is this normal? i mean the duplicates... what does the first number actually mean?

hash generated - 7502 / 1968 / 3640808312
hash generated - 10725 / 1968 / 3757984692
hash generated - 13317 / 1968 / 2492638785
hash generated - 12666 / 1968 / 2015562052
hash generated - 12666 / 1968 / 2015562052
hash generated - 14294 / 1968 / 3536542128
hash generated - 14294 / 1968 / 3536542128
hash generated - 13666 / 1968 / 1088440815
hash generated - 13666 / 1968 / 1088440815
hash generated - 13666 / 1968 / 1088440815
hash generated - 12510 / 1968 / 3560445581

Some nodes doing well:

[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:28:03 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 37.4/h), VL: 5 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:32:50 | SHARES: 6 (100.0% | 28.1/h), VL: 6 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:37:59 | SHARES: 1 (100.0% | 62.1/h), VL: 1 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:39:03 | SHARES: 2 (100.0% | 59.0/h), VL: 2 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:40:29 | SHARES: 3 (100.0% | 51.9/h), VL: 3 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:44:28 | SHARES: 4 (100.0% | 32.2/h), VL: 4 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:45:51 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 34.0/h), VL: 5 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:48:01 | SHARES: 6 (100.0% | 32.7/h), VL: 6 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:48:37 | SHARES: 7 (100.0% | 36.2/h), VL: 7 (100.0%), RJ: 0 (0.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:49:14 | SHARES: 7 (100.0% | 34.4/h), VL: 7 (87.5%), RJ: 1 (12.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:50:49 | SHARES: 8 (100.0% | 34.8/h), VL: 8 (88.9%), RJ: 1 (11.1%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:51:11 | SHARES: 9 (100.0% | 38.1/h), VL: 9 (90.0%), RJ: 1 (10.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:51:31 | SHARES: 9 (100.0% | 37.2/h), VL: 9 (81.8%), RJ: 2 (18.2%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:53:31 | SHARES: 10 (100.0% | 36.4/h), VL: 10 (83.3%), RJ: 2 (16.7%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:53:52 | SHARES: 11 (100.0% | 39.2/h), VL: 11 (84.6%), RJ: 2 (15.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:54:13 | SHARES: 11 (100.0% | 38.4/h), VL: 11 (78.6%), RJ: 3 (21.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:56:14 | SHARES: 12 (100.0% | 37.5/h), VL: 12 (80.0%), RJ: 3 (20.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:56:45 | SHARES: 13 (100.0% | 39.5/h), VL: 13 (81.2%), RJ: 3 (18.8%), ST: 0 (0.0%)


some of them not
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:30:45 | SHARES: 9 (100.0% | 8.6/h), VL: 9 (75.0%), RJ: 3 (25.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:33:06 | SHARES: 10 (100.0% | 9.2/h), VL: 10 (76.9%), RJ: 3 (23.1%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:33:16 | SHARES: 11 (100.0% | 10.1/h), VL: 11 (78.6%), RJ: 3 (21.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:33:27 | SHARES: 11 (100.0% | 10.1/h), VL: 11 (73.3%), RJ: 4 (26.7%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:36:14 | SHARES: 12 (100.0% | 10.6/h), VL: 12 (75.0%), RJ: 4 (25.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:39:01 | SHARES: 13 (100.0% | 11.0/h), VL: 13 (76.5%), RJ: 4 (23.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:41:58 | SHARES: 14 (100.0% | 11.4/h), VL: 14 (77.8%), RJ: 4 (22.2%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:44:56 | SHARES: 15 (100.0% | 11.7/h), VL: 15 (78.9%), RJ: 4 (21.1%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:45:17 | SHARES: 16 (100.0% | 12.4/h), VL: 16 (80.0%), RJ: 4 (20.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:46:04 | SHARES: 17 (100.0% | 13.1/h), VL: 17 (81.0%), RJ: 4 (19.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:48:32 | SHARES: 18 (100.0% | 13.4/h), VL: 18 (81.8%), RJ: 4 (18.2%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:48:36 | SHARES: 19 (100.0% | 14.1/h), VL: 19 (82.6%), RJ: 4 (17.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:48:57 | SHARES: 20 (100.0% | 14.8/h), VL: 20 (83.3%), RJ: 4 (16.7%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:50:26 | SHARES: 21 (100.0% | 15.3/h), VL: 21 (84.0%), RJ: 4 (16.0%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:52:24 | SHARES: 22 (100.0% | 15.6/h), VL: 22 (84.6%), RJ: 4 (15.4%), ST: 0 (0.0%)
[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:58:16 | SHARES: 23 (100.0% | 15.3/h), VL: 23 (85.2%), RJ: 4 (14.8%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

