Topic: Unofficial Spondoolies SP20 thread - page 32. (Read 126168 times)
i would say 6 is getting close but not overheating just yet. Keep an eye on it. If it gets much hotter then it will throttle back
6: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:677 vlt2:682(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 93W 137A 68c] ASIC:[110c (125c) 1000hz(BL:1000) 21 (E:193) F:0 L:0]
7: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:679 vlt2:682(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 85W 125A 71c] ASIC:[105c (125c) 950hz(BL: 950) 13 (E:192) F:0 L:0]
hi!
in my case above, were are the 68c and 71c temps? and were are the 110c and 105c?
thx!
this is the last and hottest loop, would you agree that number 6 is overheating a bit?
7: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:679 vlt2:682(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 85W 125A 71c] ASIC:[105c (125c) 950hz(BL: 950) 13 (E:192) F:0 L:0]
hi!
in my case above, were are the 68c and 71c temps? and were are the 110c and 105c?
thx!
this is the last and hottest loop, would you agree that number 6 is overheating a bit?
Hello, I am spinning up my sp20's and im running into a problem with the Username to the pool.. I use slushs pool, and I have knc miners working fine using my user.worker username, but the sp20's must be reporting something different cause for the sp20s the pool is dropping all the sp20's into there user.[auto] worker..
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
Have you registered your workers with slush? I use it as a backup on my farm without issue on sp20s
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
I don't think he would be able to check the worker names on the pool if he hadn't registered them.
chicagoleo are you on the old pool or the new one?
Hello, I am spinning up my sp20's and im running into a problem with the Username to the pool.. I use slushs pool, and I have knc miners working fine using my user.worker username, but the sp20's must be reporting something different cause for the sp20s the pool is dropping all the sp20's into there user.[auto] worker..
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
I don't use slush's pool I don't know how to set up a miner there.
Hello, I am spinning up my sp20's and im running into a problem with the Username to the pool.. I use slushs pool, and I have knc miners working fine using my user.worker username, but the sp20's must be reporting something different cause for the sp20s the pool is dropping all the sp20's into there user.[auto] worker..
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
Have you registered your workers with slush? I use it as a backup on my farm without issue on sp20s
Hello, I am spinning up my sp20's and im running into a problem with the Username to the pool.. I use slushs pool, and I have knc miners working fine using my user.worker username, but the sp20's must be reporting something different cause for the sp20s the pool is dropping all the sp20's into there user.[auto] worker..
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
I double and triple checked the worker names on both pool and user.worker name on the spondoolies no spaces ect..
Please help.
Thanks
chicagoleo
westhash.com p=0.016
nicehash.com p=0.016 >>>>>> try p=0.0159
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
nicehash.com p=0.016 >>>>>> try p=0.0159
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
small correction see the slight price difference avoids choice confusion on the softwares part.
acutally use westhash first if western hemisphere and nice hash first if europe , asia , africa ,australia
Thanks. That's a good idea.
Since WestHash is closer to me, here's how I've configured my pools now:
westhash.com p=0.0159
nicehash.com p=0.016
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
Looks like I'm all set. At least until the next difficulty change and I have to recompute the profit constant.
Of course what we need now is some event to drive rentals through the roof, like what happened with Paycoin
yeah but sometimes people do all the hash at a top rate for ½ a day you will pick up on that every time now.
westhash.com p=0.016
nicehash.com p=0.016 >>>>>> try p=0.0159
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
nicehash.com p=0.016 >>>>>> try p=0.0159
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
small correction see the slight price difference avoids choice confusion on the softwares part.
acutally use westhash first if western hemisphere and nice hash first if europe , asia , africa ,australia
Thanks. That's a good idea.
Since WestHash is closer to me, here's how I've configured my pools now:
westhash.com p=0.0159
nicehash.com p=0.016
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
Looks like I'm all set. At least until the next difficulty change and I have to recompute the profit constant.
