[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 193.

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: neptop on July 17, 2011, 01:26:13 AM

I intended to join your pool, but somehow I can't connect to it. Using DiabloMiner for example it says:
ERROR: Cannot connect to mining.eligius.st: connect timed out

Similar messages appear when using cgminer.

I suspect user error. I use eligius fine.

Xephan

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

I was trying out non-big 3 pools with my secondary card and now I'm even thinking of switching my primary over from the bigger pool

neptop

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

I intended to join your pool, but somehow I can't connect to it. Using DiabloMiner for example it says:
ERROR: Cannot connect to mining.eligius.st: connect timed out

Similar messages appear when using cgminer.

nmat

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 502

Thank you! I will think about it.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: nmat on July 16, 2011, 09:34:48 PM

When do users get paid? What is the threshold? I was thinking about splitting workers (one address each) to get more detailed stats, but if the threshold is high I probably won't...

To qualify for a payout, your balance must be at least 0.33554432 BTC. When the pool is calculating payouts (currently just 50 BTC at a time, due to limitations of generated transactions), it prioritizes addresses which have had unpaid coins for the longest first.

This is being given as an explanation of how payouts currently work, and is not a guarantee that the minimum payout or sorting algorithm will remain the same in the future.

nmat

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 502

When do users get paid? What is the threshold? I was thinking about splitting workers (one address each) to get more detailed stats, but if the threshold is high I probably won't...

I think I saw the answer to this question somewhere, but I can't find it right now. I'm a little lost in the website Huh

twmz

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: Yeti on July 16, 2011, 07:15:34 AM

However, on long rounds Eligius sends out all the other rewards from its reserve in a sendmany(?) tx.

No it doesn't.

anodyne

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 100

Blocks are 50BTC, but with the PPS system rounds can have higher rewards since the pool pays for the shares with coins it kept after short rounds. But automatic payments are still limited by the 50BTC that fit into generation, so after rounds where the value of shares exceeds that limit the pool has to queue the payments and fit them into future blocks.

The sendmany transactions were only for paying balances from the closed pools, so until there's a solution that takes cares of backlogs in a better way I think it would be appropriate to update the information about payments... at least as a precaution against the kind of people who feel they have to tediously express their opinions when they have to wait for something... Tongue

Yeti

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Firstbits: 1yetiax

Quote from: Stupidpal on July 16, 2011, 06:32:25 AM

I thought blocks were always 50 BTC chunks.

They are. Generation is (right now anyways, until block 210000) 50 BTC plus the transaction fees. However, on long rounds Eligius sends out all the other rewards from its reserve in a sendmany(?) tx. Although I couldn't confirm that for the last block of the 22h round ... How is that done exactly?

Stupidpal

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: anodyne on July 16, 2011, 05:42:01 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 03:00:24 PM

Quote from: anodyne on July 15, 2011, 02:58:20 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 12:03:55 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 13, 2011, 12:02:28 PM

In addition, the Linux networking stack has been randomly choosing machines it doesn't allow to connect-- we get the SYN packet fine, but Linux silently discards it without passing it to pushpoold.

Turns out this is a known issue when net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle and NAT are combined. I have disabled it on the pool server, so it should be resolved now. Much thanks to mobiusl and everyone else who helped troubleshoot!

Are the NAT issues something that explains why I had connection problems when I was connected over VPN (which I assume uses NAT rather than giving everyone a unique IP at the exit), or is it just something related to the server/hosting setup?

It could be. The problem as I understand it, is that your miners are sending relative-to-an-unknown-value timestamps in the packets, and tcp_tw_recycle ignores ones with timestamps going backward in time (or something like that). So minerA and minerB have different relative-timestamps, but the earlier of the two gets ignored because of the later's packets...

Has been running fine since your first post. It was an intermittent problem, though, so I guess it's still too early to be certain if it's something related or just good luck on my side.

Something else... I noticed to pool just finished a 250BTC round, so how about an addition to the stats pages that mentions that payments may take a few rounds when the pool has a backlog to process?

I thought blocks were always 50 BTC chunks.

anodyne

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 100

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 03:00:24 PM

Quote from: anodyne on July 15, 2011, 02:58:20 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 12:03:55 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 13, 2011, 12:02:28 PM

In addition, the Linux networking stack has been randomly choosing machines it doesn't allow to connect-- we get the SYN packet fine, but Linux silently discards it without passing it to pushpoold.

Turns out this is a known issue when net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle and NAT are combined. I have disabled it on the pool server, so it should be resolved now. Much thanks to mobiusl and everyone else who helped troubleshoot!

Are the NAT issues something that explains why I had connection problems when I was connected over VPN (which I assume uses NAT rather than giving everyone a unique IP at the exit), or is it just something related to the server/hosting setup?

It could be. The problem as I understand it, is that your miners are sending relative-to-an-unknown-value timestamps in the packets, and tcp_tw_recycle ignores ones with timestamps going backward in time (or something like that). So minerA and minerB have different relative-timestamps, but the earlier of the two gets ignored because of the later's packets...

Has been running fine since your first post. It was an intermittent problem, though, so I guess it's still too early to be certain if it's something related or just good luck on my side.

Something else... I noticed to pool just finished a 250BTC round, so how about an addition to the stats pages that mentions that payments may take a few rounds when the pool has a backlog to process?

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: Palmdetroit on July 15, 2011, 06:33:17 PM

bored

Palmdetroit, just because those tripleminer idiots put gigantic sig banners up doesn't mean you can. I want to ban them so much.

Palmdetroit

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

PHS 50% PoS - Stop mining start minting

bored

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1354

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Artefact2 already has something like it: http://pident.artefact2.com/

digger

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

you pool has been included http://digbtc.com

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: digger on July 15, 2011, 05:16:40 PM

But i can;t find the link of blocks statistics.

http://www.eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/5/blocks/

twmz

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: digger on July 15, 2011, 05:16:40 PM

your pool is big.

But i can;t find the link of blocks statistics.

http://eligius.st/~artefact2/

digger

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

your pool is big.

But i can;t find the link of blocks statistics.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: anodyne on July 15, 2011, 02:58:20 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 12:03:55 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 13, 2011, 12:02:28 PM

In addition, the Linux networking stack has been randomly choosing machines it doesn't allow to connect-- we get the SYN packet fine, but Linux silently discards it without passing it to pushpoold.

Turns out this is a known issue when net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle and NAT are combined. I have disabled it on the pool server, so it should be resolved now. Much thanks to mobiusl and everyone else who helped troubleshoot!

Are the NAT issues something that explains why I had connection problems when I was connected over VPN (which I assume uses NAT rather than giving everyone a unique IP at the exit), or is it just something related to the server/hosting setup?

It could be. The problem as I understand it, is that your miners are sending relative-to-an-unknown-value timestamps in the packets, and tcp_tw_recycle ignores ones with timestamps going backward in time (or something like that). So minerA and minerB have different relative-timestamps, but the earlier of the two gets ignored because of the later's packets...

anodyne

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 100

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 15, 2011, 12:03:55 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 13, 2011, 12:02:28 PM

In addition, the Linux networking stack has been randomly choosing machines it doesn't allow to connect-- we get the SYN packet fine, but Linux silently discards it without passing it to pushpoold.

Turns out this is a known issue when net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle and NAT are combined. I have disabled it on the pool server, so it should be resolved now. Much thanks to mobiusl and everyone else who helped troubleshoot!

Are the NAT issues something that explains why I had connection problems when I was connected over VPN (which I assume uses NAT rather than giving everyone a unique IP at the exit), or is it just something related to the server/hosting setup?

Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 193. (Read 458518 times)