4 * 16 cores AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6282 SE

Quote from: svyatoslav on December 25, 2013, 07:25:36 PM
stats for 64 core and 64 threads

[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:23:21 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 5.4/h), VL: 5 (62.5%), RJ: 3 (37.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

what proc are you using?

Quote from: marlowbg on December 25, 2013, 07:26:54 PM

Quote from: svyatoslav on December 25, 2013, 07:25:36 PM
stats for 64 core and 64 threads

[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:23:21 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 5.4/h), VL: 5 (62.5%), RJ: 3 (37.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

I think you have to keep it running for some time to get proper stats, because there is some luck involved also... as far as I know.

Otherwise REJECTS are not good to have... it happens to me also.

Is there a way to get stats while the miner is running? 

Quote from: svyatoslav on December 25, 2013, 07:25:36 PM
stats for 64 core and 64 threads

[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:23:21 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 5.4/h), VL: 5 (62.5%), RJ: 3 (37.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

I think you have to keep it running for some time to get proper stats, because there is some luck involved also... as far as I know.

Otherwise REJECTS are not good to have... it happens to me also.

stats for 64 core and 64 threads

[STATS] 2013-12-25 19:23:21 | SHARES: 5 (100.0% | 5.4/h), VL: 5 (62.5%), RJ: 3 (37.5%), ST: 0 (0.0%)

Quote from: svyatoslav on December 25, 2013, 07:22:16 PM
it It seems it getting faster :)

Oh, got it.

Well, the server was upgraded. There are less rejects it seems.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Quote from: KillerByte on December 25, 2013, 07:16:57 PM

Quote from: svyatoslav on December 25, 2013, 07:14:52 PM
pool is on, but very slow now

does not seem slow to me. Internet lag maby?

QuoteNot need but pool server need optimize /etc/sysctl.conf keepalive time out vs..

see file: https://github.com/GTRsdk/mmcFE/blob/master/scripts/linux-tune.sh

This is also helpful. The pool is not at all pushpool based, but I probobly will implement it. Thanks!

These are the proper settings


/etc/sysctl.conf
net.core.rmem_max = 16777216
net.core.wmem_max = 16777216
net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 16777216
net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 16777216
net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1
net.ipv4.tcp_mem = 50576   64768   98152
net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 2500
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_max = 1048576

it It seems it getting faster :)

Quote from: ig0tik3d on December 25, 2013, 07:19:12 PM

Quote from: KillerByte on December 25, 2013, 06:49:47 PM

Quote from: ig0tik3d on December 25, 2013, 06:46:02 PM
KillerByte this miner is compatible with your pool  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1585.0

Are you sure? I dont see how that could be... this pool is not getwork compatible.

it is was question not affirmation ))

OK, sorry for the confusion :)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Quote from: KillerByte on December 25, 2013, 07:19:22 PM
I don't quite understand your post... 10x slower?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

like this :)

10 times slower then hour ago, before it was around 50h for me, now 5, I have 64 cores

I don't quite understand your post... 10x slower?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Quote from: KillerByte on December 25, 2013, 06:49:47 PM

Quote from: ig0tik3d on December 25, 2013, 06:46:02 PM
KillerByte this miner is compatible with your pool  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1585.0

Are you sure? I dont see how that could be... this pool is not getwork compatible.

it is was question not affirmation ))

10 times slower then hour ago, before it was around 50h for me, now 5, I have 65 threads