[ANN] [STABLE!] mmc.xpool.xram.co - First Memorycoin Pool

[agnostik_one]

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

[svyatoslav]

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%)

[svyatoslav]

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

[agnostik_one]

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?

[badbonez]

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? 

[pvp1982]

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.

[svyatoslav]

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%)

[KillerByte]

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

[pvp1982]

pool is on, but very slow now

does not seem slow to me. Internet lag maby?

Not 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

[svyatoslav]

it It seems it getting faster

[KillerByte]

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

[svyatoslav]

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

[KillerByte]

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

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ig0tik3d]

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 ))

[svyatoslav]

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