Re: GekkoScience Terminus R606 up to 1TH quiet miner, available for pre-order
@rockmoney
Keep sending me those headers as you cycle through them. Super useful in fine tuning.
@kano
Just double checking everything, I notice I'm counting hw_errors, nonces after flush events. Not significant, but will do better to only include the ones that pass test_nonce.
Yeah, every time a nonce is found, the driver reports upstream (device diff x 2^32).
To perfectly track with pool side value, I would probably need to go straight with the formula provided, using pool diff instead of device diff and not count lower diff values.
As it is, I'm thinking I may have requested the pool difficulty to be a tad on the too high side:
Given the lower number of total accepted shares, it's still within the margin of error:
Confidence Level:
Margin of error for sample size = 1/sqrt(n), 1/sqrt(661) = 3.8%
Next test set:
Duration: 43410
Total difficulty of accepted shares: 9444098.0
Calculated hash rate: Diff * 2^32 / Time = 9444098 * 2^32 / 43410 = 934GH/s
934 vs 937 = 99.7%
Margin of error for sample size = 1/sqrt(n), 1/sqrt(3777) = 1.6%
I'll post the final stats for this one if it survives the full 24hr without a hiccup.
Keep sending me those headers as you cycle through them. Super useful in fine tuning.
@kano
But this all, hopefully, may help you find where the difference is 
Just double checking everything, I notice I'm counting hw_errors, nonces after flush events. Not significant, but will do better to only include the ones that pass test_nonce.
So really all this ends up with, is saying that the most accurate comparable hash rate between miners is the internal work Diff per nonce that comes back to cgminer, and then to get the current preferred (fake) hash rate, multiply that by 2^32
Yeah, every time a nonce is found, the driver reports upstream (device diff x 2^32).
To perfectly track with pool side value, I would probably need to go straight with the formula provided, using pool diff instead of device diff and not count lower diff values.
As it is, I'm thinking I may have requested the pool difficulty to be a tad on the too high side:
Given the lower number of total accepted shares, it's still within the margin of error:
Confidence Level:
Margin of error for sample size = 1/sqrt(n), 1/sqrt(661) = 3.8%
Next test set:
Worker : R606-d0s5r002
Device : Lab Workbench
Setting : 5 (Default for devices)
Run : 12 Hours @ kano.is, AsicBoost on. (heading towards 24h)
Duration: 43410
Total difficulty of accepted shares: 9444098.0
Calculated hash rate: Diff * 2^32 / Time = 9444098 * 2^32 / 43410 = 934GH/s
934 vs 937 = 99.7%
Margin of error for sample size = 1/sqrt(n), 1/sqrt(3777) = 1.6%
I'll post the final stats for this one if it survives the full 24hr without a hiccup.