+1
Under review

Theory on Issues with Lyra Coins

Ben 6 years ago updated by Bubba Gump 6 years ago 5

First of all, I'm new to mining in general, and most of this is speculation based on comparing results here to elsewhere (and the volume of complaints about payments for these two cryptos - barring some of the "nicehash" noise of people coming from far larger pools, and expecting quicker results).

I believe there are probably 2 issues server side - and I think they are linked:


1) VarDiff - This seems to want each miner to have a super fast turn around, e.g. it's happy with them being returned within a couple of seconds (if that).  Other pools (for VTC) seem to set my difficulty around 64 (with sometimes dropping to 32, and then fairly soon going back up again) for my single GTX1080 - here it always hovers around 18.  This means on other pools I sometimes get shares that take 30 seconds or more - and others have a bunch within a couple of seconds.


E.g. this on P2Pool:


Image 75


For us here, I think this is a "sledgehammer to crack a nut" scenario - using higher powered devices to solve simpler problems - people get a high number of shares - but because they are the small fry problems they aren't worth as much as their GPU solving potentially much harder stuff in a similar amount of time.


2) Allocation of jobs - this comes from the Excavator issue that is in another thread and that it seems like only here that CCMiner reports "enabled stratum stale jobs workaround", which from my investigation in another thread is that the server is reporting that the job doesn't exist - i.e. it's already been solved by someone else.  You can see this happens a lot in Excavator, and I believe CCMiner is just masking it by verifying that the job hasn't gone stale before reporting the share.  Given this I think the server doesn't allocate jobs efficiently, and will give out jobs to multiple workers, and whoever solves it first gets the share, and CCMiner will ditch the job before attempting to send the result - i.e wasting compute resource.


I would say these possibly go hand in hand, VarDiff would need to allow for more time between shares, however, the allocation of jobs needs to be so that multiple workers aren't working on the same jobs within that window.  It's possibly why the VarDiff target is so low.


I could of course be completely off base here, but thought I'd throw it out there :)


+2
Under review

@Ben: The most important part of your analysis is the final part where you go into the potential of handing out the same job to multiple miners. This would be deadly indeed but fortunately this is covered by the extranonce assigned to each miner. Slush described this in his Stratum Whitepaper. Coincidently, I'm working on improving the vardiff implementation right now. Will keep you posted.

+1

Thanks for the reply :)


Been doing some more testing, hHave been using :3097 for the past couple of hours now, along with the ccminer having the 'submit-stale' option set.


The has leveled out the difficulty at around 33, and it's getting shares fairly frequently and only shows 634/660 accepted - rather than the 100% accept rate with ccminer working around stale jobs - and I can live with that ratio.

So seems to be better :)


Might try excavator on :3097 as well to see if that also has a reduced failure rate.


EDIT: In Excavator it doesn't take long for the difficulty to take a nosedive so back to CCMiner :)


+1

Thank you for the analysis.  Do you see much hash rate difference between the two miners?

Excavator displays a better hash rate (about 10%), but (as above) the difficulty tanks very quickly for me so I think ccminer will give a better return.  The Vertcoin One Click miner seems to give a similar hashrate to Excavator (on P2Pools) but doesn't seem to work here.

I could not get the one click miner to work either.