I’ve mined with the pool before using just spare computers that I had laying around and basically just to teach myself to do it. I was able to mine just over 6 XPM and have them transferred when they reached 3.01 just as promised.
Today I put a server running windows server 2003 x64 online and it’s been online for about three hours now. I’m seeing and avg count of 78-80sh/day and I’ve already gotten 22 7-chains and 2 8-chains. When I go to look at my stats on either the old stat page
Is there supposed to be a delay. Do these shares have to be confirmed before they show up on the stats pages. I apologize if this has already been answered, but I didn’t have time today to go through the whole thread looking for the answer.
Any help would be appreciated. This server is free right now 28 cores for a month. If anyone can help me optimize my settings in the batch file and help out with the other question, I’ll be glad to point you to the free trial server. It’s running full out at 100% cpu useage on all 28 cores, so I think it’s gonna produce well.
hi,
fyi i’m working on the ‘old’ / current / non-beta page right now
so it will be up/down/up/down/etc.pp. don’t panic
use beta.beeeeer.org atm
@Transcend:
I’m currenlty against lowering the barrier (PM me, if you want to know why, it’s not meant for public yet)
@LazySiege:
take your time, i really like your cppsrb post.
@icedaddy:
i’ll come back later to your post, i’m busy ‘repairing’ the old / extending the new web server atm
xolokram
/edit #1:@readyrmca
your post is a little bit confusing to me as the one link contains the address Adw[…]XP6, the other link no address at all, and your miner configuration the address ANv[…]Vpx ???
and yes: there’s some delay with the share submission <-> frontend recognition, but this shouldn’t be more than ~15 minutes
also: did you check the sharelog for today too? additional to your sharehistory (which is the default) on the beta pages
/edit #3:
if the ‘old’ / ‘new’ webserver is having some trouble (i don’t hope so), don’t hesitate and send me a message, i’ll try to monitor everything
my sharelog is going to high day by day, i think a few days later all of my mining value will go sharelog. but anyway i love beer system i prefer to it than another pools.
my sharelog is going to high day by day, i think a few days later all of my mining value will go sharelog. :D[/quote]
holy sh**! how many cores to achieve these sicks results? and how much do you pay for them? I guesstimate your earnings at 6k$/month… 8)
my sharelog is going to high day by day, i think a few days later all of my mining value will go sharelog. :D[/quote]
holy sh**! how many cores to achieve these sicks results? and how much do you pay for them? I guesstimate your earnings at 6k$/month… 8)[/quote]
I’ve own my hosting company in my country and partner a one small datacenter but all of earnings my earns only %20-25 in the other hand %75-80 is server bills.
@xolokram
No rush. It just seems to me from a process point of view some sort of coupling would help the pool be more stable and free you from constantly having to ‘tweak’ things; I hate to think what would happen if you took a week off to go fishing! ;D
@justmwa, alfred, mornabo
Core count is NOT a good indicator of mining power. For example I have 12 “AMD Athlon™ Dual Core Processor 4850e”, 24 cores, 32 bit, which perform about the same as a single “Intel® Core™2 Quad CPU Q9550”, 4 cores at 64 bit, which does not do as well as a single “Intel Pentium III Xeon processor” 8 core, 32 bit. Also your BIOS and system configuration can greatly impact how cores perform, and the “rule of thumb” of one thread per core is NOT always the best.
All things being equal it seems Xeon processors perform the best, followed by Intel then AMD, but this is strictly anecdotal from my experience and NOT based on any metrics. Also I have tried Windows XP, 7, 8 and 8.1 (I know nothing about *nix) and find 7 gives the best mining performance. 64 bit performs much better than 32 bit.
@system32
The sharelog is very dynamic at the moment, growing and shrinking by large amounts erratically. Sometimes I see most if not everything go into the sharelog, sometimes none. Mining is nothing if not erratic, on a number of fronts. Good days and bad days come with the territory. At the moment the pool seems to be going through a run of bad days. Such is life.
Another suggestion: I see some L1 cache optimisations in a patch in primecoin-hp, not sure how much difference they make I couldn’t get the patch to apply, but could you add that & make it autodetect the L1 cache size rather than it being a command line option. Thanks.
[quote=“miki, post:1830, topic:342”]Suggestion for the next release :
Set sievesize as an argument (there is a reason ypool miner uses 1536000 as default )[/quote]
Xolo indicated in a previous post that this is already implemented in this version:
-sievesize=<#>
-sievepercentage=<#>
-sieveextensions=<#>
Xolo you might want to add that to the Usage section in the 1st post?
[quote=“optimusprime, post:1685, topic:342”]…
If you have at least 30 or more powerful servers you should solo mine. You will beat the pool payout by a good bit[/quote]
I keep hearing this, with different numbers; 50 cores or 100 cores or this or that. I am wondering where these numbers come from? Thin air? In theory if the pool were perfect you would make about 3% more (Xolo’s percentage), hardly a “good bit”…
Prior to pool conversion from proportional to the new payout system I had about 200 “cores” on this pool, and was doing ok. I did not like the new payout system (and still don’t really) so I went solo for a month or so, and my mining dropped by about 20%, nothing like beating the pool by a good bit. Maybe the solo miner I was using (JH’s v4) was not as efficient as Xolo’s miner or maybe it was an unlucky month, I don’t know. Anyway I would love to hear the rationale behind the “good bit” increase, and metrics to go with it…
[quote=“icedaddy, post:1832, topic:342”][quote=“miki, post:1830, topic:342”]Suggestion for the next release :
Set sievesize as an argument (there is a reason ypool miner uses 1536000 as default )[/quote]
Xolo indicated in a previous post that this is already implemented in this version:
-sievesize=<#>
-sievepercentage=<#>
-sieveextensions=<#>
Xolo you might want to add that to the Usage section in the 1st post?[/quote]
Thanks, this should be added to the first port or readme file.
This morning (for me, Pacific time) I got up and checked my miners, and was astonished to find overnight I found a block and 6 9 chains! This is 4-5 times normal. Either I got incredibly lucky or something has changed. Anybody else see a jump like this?
EDIT: I see the sharelog has been rising all day so it would seem the whole pool is performing better, not just me…
i think i accidently overwrote the sieve-settings with the last update in the first post : whoops
regarding the settings: i think the default values are alright
jhprimeminers and mikealh are using different implementations, thus the settings are not comparable imho
i’ll try to keep the suggestions for the miner in my mind with the next major update
An hour or so ago I went to lunch and the beta stats page was still having display problems with text overwriting, as it has all along. Now it is displaying properly. Thanks Xolo for fixing it! Now I can check the sharelog size without having to switch browsers.
yey i fixed something (i didn’t even know it was broken )
what OS/browser are you using? i’m mostly using firefox, chrome and netscape navigator 4.0
uhm, i added the current pool stats (# of miners and height of the network) to the pages (PTS+XPM)
also — although this is not related to primecoin pool — you can check your rudimentary personal payouts for the PTS pool on the beta pages
and i’ll add a few more things, i have some (live) data i’ll want to put into some horrible graphs
