Thank-you, waldohoover
That reply actually led me to the error in my settings. Though it didn't completely resolve the issue I was looking for resolve on. It did fix half of the issue.
The point of an equal split, is to have an equal share at any found block, instead of a majority in one pool, thus, still leading to potentially less, based on luck of the hunt.
It is like playing cards, 12 hands, and you are also the dealer. Instead of playing one hand, and the other guys always win. Now to setup all my machines like this. All servers can't be down all the time, but one being down will no longer set me back in my earnings.
Topic: log-in to multiple pools... CGminer (Read 2401 times)
I got it working, sort-of...
It does log-in to both pools now... It is running shares on both pools, but one "the more efficient one", is running about 80% of the thread-work.
I just watched the pool stall, and the other pool got all 100% of my work, for a few minutes. Until the other pool came back online. (It was not doing this before. It was treating the setup as "fallover", I guess.)
I just wish I could manually set the "load", or have load-options, so it continues to maintain a "full distributed load", when available. As it is now, it decides, somehow, that one pool is more efficient, and gives that pool the majority of the work. (Share-size seems to impact that. One server has fixed-share-difficulty of 1, the other I set to 4, so it had less network traffic. That one that was at 4 was the inefficient one. I simply reduced the share-value of that pool back to 1. It is like trying to twist my other pools arm, to convince them to let us set share-size.)
NOTE, I just had to put "--load-balance" prior to the logins, in my bat file. Before it was in the config file as "load_balance" : "true"... didn't seem to work for me. (CgMiner 3.1.0beta)
It does log-in to both pools now... It is running shares on both pools, but one "the more efficient one", is running about 80% of the thread-work.
I just watched the pool stall, and the other pool got all 100% of my work, for a few minutes. Until the other pool came back online. (It was not doing this before. It was treating the setup as "fallover", I guess.)
I just wish I could manually set the "load", or have load-options, so it continues to maintain a "full distributed load", when available. As it is now, it decides, somehow, that one pool is more efficient, and gives that pool the majority of the work. (Share-size seems to impact that. One server has fixed-share-difficulty of 1, the other I set to 4, so it had less network traffic. That one that was at 4 was the inefficient one. I simply reduced the share-value of that pool back to 1. It is like trying to twist my other pools arm, to convince them to let us set share-size.)
NOTE, I just had to put "--load-balance" prior to the logins, in my bat file. Before it was in the config file as "load_balance" : "true"... didn't seem to work for me. (CgMiner 3.1.0beta)
Quote
You can't balance load- only cards.
i.e. You have 2 GPUs, you just run 2 seperate CGminers and disable one card on each.
i.e. You have 2 GPUs, you just run 2 seperate CGminers and disable one card on each.
But that makes it worse... (That is like just placing one machine on one pool, and another on the other pool.) If pool A is dead, that is 1 card/machine/rig not doing anything until the pool comes back online, or it has to hop... thus. loosing out. (That is what it is doing now.) lol
Which is why I want the other card to be used for the alive pool, until that other pool comes back online. Thus, the other pool just shows more shares of work, from having more processing being done.
So then I am correct, that CGMiner does not actually "load-balance" anything, with the load-balance setting?
Then should I should make this a formal request?
I know the program has the ability to switch pools, but I am trying to log-in to multiple pools at the same time.
EG...
Pool A, logged in, doing 50% work
Pool B, logged in, doing 50% work...
So that in the event pool A stops responding, the program will do this...
Pool A, dead, doing 0%
Pool B, logged in, doing 100%
Until the pools is restored, then it would return to a split-load... (Or whatever proportion I have set for that pool.)
(As opposed to using a separate machine on each pool, which has to constantly pool-hop... thus, loosing out of actual earnings.)
Because having a foot in every pool, keeps you closer to 100% luck. (Well, about 80%, because 20% of the pools will not let you in.)
I thought this was how load-balance worked, but I am not seeing it do that. It is still only picking one pool in my setup. Am I doing it wrong?
EG...
Pool A, logged in, doing 50% work
Pool B, logged in, doing 50% work...
So that in the event pool A stops responding, the program will do this...
Pool A, dead, doing 0%
Pool B, logged in, doing 100%
Until the pools is restored, then it would return to a split-load... (Or whatever proportion I have set for that pool.)
(As opposed to using a separate machine on each pool, which has to constantly pool-hop... thus, loosing out of actual earnings.)
Because having a foot in every pool, keeps you closer to 100% luck. (Well, about 80%, because 20% of the pools will not let you in.)
I thought this was how load-balance worked, but I am not seeing it do that. It is still only picking one pool in my setup. Am I doing it wrong?
Jump to: