Topic: █▓▒░-< [ZPOOL.CA][BTC Multipool] The miners multipool >-░▒▓█ Paid 925+ BTC - page 99. (Read 217686 times)

It is pretty much isolated to scrypt and sha. Not only that there are more crap coins on those ports but I think also from the vast amount of crappy ASIC devices. It rarely happens on any other port.

Only step ATM to help reduce this is what JK suggested.

I may have a dev willing to recode  the stratum but it won't be easy or done in short order but seems work is underway.

Good crackfoo    Now the pool auto difficulty adjustment isn't working on my one rig with high hash power and multiple hashate cards on lyra2v2. But works on my other rig with low hashrate.

Ok great.

read back.  there's some in depth analysis on how deep the issue really is..

for the short term... nothing but setting up a stratum proxy to minimize the issues.


I have no notice of disconnects on my multi algo mining.  I have mainly been seeing and hearing about issues with SHA or Scrypt ports when it comes to disconnects.

Is there something I can do to stop getting disconnects I never had this problem before

I put XVG on it earlier today and AUR was added the other day too. May have given't it a bump but XVG looks like it's the bottom of the bunch right now..

Ok... good... that's very consoling info.

Seeing all those red reject lines zigzagging all over my hashrate charts is disconcerting =)

Myr-gr seems pretty profitable;  my GTX980 keeps switching to it.

It's just catching erroneous data. Right now the rejects on the front end can be ignored, it's a WIP.

Unless you are seeing high rejects on the miners side, you're still getting credits for all of them.

The reject issue has been bothering me a lot recently.


Since day one with the pool being started;  I haven't had any rejected shares.

Only within the last week have rejects been going through the moon....

I have calmed them down a little by setting custom diffs that are higher than id like (i dont like high diffs on algos with fast coins, because I loose out big time on share credit due to being on a satellite link sometimes and the delays associated with that)

But they are pretty out of control.

IDK whats causing it;  but its very recent.  Within a week or two.

I'm using sgminer and still seeing very wrong hash rates in both "Pool Status" and "miner summary" ,,

more worryingly the "miner summary" on the web page shows loads of rejects but my miner shows very little rejects ?

Does anyone have a  suggestion I'm mining scrypt and haven't been able to mine on zpool on either one of my miners at first I thought it was running them through minngrigrentals cause they kept blocking the pool so I tried mining straight to zpool but the pool keeps dropping and it goes to my failover I tried putting different d= and tried without  difficulty settings but nothing seems to work if it helps it's a zeusminer running minera with dmaxl cgminer I also seem to either get a lot of rejects or my hashrate on the pools end is reporting a lot lower of hashrate

Don't have to now. I rebuilt the stratum for blakecoin with the fix in there.

How do I put "-f 256" into a sgminer .conf file ?

cheers

Hello, I noticed you have C11 pool for Flaxscript, but your not mining with the latest version of Flaxscript.

Please update:

https://github.com/thegreatoldone/flaxscript

Latest version has masternode updates/payments.

Yeah;  my GTX980 machine has to be usable for regular pc work or games at all times, so I back the intensity off until no video skips or artifacts are seen.  Seems to still get me close to where it hashes at default intensity anyways so the small hit in hashrate doesnt bother me in the slightest.  Which explains my concept of 1/2 the speed instead of 1/3 the speed for a 750Ti.

I have all the current algos aside from Quark on my multi-algo batch that I have running again.

Ill post up a new copy of that full batch when I get back to home.   Haven't been there for several days now.

The 980 has 3x the hashing power then the 750ti.

And one should use there true hashrates like below because nobody has your true hashrates and they represent your numbers.
And I'm looking forward to see the nvidia numbers for the pool because then I can tweak my numbers.
And those hashrates are lower because I use the -i setting on one card so I can use this computer.

:start
:loop

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a quark   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4033 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,18,0
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a lyra2v2  -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4533 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,14,0
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4233 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,13,0
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a qubit   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4733 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 16
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x11  -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3533 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,14,0
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x13  -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3633 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,14,0
timeout /t 1

ccminer.exe -r 0 -a x15  -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3733 -u wallet  -p x11=9.3,quark=19,lyra2v2=14.4,neoscrypt=0.555,qubit=13.9,x13=7.5,x15=6.4 -d 0,1,2 -i 0,14,0
timeout /t 1

taskkill -t -f /im ccminer.exe
goto start

That is simple, isn't it... Thank you for pointing out the obvious to me.

looking good doing a test run  1 miner 2.7 gh  2 miner 10.6 gh.

On my 2.7gh/s . and . 10.6gh/s  difficulty is still to low.

EDIT: On 10.6gh/s there are 2 980ti  one 970 gtx and a 750ti  high hashing and low hashing cards mixed.
And the pool difficulty is still to low to use yet.

Ok looking good doing a test run  1 miner 2.7 gh  2 miner 10.6 gh.

Ok, shouldn't need that now then. Hashrates look normal now.