Of course what we need now is some event to drive rentals through the roof, like what happened with Paycoin
I like the sp20's just a little more then the s-5's since lots of lines for pools
Made it easy to add nicehash
Made it easy to add nicehash
Yeah, that is nice. I really prefer the SP20 interface over the Sn interfaces. Although Bitmain does make good products too.
Of course both of us have run into that problem where if you have too many pools specified for the SP20 (is it 8?) it craps out and is a pain to recover. Maybe they've fixed that, but I haven't been following the firmware updates.
when rates were nuts in nov-dec I used both west then nice. right now rates have not been that crazy. So I use only west.
So if profitability is high enough to use WestHash, but WestHash is down due to a failure on their side, your miners will point at kano. That means you might miss out on WestHash/NiceHash profitability. My understanding is that WestHash and NiceHash share the same profitability, but different server hardware.
I'm using NiceHash as a backup to WestHash with the same profitability constant on the outside chance that WestHash goes down but NiceHash stays up.
Makes sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
2nd part 3% is not correct 0.016 a th after fee of 2% 0.016 x .98 or
0.01568 a th vs 0.0116977 a th. that is a 30% mark up
I use f2pool as my example since they pay steady rates but take out 4% west-nice takes out 2%
0.01568 a th vs 0.0116977 a th. that is a 30% mark up
I use f2pool as my example since they pay steady rates but take out 4% west-nice takes out 2%
Ah, I see. I missed the NiceHash 2% fee (and I had other math errors) when I first looked at your 0.016 number. It makes sense now.
FYI, following your lead, here's how I now have my pools set up:
westhash.com p=0.016
nicehash.com p=0.016 >>>>>> try p=0.0159
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
small correction see the slight price difference avoids choice confusion on the softwares part.
acutally use westhash first if western hemisphere and nice hash first if europe , asia , africa ,australia
I like the sp20's just a little more then the s-5's since lots of lines for pools
Made it easy to add nicehash
Made it easy to add nicehash
Yeah, that is nice. I really prefer the SP20 interface over the Sn interfaces. Although Bitmain does make good products too.
Of course both of us have run into that problem where if you have too many pools specified for the SP20 (is it 8?) it craps out and is a pain to recover. Maybe they've fixed that, but I haven't been following the firmware updates.
when rates were nuts in nov-dec I used both west then nice. right now rates have not been that crazy. So I use only west.
So if profitability is high enough to use WestHash, but WestHash is down due to a failure on their side, your miners will point at kano. That means you might miss out on WestHash/NiceHash profitability. My understanding is that WestHash and NiceHash share the same profitability, but different server hardware.
I'm using NiceHash as a backup to WestHash with the same profitability constant on the outside chance that WestHash goes down but NiceHash stays up.
Makes sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
2nd part 3% is not correct 0.016 a th after fee of 2% 0.016 x .98 or
0.01568 a th vs 0.0116977 a th. that is a 30% mark up
I use f2pool as my example since they pay steady rates but take out 4% west-nice takes out 2%
0.01568 a th vs 0.0116977 a th. that is a 30% mark up
I use f2pool as my example since they pay steady rates but take out 4% west-nice takes out 2%
Ah, I see. I missed the NiceHash 2% fee (and I had other math errors) when I first looked at your 0.016 number. It makes sense now.
FYI, following your lead, here's how I now have my pools set up:
westhash.com p=0.016
nicehash.com p=0.016
kano.is
f2pool.com
antpool.com
yes Kano's method make the shares dropoff 5x slower then btcguild or slush. you can use him or
https://www.f2pool.com/ this pool every share you earn you get paid fees are 4%
kano's pool fees are 0.9 % better then above. but if you spend a lot of time on westhash and kano's pool does 2 really bad blocks in a row you lose some shares.
I did a lot of math and I do
1) westhash set for a p=0.016
2) kano--------------------------------------- 0.9% fee should work over the chance of two 500% blocks in a row.
3) f2pool--------------------------------------4.0% fee is not as good as 0.9% with no penalty until two 500% blocks in row
I used https://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ but they have been paying too slow
this is their thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854368.0;all
https://www.f2pool.com/ this pool every share you earn you get paid fees are 4%
kano's pool fees are 0.9 % better then above. but if you spend a lot of time on westhash and kano's pool does 2 really bad blocks in a row you lose some shares.
I did a lot of math and I do
1) westhash set for a p=0.016
2) kano--------------------------------------- 0.9% fee should work over the chance of two 500% blocks in a row.
3) f2pool--------------------------------------4.0% fee is not as good as 0.9% with no penalty until two 500% blocks in row
I used https://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ but they have been paying too slow
this is their thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854368.0;all
Thanks for getting back to me. That's really helpful info.
Any reason why you don't have NiceHash as pool #2 with the same profitability value? I've got mine configured that way in case WestHash is down but NiceHash is up. Of course when profitability doesn't match it has to fail over twice, but that doesn't seem like a big deal.
Looks like you're aiming for about 3% above the current BTC/THs/Day rate, is that right?
Too bad you have to change the "p" value every 2016 blocks. I really wish NiceHash would let us specify this as a percentage. That way it doesn't matter what happens to the difficulty.
I like the sp20's just a little more then the s-5's since lots of lines for pools
Made it easy to add nicehash
when rates were nuts in nov-dec I used both west then nice. right now rates have not been that crazy. So I use only west.
2nd part 3% is not correct 0.016 a th after fee of 2% 0.016 x .98 or
0.01568 a th vs 0.0116977 a th. that is a 30% mark up
I use f2pool as my example since they pay steady rates but take out 4% west-nice takes out 2%
full size
http://imageshack.com/a/img540/2541/EqOc4b.png
yes Kano's method make the shares dropoff 5x slower then btcguild or slush. you can use him or
https://www.f2pool.com/ this pool every share you earn you get paid fees are 4%
kano's pool fees are 0.9 % better then above. but if you spend a lot of time on westhash and kano's pool does 2 really bad blocks in a row you lose some shares.
I did a lot of math and I do
1) westhash set for a p=0.016
2) kano--------------------------------------- 0.9% fee should work over the chance of two 500% blocks in a row.
3) f2pool--------------------------------------4.0% fee is not as good as 0.9% with no penalty until two 500% blocks in row
I used https://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ but they have been paying too slow
this is their thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854368.0;all
https://www.f2pool.com/ this pool every share you earn you get paid fees are 4%
kano's pool fees are 0.9 % better then above. but if you spend a lot of time on westhash and kano's pool does 2 really bad blocks in a row you lose some shares.
I did a lot of math and I do
1) westhash set for a p=0.016
2) kano--------------------------------------- 0.9% fee should work over the chance of two 500% blocks in a row.
3) f2pool--------------------------------------4.0% fee is not as good as 0.9% with no penalty until two 500% blocks in row
I used https://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ but they have been paying too slow
this is their thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854368.0;all
Thanks for getting back to me. That's really helpful info.
Any reason why you don't have NiceHash as pool #2 with the same profitability value? I've got mine configured that way in case WestHash is down but NiceHash is up. Of course when profitability doesn't match it has to fail over twice, but that doesn't seem like a big deal.
Looks like you're aiming for about 3% above the current BTC/THs/Day rate, is that right?
Too bad you have to change the "p" value every 2016 blocks. I really wish NiceHash would let us specify this as a percentage. That way it doesn't matter what happens to the difficulty.
both my sp20's rolled over. I will look for roll back. as of now they should roll back since they are set for 0.0121
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
Forgive me if this has been asked earlier. Unfortunately searching on the forum at large seems to be broken.
Like you I'm using NiceHash (or rather WestHash) as the primary with a profitability value set to flat BTC/THs/Day. I'm not having any problems with the miner switching. I've got 2.5.52 firmware.
My concern is that switches happen fairly frequently. That means that my miner sporadically points at WestHash and the secondary throughout the day, which results in automated pool-hopping.
While it's nice to take advantage of NiceHash's profitability, I'm concerned that the sporadic hash rate pointed at my secondary pool results in an effective penalty while it charges up. Since it's hard to track this split profitability, I'm not sure if I'm actually ahead, or if I'd be better off just pointing at a non-rental pool and be done with it.
