Any update on when the rejected shares problem on nanopool will be fixed.
I have two systems running TMR 0.4.1 (one with 2x Vega 56's, one with 3x Vega 56's) and both are showing about 2% rejects on nanopool.
2x Vega 56: a:1254 r:26 hw:0 - 2% rejection rate
3x Vega 56: a:1842 r:34 hw:0 - 1.8% rejection rate
Can confirm the "--no_cpu_check" helped a bit on Nanopool.
Went from 2% rejected to 1.75% (tested over 24 hours). Nothing revolutionary but hey.
Probably worth switching pool though. Thinking about the big picture here... Adding up dev fee + pool fee + rejects and you're losing ~5% of your hash.
Nanopool can't set the difficulty.
And fixed at a very low difficulty.
120001 is not very low difficulty.
On v8 nanopool had no issues with TRM v0.3.8 with that same fixed difficulty so the current issue is either with nanopool or TRM v0.4.1.
For a CN gpu miner of any sort, with Nanopool rejecting any share belonging to an old job from their perspective, a 1.5-2% reject ratio is to be expected:
- One run of hashes takes ~1.8 secs on a Vega/Polaris gpu. Sometimes more, sometimes less, it also depends on your nr pads used, but this is a good average.
- Nanopool sends out a new job on avg every 47 secs, assuming my logs from 6-7h of mining yesterday provide a good avg.
- During the 1.8 secs it takes to complete a batch of hashes, any result(s) from that wave will be useless.
- On average, you will be in the middle of a hash calculation when a new job appears, so on avg 0.9 secs of gpu runtime will be worthless per job.
The above is simplified, we have some guarantees around our two threads, the nrs aren't fully accurate, you can implement an abort mechanism etc, but the simple point I'm trying to make is that 0.9 / 47 = 1.9%. Add a little network latency for 50ms roundtrip time and you have 0.95 / 47 = 2.02%. Given Nanopool's policy of not accepting any stale share and the fact that we always send all shares found to the pool, regardless if we've received a new job or not, miners will end up with a ~2% reject ratio.
To the best of my knowledge, Nanopool had the same policy for CNv8, so it really is a little surprising if people were seeing close to 0% rejects over time, I'm quite certain I wasn't myself. Supportxmr has pretty much the reverse strategy, they accept any shares that aren't from the stone age, that's why people see 0% rejected shares there. The Nanopool strategy favors cpu miners over gpu miners, supportxmr favors gpu miners over cpu miners by actually accepting some shares that never can be converted into network blocks, and those will typically be submitted by gpu miners. Nicehash is utter shit since they have the shortest avg job time among all "pools" which further amplifies the scenario above.
All this said, I will be running a A+B test tomorrow on my 8x Vega rig, testing TRM 0.4.1 vs xmrig with 4x Vegas each. If xmrig would have a statistically significant lower reject ratio after enough mining time I will continue to investigate.