Topic: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com - page 91. (Read 554380 times)

Thanks for explaining the formula.  I read so many different meanings of "difficulty" that it's been difficult for me to figure out what difficulty is. I guess that's why its called difficulty. hahaha.  Once I reset cgminer which in turns reset the boards, everything got sorted out.  All 4 board's wu were in the 4.x range which is what it suppose to do based on the math, and the accepted shares were distributed nice and evenly.  And CM concurred by cranking up the hash rate chart with an avg of 10.2 in the past 7 hours.  I now have a better picture on what to look for.  Thanks again.  You've been a great help.

Same here.  I alternate between leasing my rigs and mining at Clever, so it's nice to be able to see that failover worked properly when I switch back.

They've also disappeared for me. If this is a UI update of some sort, I'd really like them back. They where very useful for diagnosing problems with my mining rig.

yep they vanished last night around 9pm EST for me

Regards

M

Ya, but why can't I see those graphs in the stats page?

I had a lot of rejects yesterday...

Anyone else missing the 10-minute graphs for hashrate and rejects from stats page?

cgminer's "A" is "difficulty 1 shares". In scrypt context a "diffculty 1" share has a probability of 1/65536 (2^16), i.e. on average one out of 65536 hashes will be a diff 1 share. Since we know the number of shares (A) and the probability of each share (1/65536) we can estimate how many hashes the miner calculated (A * 65536). Divided that by the number of seconds and you get hashes per second. The pool must be using something similar to calculate your hashrate, perhaps A+R instead of just A.

WU is directly related to that, I just don't remember the exact formula right now. If some of your boards had a much lower WU, then that's obviously an issue. You can calculate the estimated hashrate for each board separately using the same formula, and if it's been running long enough you can just eyeball the "A" for each board and see which ones are lagging. 10-20% could be normal variance, more than that is certainly suspicious.

I hope you'll get it sorted out.

Regarding T=361680. You're so right. 10hrs * 3600 = 360000 (oops should be 36000) + 28 mins * 60 = 1680. Total 37680 seconds. Geez the original 361680 gave me the magic number I was looking for that I did not even double check the math.  How coincidental is that? Furthermore, I did not even multiply A * 65536. What a brain fart on my part.  With the given correct number of seconds and using your formula A * 65536 / T, the new number is 3908096*65536/37680=6797265.909 or 6.8mhs.  You've got it.  Is that suppose to be an average of something?  Or is that how CM computes mhs at any given time?

My 2 blades run cool at the touch even around the voltage regulators.  I've got it clocked conservatively at 800mhz.  No usb errors ever in the system logs since I got them a little over a week ago.  And the first (and last) week on weminerltc, they ran at a steady 10-10.5mhs on their charts.

The 9th and 10th hour just came in at 5.41 and 5.24.  And the Last Hour Hashrate right now is 5.2mhs.  cgminer is still rocking at 10.8mhs.  I'm not sure what's going on.  Could you explain your formula a bit more?  Thanks much for the input.

Edit: I think I know what's going on.  Since the formula for the hash rate is based on accepted shares, all 4 of my blade boards had the proper hash rate, BUT 2 of them did not have the proper wu rates which led to improper accepted rates.  ahha.  I decided to reset the system and give it another whirl.  So far so good.  All 4 boards are logging expected numbers. Hopefully, the numbers will reconcile with CM's hash rate.  Thanks again for the road map and interesting conversation.

Let's go back to that formula. How did you get the T=361680? It doesn't add up to 10.5 hours for me. It should be ~37800 and with that I get

A * 65536 / T = 3908096 * 65536 / 37800 = 6775687 = ~6.8 MH/s

How is temperature around blades? Power supplies ok? Any USB errors in system logs?

Good points. I've been on the CM pool for the full 10hr.28min duration (no pool switches) and there was no downtime I could see (summary polled every 5 seconds).  The 24hr CM hash chart just came to life and it says I peaked out at 9.07 (which is close enough) during the 1st hour. The 2nd-5th hours dropped and peeked out at 7.6, and the final 3 hours are in the 5.1-5.8 range. The 9th-10th hours are not on the chart yet.  In my cgminer log, I've been a constant 10.8 throughout the 10.5 hour range.  I think it needs more time?

Not sure now, I was kind of expecting it to be closer to CM numbers :-)

Can you check if you mined at CM all the time, no backup pools involved?

What does your 24-hour hashrate chart show?

Thanks suchmoon for the response.  A=3908096/T=361680=10.8.  Yup. Right on the money; 10.8mhs exactly what cgminer is reporting.  What does anyone suggest to do next?  Give it more time?

Take your cgminer "A:" shares and do this:

A * 65536 / T

where T is the number of seconds cgminer was running ("Device Elapsed" from the API, or just use the number of hours times 3600)

Is that any closer to 10 MH/s?

I've been mining with clever for 12 hours now. My only concern is with my hash rate. I have 2 blades with cgminer running at 10.8mhs average for the last 12 hours (i run in verbose log mode with every 5 second hardware summaries, scrape the logs, and do the stats) with very few hardware errors and reject rates that are lower than the pool average.  According to my user stats, it says I've done only 5.3mhs in the past hour and 6.9mhs in the past 24 hours (I'm assuming it knows I've been on for only 12 hours).  From past mining experience and my own research, I'm pretty sure my blades are doing what cgminer says its doing.  So the big question is why are my reported hash rates so low (less than half)?  I searched the forum for "low hash rate" and it seems like everyone is instead concerned about high reject rates so if I'm repeating someone else's concern, I apologize and ask that you point me to the right reply.  Thanks in advance.

I only have scrypt ASICs pointed at this pool.

I have a small amount of GPU and CPU hash power pointed at other pools, mostly for experimental purposes.

Unfortunately so! Still - I will keep plugging away!

I don't know who owns the stash, haven't been following it that closely, just looked at the whole mess recently when they forked up my wallets.

There is a FAQ that reads like the usual sob story of a shitcoin:

http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#I_read_somone_who_wrote_that_50.25_of_the_coins_in_circulation_are_owned_by_the_devs

So they either need to come clean with this premine/instamine crap or at least stop acting like 3-year-olds in a sandbox, which is actually unfair to 3-year-olds most of whom are more mature than coindevs around here. But yeah, I still think nobody cares as long as the pumping is good .

Oh. Well, when CM was in beta, we had 0.015BTC/MHs/Day. Huge decline, i'd say.

CM Profitability was 0.00689 BTC / Mhs / Day on 21st April 2014 per their 'Last 30 Day Profitability' chart.