I noticed that you're using Kano.is as the failover pool. I currently have BTCGuild as my secondary. I switched from Slush because from what I gather, the score method used by that pool penalizes pool hopping.
Any particular reason why you chose Kano as the secondary to WestHash?
On a related note, I wish that NiceHash would let us specify profitability as a percentage instead of a constant. That way we wouldn't have to keep changing the value after each difficulty change. I posted this as a request on the the NiceHash forum thread a while back, but got no reply from them.
yes Kano's method make the shares dropoff 5x slower then btcguild or slush. you can use him or
https://www.f2pool.com/ this pool every share you earn you get paid fees are 4%
kano's pool fees are 0.9 % better then above. but if you spend a lot of time on westhash and kano's pool does 2 really bad blocks in a row you lose some shares.
I did a lot of math and I do
1) westhash set for a p=0.016
2) kano--------------------------------------- 0.9% fee should work over the chance of two 500% blocks in a row.
3) f2pool--------------------------------------4.0% fee is not as good as 0.9% with no penalty until two 500% blocks in row
I used https://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ but they have been paying too slow
this is their thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854368.0;all
both my sp20's rolled over. I will look for roll back. as of now they should roll back since they are set for 0.0121
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
Forgive me if this has been asked earlier. Unfortunately searching on the forum at large seems to be broken.
Like you I'm using NiceHash (or rather WestHash) as the primary with a profitability value set to flat BTC/THs/Day. I'm not having any problems with the miner switching. I've got 2.5.52 firmware.
My concern is that switches happen fairly frequently. That means that my miner sporadically points at WestHash and the secondary throughout the day, which results in automated pool-hopping.
While it's nice to take advantage of NiceHash's profitability, I'm concerned that the sporadic hash rate pointed at my secondary pool results in an effective penalty while it charges up. Since it's hard to track this split profitability, I'm not sure if I'm actually ahead, or if I'd be better off just pointing at a non-rental pool and be done with it.
I noticed that you're using Kano.is as the failover pool. I currently have BTCGuild as my secondary. I switched from Slush because from what I gather, the score method used by that pool penalizes pool hopping.
Any particular reason why you chose Kano as the secondary to WestHash?
On a related note, I wish that NiceHash would let us specify profitability as a percentage instead of a constant. That way we wouldn't have to keep changing the value after each difficulty change. I posted this as a request on the the NiceHash forum thread a while back, but got no reply from them.
version 2.6.10 (test version) has been released and seems better than 2.6.1 to me but power usage reports higher...give it a whirl if you like I have been testing it for the last few hours
On another note 2.6.9 didn't work very well on 2 test rigs here
I am also seeing similar symptoms with the price value and #xnsub on nicehash and no rollback so for now I took the price option out
I suspect it is what philipma said regarding rollover and rollback
As for extranonce working I have not had any problems with that only when adding the price field into the equation
On another note 2.6.9 didn't work very well on 2 test rigs here
I am also seeing similar symptoms with the price value and #xnsub on nicehash and no rollback so for now I took the price option out
I suspect it is what philipma said regarding rollover and rollback As for extranonce working I have not had any problems with that only when adding the price field into the equation
both my sp20's rolled over. I will look for roll back. as of now they should roll back since they are set for 0.0121
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
full size image
http://imageshack.com/a/img911/8673/VU4WJO.png
and the lowest pool is 0.0135 but if some one is renting at 0.0120 they will stay ahead of me.
this may be the issue you are having. I will keep checking back.
full size image
http://imageshack.com/a/img911/8673/VU4WJO.png
Whoops, wasn't asking for advice on the power settings. BTW if you select any of the "Basic" settings, it auto puts those super high wattage figures in. Anyways, I'm happy with my current power to hashrate figures so not going to muck with those.
