Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 150. (Read 458370 times)
May 23, 2012, 01:23:28 PM
We must be having a really bad luck. I didn't earn anything for the last 16 hours.
May 23, 2012, 03:39:17 AM
Could someone clarify what this maximum reward means? Looks like I didn't get any reward in last night?
As far as I understand, this means that pool is out of luck. We mined less blocks than on average we would expect. (Recently there were two over 10h waits for a block.) The reward is credited at fixed payout per share, so we will have to wait till fortune turns around. When (and if) pool will mine more blocks than expected it will catch up. Since Eligius does pay 100% of mained bitcoins there is no "insurance" like in some pools that pay only 98%.
May 23, 2012, 01:50:18 AM
Could someone clarify what this maximum reward means? Looks like I didn't get any reward in last night?
May 22, 2012, 07:41:55 AM
A newbe question (but I have looked through Eligius FAQ): my unpaid reward went down by a lot, like by 90% of the amount due. I was about to hit payout treshold and now it reports 2mBTC. This could not be a result of orphaned block, rather an orphaned branch of all 10 blocks mined in last two days by Eligius. Some of these blocks are reported already as confirmed (over 120 blocks have been mined after them, but this count includes blocks mined by everyone).
The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here?
)
Probably you were paid. If it doesn't show, restart your client (there's a known rare bug where it doesn't show some transactions until restart). In doubt, check your address in Block Explorer or BlockChain.info.The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here?
)Thanks for explanation, you are verry correct. I was under impression that the payout queue is like 7 blocks long. Hence, I thought that I should wait for at least 7 blocks to be mined by Eligius before I get to the front of the payout queue. I did not expect payout to be so quick after hitting the treshold. Thanks again.
PS. Before posting I checked payout queue and I had not been listed there.
May 22, 2012, 07:27:58 AM
estimates stop increasing ...
May 22, 2012, 01:07:22 AM
A newbe question (but I have looked through Eligius FAQ): my unpaid reward went down by a lot, like by 90% of the amount due. I was about to hit payout treshold and now it reports 2mBTC. This could not be a result of orphaned block, rather an orphaned branch of all 10 blocks mined in last two days by Eligius. Some of these blocks are reported already as confirmed (over 120 blocks have been mined after them, but this count includes blocks mined by everyone).
The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here? )
Probably you were paid. If it doesn't show, restart your client (there's a known rare bug where it doesn't show some transactions until restart). In doubt, check your address in Block Explorer or BlockChain.info.The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here?
)Thanks for explanation, you are verry correct. I was under impression that the payout queue is like 7 blocks long. Hence, I thought that I should wait for at least 7 blocks to be mined by Eligius before I get to the front of the payout queue. I did not expect payout to be so quick after hitting the treshold. Thanks again.
PS. Before posting I checked payout queue and I had not been listed there.
May 22, 2012, 12:54:10 AM
A newbe question (but I have looked through Eligius FAQ): my unpaid reward went down by a lot, like by 90% of the amount due. I was about to hit payout treshold and now it reports 2mBTC. This could not be a result of orphaned block, rather an orphaned branch of all 10 blocks mined in last two days by Eligius. Some of these blocks are reported already as confirmed (over 120 blocks have been mined after them, but this count includes blocks mined by everyone).
The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here? )
Probably you were paid. If it doesn't show, restart your client (there's a known rare bug where it doesn't show some transactions until restart). In doubt, check your address in Block Explorer or BlockChain.info. The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here?
) May 22, 2012, 12:24:00 AM
A newbe question (but I have looked through Eligius FAQ): my unpaid reward went down by a lot, like by 90% of the amount due. I was about to hit payout treshold and now it reports 2mBTC. This could not be a result of orphaned block, rather an orphaned branch of all 10 blocks mined in last two days by Eligius. Some of these blocks are reported already as confirmed (over 120 blocks have been mined after them, but this count includes blocks mined by everyone).
The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here? )
The graph still shows that I have an unpaid reward of ~0.66 BTC. But I know that graphs have significant lag.
Could someone point me toward source of enlightment? (What the **** is going here?
) May 13, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
Any ideas why I'm getting 3-5% reject rates when mining through GPUMAX? Currently I have 17k accepted shares and 600 rejected. I haven't tried connecting directly, if that's required I'll have to use another pool. When I mined on ABCPool & Mt. Red through GPUMAX, my rejects were well below 1%.
May 11, 2012, 12:12:31 PM
So username is my wallet?
Right.I'm considering mining on this pool with cgminer, seems like the website is down so I'll try later.
Sounds like you have network issues 
May 11, 2012, 11:56:01 AM
So username is my wallet?
I'm considering mining on this pool with cgminer, seems like the website is down so I'll try later.
It's up for me... I'm considering mining on this pool with cgminer, seems like the website is down so I'll try later.
May 11, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
So username is my wallet?
I'm considering mining on this pool with cgminer, seems like the website is down so I'll try later.
I'm considering mining on this pool with cgminer, seems like the website is down so I'll try later.
