Coyote Miner | PPS Mining Pool

[bytemaster]

Pools seems down again

Nope... working just fine.

[alexxy]

Pools seems down again

[bytemaster]

Server just crashed 'too many open files'..

Restarted it.

[testz]

its dropping values again....
valid: 2  invalid: 0  balance: 0.0175668  paid: 0  earned: 0.0175668  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  h
m: 50.7146
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 47.6874
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 39.8898

Nope, we just found 2 blocks before you found 2 shares :)   I really need to fix this because this will always keep coming up.   That is safe to ignore.

Can you update us how many block we was find up to now?

[gabainc]

server is down =
9

[testz]

@bytemaster about numbers

24 cores Opteron 6174 ~60hpm (poor parallelization =\)
4 core Core i5 750 ~37hpm (no parallelization penalty)

I can try algo on intel mic but it seems to me i get parallelization bottleneck (it has ~226 threads)

Do you have Xeon Phi? It's my dream  :)

[bytemaster]

its dropping values again....
valid: 2  invalid: 0  balance: 0.0175668  paid: 0  earned: 0.0175668  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  h
m: 50.7146
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 47.6874
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 39.8898

Nope, we just found 2 blocks before you found 2 shares :)   I really need to fix this because this will always keep coming up.   That is safe to ignore.

[bytemaster]

@bytemaster seems like you have poor parallelized code, on 24 core machine it gives only ~50-70% load =\

You have lower latencies.  There is some overhead associated with synchronizing threads and when you divide the 2^26 search space into 24 threads, you amplify the amount of time spent in single threaded code.  Try running 3 instances at 8 cores.

By the way, if you have studied my fc library, you will know that my code is entirely lock-free and very well paralyzed.   It looks like I will have to do higher-level division to simulate 3 processes in one.   I just don't have a 24 or 32 core machine to try it on :)

fc is boost based lib, better parallelization may be occured using omp for example. I have also 48 and 64 core machines. So i can test on it.

PS why you dont release miner code?

I started a bounty for people to create faster algorithms, my closed source code is proof it can be done.   ypool seems to have one that is faster.   When an alternative implementation comes out that is equal to mine I will release the code.  It is my way of encouraging more eyes to focus on optimizing the proof of work.   Taunting the savvy, smart, developers to come claim the bounty with an objective measure... "better than my miner for one week".   

As long as I keep my miner closed then open source developers can freely publish their better algorithms and they will not have incentive to keep it closed.   

I don't want anyone else to have a closet, unpublished algorithm that is better than the open source ones available.   If ypool is really 5x the stock client, then I may have some work to do :)   Their code is open source by the way.

[atta2k15]

its dropping values again....
valid: 2  invalid: 0  balance: 0.0175668  paid: 0  earned: 0.0175668  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  h
m: 50.7146
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 47.6874
valid: 0  invalid: 0  balance: 0  paid: 0  earned: 0  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  hpm: 39.8898


but after restart i fetches it again from server
  valid: 2  invalid: 0  balance: 0.0175668  paid: 0  earned: 0.0175668  pps: 0.00878342  fee: 3%  address: PqTfs2QNpJjBf8ijLBNBydCRH2g6PmRJ9i  h
pm: 39.2615

[alexxy]

@bytemaster about numbers

24 cores Opteron 6174 ~60hpm (poor parallelization =\)
4 core Core i5 750 ~37hpm (no parallelization penalty)

I can try algo on intel mic but it seems to me i get parallelization bottleneck (it has ~226 threads)

[Amazon]

ypool looks like their client is faster, can anyone do a comparison for me. 

I looked at their code and it was incomprehensible to me at a quick glance.

It is hard to compare the income. ypool does no do pps. So it has big variance block by block.

[alexxy]

@bytemaster seems like you have poor parallelized code, on 24 core machine it gives only ~50-70% load =\

You have lower latencies.  There is some overhead associated with synchronizing threads and when you divide the 2^26 search space into 24 threads, you amplify the amount of time spent in single threaded code.  Try running 3 instances at 8 cores.

By the way, if you have studied my fc library, you will know that my code is entirely lock-free and very well paralyzed.   It looks like I will have to do higher-level division to simulate 3 processes in one.   I just don't have a 24 or 32 core machine to try it on :)

fc is boost based lib, better parallelization may be occured using omp for example. I have also 48 and 64 core machines. So i can test on it.

PS why you dont release miner code?

[bytemaster]

@bytemaster seems like you have poor parallelized code, on 24 core machine it gives only ~50-70% load =\

You have lower latencies.  There is some overhead associated with synchronizing threads and when you divide the 2^26 search space into 24 threads, you amplify the amount of time spent in single threaded code.  Try running 3 instances at 8 cores.

By the way, if you have studied my fc library, you will know that my code is entirely lock-free and very well paralyzed.   It looks like I will have to do higher-level division to simulate 3 processes in one.   I just don't have a 24 or 32 core machine to try it on :)

[bytemaster]

@bytemaster seems like you have poor parallelized code, on 24 core machine it gives only ~50-70% load =\

You have lower latencies.  There is some overhead associated with synchronizing threads and when you divide the 2^26 search space into 24 threads, you amplify the amount of time spent in single threaded code.  Try running 3 instances at 8 cores.

[spoonman]

ypool looks like their client is faster, can anyone do a comparison for me. 

I looked at their code and it was incomprehensible to me at a quick glance.

with the alpha I was getting ~25hpm on my iMac, now I am getting ~39. Windows ~9 before and now ~14.