My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
As you have, plus adding #xnsub to the end of the URL and a restart worked for me on all miners. i.e. My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
Code:
stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub
Thanks, this allows the green checkmark on Nicehash, but breaks the secondary pool as Nicehash, even when pricing is below p=value, stays Alive and never fails over to the secondary pool.
Also when using p=value in this way, once the price is no longer met, the miner simply stops sending any shares, and does not fail over to the secondary.
Firmware 2.6.9, tested on multiple SP20s and also affects S5 the same way.
My settings are similar to philipma's, and work exactly as expected on multiple miners. I'm on fw v2.6.9 - I don't know where *it* went to, or why it was pulled (edit: current fw shows v2.6.1)
(another edit) only use the #xnsub on Nicehash and Westhash, not on your fallover pool(s).
I only have the p=0.0121 setting in the password field.
The other secondary pool shows as Alive as well, but with stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub in the primary pool, and 2 in the Miner Setting flags, it will never fail over to the secondary pool.
Remove #xnsub, I lose checkmark on westhash but failover works perfectly, including switching back when westhash meets price requirement from the secondary pool.
This is on three SP20E plus my friend's as well.
Edit:
Seems that they are currently swapping pools after around 20 minutes.
Will monitor more.
Whoops, wasn't asking for advice on the power settings. BTW if you select any of the "Basic" settings, it auto puts those super high wattage figures in. Anyways, I'm happy with my current power to hashrate figures so not going to muck with those.
My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
As you have, plus adding #xnsub to the end of the URL and a restart worked for me on all miners. i.e. My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
Code:
stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub
Thanks, this allows the green checkmark on Nicehash, but breaks the secondary pool as Nicehash, even when pricing is below p=value, stays Alive and never fails over to the secondary pool.
Also when using p=value in this way, once the price is no longer met, the miner simply stops sending any shares, and does not fail over to the secondary.
Firmware 2.6.9, tested on multiple SP20s and also affects S5 the same way.
My settings are similar to philipma's, and work exactly as expected on multiple miners. I'm on fw v2.6.9 - I don't know where *it* went to, or why it was pulled (edit: current fw shows v2.6.1)
(another edit) only use the #xnsub on Nicehash and Westhash, not on your fallover pool(s).
Whoops, wasn't asking for advice on the power settings. BTW if you select any of the "Basic" settings, it auto puts those super high wattage figures in. Anyways, I'm happy with my current power to hashrate figures so not going to muck with those.
My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
As you have, plus adding #xnsub to the end of the URL and a restart worked for me on all miners. i.e. My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
Code:
stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub
Thanks, this allows the green checkmark on Nicehash, but breaks the secondary pool as Nicehash, even when pricing is below p=value, stays Alive and never fails over to the secondary pool.
Also when using p=value in this way, once the price is no longer met, the miner simply stops sending any shares, and does not fail over to the secondary.
Firmware 2.6.9, tested on multiple SP20s and also affects S5 the same way.
okay I will try to mirror your problem.
stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub --- url
1JdC6Xg3aj_________________53Vbtje.1 ------- btc addy
p=0.0112 -------------------------------------------- price limit
firmware is 2.6.9
cgminer is 4.8
extranonce subscription check mark shows at westhash.
Whoops, wasn't asking for advice on the power settings. BTW if you select any of the "Basic" settings, it auto puts those super high wattage figures in. Anyways, I'm happy with my current power to hashrate figures so not going to muck with those.
My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
As you have, plus adding #xnsub to the end of the URL and a restart worked for me on all miners. i.e. My pictures were intended to point out that I had the extranonce setting on 2 and was still seeing cgminer4.7.0 in contrast to what the previous poster mentioned. Trying to get that issue resolved.
Code:
stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub
Thanks, this allows the green checkmark on Nicehash, but breaks the secondary pool as Nicehash, even when pricing is below p=value, stays Alive and never fails over to the secondary pool.
Also when using p=value in this way, once the price is no longer met, the miner simply stops sending any shares, and does not fail over to the secondary.
Firmware 2.6.9, tested on multiple SP20s and also affects S5 the same way.
Jump to: