from one pool to another pool (aside from support / aesthetic / personal stuff) is what is your profitability at pool X vs. pool Y with your rig optimized for each.

If your rejects are 50% at CM and 3% somewhere else, but you are still more profitable at CM even with the 50% rejects, then it's an error to 1. complain about the high rejects by comparing them to somewhere else, and 2. mine somewhere else merely because you think that it is bad to have high rejects.