Quote from: mahrens917 on December 01, 2014, 03:54:03 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 30, 2014, 12:17:33 PM

Quote from: mahrens917 on November 30, 2014, 04:36:28 AM

Quote from: naplam on November 28, 2014, 02:33:44 PM

I think your formulas are a bit arbitrary. For instance, getwork latency is given way too much importance in the pool formula. And everything is linear.. and so on (latencies are mostly ok within a range before the problems they cause skyrocket).

Thanks for the comments Naplam. Based off of what you said I changed the criteria and reduced how much GWL matters to the p2pool score. In regards to most of my equations being linear, do you have any suggestions on how to make the ranking more accurate? Perhaps through tiering?

The latest criteria used can be found on the bottom of the p2pool node finder page, nodes.p2pool.co

I agree about the getwork latency comment, that's weighted too high IMHO. My node (http://96.44.166.190:9332) is ranked at 51% solely because of the getwork latency. Everything else is stellar including 111% efficiency. I played with the bitcoind settings quite a bit before I settled on what it's set to now. I decided getting more transactions was worth a slightly higher getwork latency, and as shown, it didn't affect the efficiency rating at all.

M

OK, I removed GWL from the score and your node is doing much better now. I agree it is efficiency and latency which matters and not internal measurements of the system. I hope I have the proper balance between efficiency and latency. I am looking to ensure the scoring system is the fairest out there and a true representation of the best node to connect to.

Thanks for the feedback.

The latest algorithm change definitely boosted my node's standing (currently 112% score in your list).

Could you change the listing from the IP 71.172.92.76 to the host name galactica.geekgalaxy.com?

Also, the algorithm FAQ at the bottom still lists GWL.