May 11, 2012, 10:48:49 AM
On further thought, duplicates might also indicate network issues making cgminer think the first submission failed. It's possible these same network issues could add some unknown amount of latency to other submissions, making them stale. I wonder if the difference is IPv6 vs IPv4? Could you try mining on ipv4.mining.eligius.st, and report how that does? Another thing we could test is DNS timing: try ttltest.eligius.info and ttltest.eligi.us to check that.
May 11, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I get the duplicates only with Eligius.
Duplicates are a miner bug, so I'm going to have to guess that's a problem with your GPU(s) and/or cgminer's OpenCL driver.That conclusion does not compute.
May 11, 2012, 08:43:50 AM
@Luke-Jr
I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Looks like you're doing some kind of weird hopping. That might be related (in the sense that you may be spending more time mining Eligius when stales are more likely). You've also got a lot of duplicate shares. That's a bug in your miner software or FPGAs.I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Made some further tests:
cgminer version: 2.4.1.
1 cgminer for GPU
1 cgminer for ZTEX
Pools tested: Eligius, ABCPool, pool.itzod.ru (small SMPPS pool).
Eligius: (pointed only the GPU cluster, no weird hopping!) 3 hour average: 7170 shares valid, 4 duplicates, 234 stales = 3.21% invalid shares.
ABCPool: (GPU and ZTEX cluster): 0.19% invalid shares
itzod.ru: (GPU and ZTEX cluster): 0.58% invalid shares
I get the duplicates only with Eligius. I experience around 2.5% invalid shares using Eligius, although I point only the GPU cluster.
Conclusion: it's better to mine on another pool for me. Eliguis is now a backup backup pool. Will check every while if things get better on Eligius.
As for the high stales, could you try pinging each of the 3 servers? There's another guy who also gets high stales with the same pings as me, so there's probably something going on, but I haven't been able to figure out what or why it only affects some miners (I consistently get well under 1% stale myself). If anyone with this issue persistent is willing to provide Linux SSH access to me for debugging for a few days (I can keep it mining on your address), I'd be interested in investigating it further...
May 11, 2012, 02:29:14 AM
@Luke-Jr
I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Looks like you're doing some kind of weird hopping. That might be related (in the sense that you may be spending more time mining Eligius when stales are more likely). You've also got a lot of duplicate shares. That's a bug in your miner software or FPGAs.I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Made some further tests:
cgminer version: 2.4.1.
1 cgminer for GPU
1 cgminer for ZTEX
Pools tested: Eligius, ABCPool, pool.itzod.ru (small SMPPS pool).
Eligius: (pointed only the GPU cluster, no weird hopping!) 3 hour average: 7170 shares valid, 4 duplicates, 234 stales = 3.21% invalid shares.
ABCPool: (GPU and ZTEX cluster): 0.19% invalid shares
itzod.ru: (GPU and ZTEX cluster): 0.58% invalid shares
I get the duplicates only with Eligius. I experience around 2.5% invalid shares using Eligius, although I point only the GPU cluster.
Conclusion: it's better to mine on another pool for me. Eliguis is now a backup backup pool. Will check every while if things get better on Eligius.
May 09, 2012, 10:30:57 PM
Eloipool locked up while I was AFK and nobody bothered to call - I guess with continuous uptime for 2 months we all just assumed it was stable 
What happened in detail was, epoll returned that a socket was writable, but then actually trying to write to it blocked. This was a (miner-side) getmemorypool request, so I'm guessing maybe Python blocks until all the data is written, rather than just trying a single send(). To fix it, I set all the connection sockets to non-blocking, so they should never block under any circumstances.
While I was in that code, I also added an attempt to write immediately when Eloipool decides to send data (rather than waiting to check if the socket is readable). There's a chance this may improve longpoll response times slightly.
What happened in detail was, epoll returned that a socket was writable, but then actually trying to write to it blocked. This was a (miner-side) getmemorypool request, so I'm guessing maybe Python blocks until all the data is written, rather than just trying a single send(). To fix it, I set all the connection sockets to non-blocking, so they should never block under any circumstances.
While I was in that code, I also added an attempt to write immediately when Eloipool decides to send data (rather than waiting to check if the socket is readable). There's a chance this may improve longpoll response times slightly.
My stales were slightly higher after the patch (0.6~ - 1.41~) though. I'm not sure if it's related to this but it occurred after the patch.
P.S.: The stales are back to normal (0.6~) lately.
May 09, 2012, 12:37:43 PM
@Luke-Jr
I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Looks like you're doing some kind of weird hopping. That might be related (in the sense that you may be spending more time mining Eligius when stales are more likely). You've also got a lot of duplicate shares. That's a bug in your miner software or FPGAs. I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
May 09, 2012, 11:30:35 AM
@Luke-Jr
I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
What address?I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Send you a pm.
May 09, 2012, 07:27:20 AM
@Luke-Jr
I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
What address? I see very high reject-rates with my ztex board on your pool.
Ztex-Quad (BTCMiner or cgminer): 4.53%
GPU (cgminer): 1.8%
To compare:
Deepbit:
Ztex-Quad: 0.18%
GPU: 0.21%
ABCPool:
Ztex-Quad: 0.22%
GPU: 0.29%
Any idea why?
Jump to: