Old simplecoin thread - page 12. | Bitcointalksearch.org

RyNinDaCleM

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1009

Legen -wait for it- dary

Quote from: simplecoin on August 21, 2011, 09:32:48 AM

Google ads are up.... but disabled for donators.

I just noticed that! I have the ad, but I totaled my donations to 2.7% possibly more if I look in another wallet. Huh

I however, don't use the auto donation on payout, so I don't know if that is what it goes by.

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Google ads are up.... but disabled for donators.

Also, I'm about to install our own forum software on the secondary backup server. This shouldn't affect performance at all, but it will give us a better option for community.

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: teukon on August 21, 2011, 08:21:51 AM

More points about the reported stats:

I visited the stats page today to find that my reported Mh/s was at only 146 Mh/s where it is normally around 750 Mh/s. Indeed, everyone on the top 30 list seemed to have taken a 3-4 fold hit in reported Mh/s. The top 5 were:

Rank - User Name - MH/s - BTC/Day
1 - hmblm1245 - 1,208 - 0.673
2 - mike - 874 - 0.487
3 - loderunner - 662 - 0.369
4 - RyNinDaCleM - 626 - 0.349
5 - DooKey - 553 - 0.308

Secondly, the pool efficiency seems to be rising suspiciously steadily. I'd guess that the reported efficiency is an average taken over a fairly long history. Is this so and, if so, how much past data does this average take into account?

Most if not all user stats are generated off of the replication server to minimize load on the main server. It seems the replication server lost sync. I just restarted the slave, stats should resume shortly.

Pool efficiency is based on the current round. So, no past data.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

More points about the reported stats:

I visited the stats page today to find that my reported Mh/s was at only 146 Mh/s where it is normally around 750 Mh/s. Indeed, everyone on the top 30 list seemed to have taken a 3-4 fold hit in reported Mh/s. The top 5 were:

Rank - User Name - MH/s - BTC/Day
1 - hmblm1245 - 1,208 - 0.673
2 - mike - 874 - 0.487
3 - loderunner - 662 - 0.369
4 - RyNinDaCleM - 626 - 0.349
5 - DooKey - 553 - 0.308

Secondly, the pool efficiency seems to be rising suspiciously steadily. I'd guess that the reported efficiency is an average taken over a fairly long history. Is this so and, if so, how much past data does this average take into account?

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

Quote from: simplecoin on August 20, 2011, 05:22:04 PM

Automated payout is back online. Payouts should have already sent!

Confirmed. Thanks.

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Automated payout is back online. Payouts should have already sent!

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: teukon on August 20, 2011, 04:06:18 PM

Quote from: simplecoin on August 20, 2011, 03:10:18 PM

It was not intentional, I was at lunch when my email alerts went off. I am investigating now.

As for cgminer, it does handle failover pools. I'm not sure about the syntax though.

UPDATE: It was an unscheduled server restart. Not sure of the cause, the servers are in an excellent facility so it's not like someone tripped over a wire.

Strange. Do you suppose the restart was caused by software? In any case I'll keep my ear to the ground.

I haven't found any reason for a restart in the logs yet, which leads to the datacenter causing a restart.

None of my other servers restarted though.... so I'm still making sure it wasn't software related.

UPDATE: no faults found in the logs. This is the 2nd reboot I've had on this server though. Anymore and I'm switching the distro to match the other 3 servers.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

Quote from: simplecoin on August 20, 2011, 03:10:18 PM

It was not intentional, I was at lunch when my email alerts went off. I am investigating now.

As for cgminer, it does handle failover pools. I'm not sure about the syntax though.

UPDATE: It was an unscheduled server restart. Not sure of the cause, the servers are in an excellent facility so it's not like someone tripped over a wire.

Strange. Do you suppose the restart was caused by software? In any case I'll keep my ear to the ground.

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

It was not intentional, I was at lunch when my email alerts went off. I am investigating now.

As for cgminer, it does handle failover pools. I'm not sure about the syntax though.

UPDATE: It was an unscheduled server restart. Not sure of the cause, the servers are in an excellent facility so it's not like someone tripped over a wire.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

Server outage.

The website is reporting:

Code:

Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 110

and my two miners (using phoenix 1.6.2) say:

Code:

[20/08/2011 20:27:35] Warning: work queue empty, miner is idle
[0 Khash/sec] [634 Accepted] [2 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]

On restarting the miners manually I got:

Code:

bitcoinminer@bitcoinMiner2:~/jedi95-Phoenix-Miner-2b57b96$ python phoenix.py -u http://user:[email protected]:8337/ -b http://user:[email protected]:3000/ -a 1 -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=12 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=2
[20/08/2011 20:38:29] Phoenix v1.6.2 starting...
[20/08/2011 20:38:59] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:39:44] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Failed to connect, retrying...
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Primary server failed too many times,
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] attempting to connect to backup server.
[20/08/2011 20:40:29] Connected to server
[20/08/2011 20:40:37] Result: 46d9603d accepted
[20/08/2011 20:40:48] Result: d6273b00 accepted
[20/08/2011 20:41:10] Result: 9398d91d accepted

If this is an intentional MySQL update/restart then any idea how I can get my miners to automatically fallback to another pool? Is this something which is handled better in cgminer do you know?

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

I've decided to end the experiment early (for reasons which should be apparent from the results).

pool.simplecoin.us

Code:

python phoenix.py -u http://user:[email protected]:8337/ -b http://user:[email protected]:3000/ -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=8 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=1

Code:

[338.58 Mhash/sec] [1510 Accepted] [1 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]

mineco.in

Code:

python phoenix.py -u http://user:[email protected]:3000/ -b http://user:[email protected]:8337/ -k phatk2 VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=8 WORKSIZE=256 DEVICE=2

Code:

[338.99 Mhash/sec] [1535 Accepted] [14 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]

Make of this what you will. I'm now back at SimpleCoin in full force (732 Mh/s).

sirky

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: teukon on August 20, 2011, 05:22:23 AM

Quote from: hmblm1245 on August 19, 2011, 11:18:13 PM

Just joined and added 4 ghash. Much thanks to Sirky to help make that possible.

I'm glad to see such serious miners joining this pool.

For me the PPLNS reward system is the primary reason for mining here but I'm also grateful for the new server and the various top-30 lists (which, for me, creates a sense of community).

May I ask why other people are joining this pool all of a sudden?

I got 1gh/s taken away from me and added to hmblm1245, so we are all even in the long run

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

We're now on pident.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

I wonder how much server location affects stales. Unfortunately, this is practically impossible for me to test but I intend to give it a go.

ping pool.simplecoin.us

Code:

64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=158 ms
64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=160 ms
64 bytes from unassigned.psychz.net (74.117.62.208): icmp_req=3 ttl=52 time=159 ms

ping mineco.in

Code:

64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=16.1 ms
64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=18.3 ms
64 bytes from server.wuked.co.uk (77.72.0.50): icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=17.9 ms

Both pools are similarly sized, use PPLNS, and report low load on a single server. I've configured my two 5850s identically (specifically focusing on stability and low stales at the expense of Mh/s) and have pointed one at one pool and one at the other (each card uses the other pool as a fallback). This is not terribly scientific because server configuration could make a significant difference but it's the best I can do. I'll report my findings here in a few days. This does mean that this pool will have to do without 392 Mh/s of my hashing power for now unfortunately.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

Quote from: hmblm1245 on August 19, 2011, 11:18:13 PM

Just joined and added 4 ghash. Much thanks to Sirky to help make that possible.

I'm glad to see such serious miners joining this pool.

For me the PPLNS reward system is the primary reason for mining here but I'm also grateful for the new server and the various top-30 lists (which, for me, creates a sense of community).

May I ask why other people are joining this pool all of a sudden?

simplecoin

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: hmblm1245 on August 19, 2011, 11:18:13 PM

Just joined and added 4 ghash. Much thanks to Sirky to help make that possible.

Many thanks! Glad to see the pool growing!

hmblm1245

hero member

Activity: 628

Merit: 500

Just joined and added 4 ghash. Much thanks to Sirky to help make that possible.

RyNinDaCleM

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1009

Legen -wait for it- dary

Quote from: sirky on August 19, 2011, 07:43:17 PM

Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on August 19, 2011, 07:10:41 PM

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: simplecoin on August 19, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 01:16:52 PM

Quote from: sirky on August 19, 2011, 01:00:50 PM

I am working with SC on trying to make estimates more accurate and payouts more transparent (so you can see exactly how many of the last N blocks you submitted for a block).

Excellent, I'm looking forward to this.

Along these lines I would be interested to see a top-10 lowest reject rate list. This would perhaps further encourage people to try and lower their rejects further and ultimately the pool will be able to boast an impressive "pool efficiency".

I have 5 BTC ready to donate to the pool following enhancements as you describe.

I like the idea of a lowest reject rate. Perhaps once the bugs are squashed I'll look into implementing that.

Take your time and enjoy.

I've just visited the pool stats page and was amused to see that the three most recent blocks have been found by the 28th, 29th, and 30th fastest miners. Tsk tsk you guys near the top of the hashrates list; it's quality not quantity!

It's funny you should say that! The block I found, was by a lone 5850 mining! Most other blocks have been found by 200-700Mh/s miners! IIRC, All but sirky's block, have been a lower tier worker finding the blocks!

5 500 mh/s miners are the same as 1 2.5 gh/s miner. So the little guys have strength in numbers

Absolutely! Every hash counts! That's why I throw my 460m in on occasion! Pumping out 41Mh/s Cheesy

sirky

sr. member

Activity: 404

Merit: 250

Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on August 19, 2011, 07:10:41 PM

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: simplecoin on August 19, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 01:16:52 PM

Quote from: sirky on August 19, 2011, 01:00:50 PM

I am working with SC on trying to make estimates more accurate and payouts more transparent (so you can see exactly how many of the last N blocks you submitted for a block).

Excellent, I'm looking forward to this.

Along these lines I would be interested to see a top-10 lowest reject rate list. This would perhaps further encourage people to try and lower their rejects further and ultimately the pool will be able to boast an impressive "pool efficiency".

I have 5 BTC ready to donate to the pool following enhancements as you describe.

I like the idea of a lowest reject rate. Perhaps once the bugs are squashed I'll look into implementing that.

Take your time and enjoy.

I've just visited the pool stats page and was amused to see that the three most recent blocks have been found by the 28th, 29th, and 30th fastest miners. Tsk tsk you guys near the top of the hashrates list; it's quality not quantity!

It's funny you should say that! The block I found, was by a lone 5850 mining! Most other blocks have been found by 200-700Mh/s miners! IIRC, All but sirky's block, have been a lower tier worker finding the blocks!

5 500 mh/s miners are the same as 1 2.5 gh/s miner. So the little guys have strength in numbers

RyNinDaCleM

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1009

Legen -wait for it- dary

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: simplecoin on August 19, 2011, 01:55:17 PM

Quote from: teukon on August 19, 2011, 01:16:52 PM

Quote from: sirky on August 19, 2011, 01:00:50 PM

I am working with SC on trying to make estimates more accurate and payouts more transparent (so you can see exactly how many of the last N blocks you submitted for a block).

Excellent, I'm looking forward to this.

Along these lines I would be interested to see a top-10 lowest reject rate list. This would perhaps further encourage people to try and lower their rejects further and ultimately the pool will be able to boast an impressive "pool efficiency".

I have 5 BTC ready to donate to the pool following enhancements as you describe.

I like the idea of a lowest reject rate. Perhaps once the bugs are squashed I'll look into implementing that.

Take your time and enjoy.

I've just visited the pool stats page and was amused to see that the three most recent blocks have been found by the 28th, 29th, and 30th fastest miners. Tsk tsk you guys near the top of the hashrates list; it's quality not quantity!

It's funny you should say that! The block I found, was by a lone 5850 mining! Most other blocks have been found by 200-700Mh/s miners! IIRC, All but sirky's block, have been a lower tier worker finding the blocks!

Topic: Old simplecoin thread - page 12. (Read 99808 times)