Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Discuss issues with mining rigs and connectivity issues with experienced Prohashing miners.
Forum rules
Welcome to the mining rig and connectivity support forum!

This forum is for discussing issues with mining rigs and connectivity issues with experienced PROHASHING miners. This is a great place to ask questions about connecting specific hardware to PROHASHING.

Remember, PROHASHING employees do not closely monitor the forums like we do the official support channels, so this forum's purpose is to connect you with other PROHASHING miners who have experience with similar hardware/issues. If you have connectivity issues you are unable to resolve here on the forum, please submit a ticket through the official support channels.

For the full list of PROHASHING forums rules, please visit https://prohashing.com/help/prohashing- ... rms-forums.
Post Reply
daringone
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:39 pm

Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Post by daringone » Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:48 pm

Hey all, newbie here!

I recently purchased a Goldshell Mini-DOGE after sitting on the sidelines for a long time. I ran into a weird issue where it seems that if I have a backup pool configured, my hashrate gets HAMMERED for some reason. It's a roughly 33% increase (clearly very significant) as long as I simply remove the backup pool. Anyone else running into this? Is there a fix, or do I just have to manually fix this in the event something bad happens with Prohashing?
User avatar
NearlyDeparted
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:24 am
Location: Nebraska

Re: Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Post by NearlyDeparted » Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:19 am

I am able to replicate this with 2 Goldshell Mini-Doge miners. I first setup both miners identical.
As a side note, I also have a futurebit Apollo LTC that does NOT have a problem with multiple pools as backups.

3 pools: Prohashing(Proswitching-Verified), LitecoinPool(PPS), and ViaBTC(PPLNS)
I normally have the miners on LitecoinPool and have been testing ViaBTC. Both of those pools had a steady 185MH average at the pool and internal.
I switched Prohashing to the top (main pool) and both miners could only get to 126MH max, as low as 90MH at the pool, showing 135MH on the internal.

Once I removed all other pools, Prohashing and the internal dashboards, improved. internal miners dashboards were showing the normal 185-190MH, with the pool dashboard page moving around 160-230MH.
I need to let the new Prohashing only setup run for at least a full week to see a real average, but its a large difference.
User avatar
Sarah Manter
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Post by Sarah Manter » Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:46 am

NearlyDeparted wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:19 am I am able to replicate this with 2 Goldshell Mini-Doge miners. I first setup both miners identical.
As a side note, I also have a futurebit Apollo LTC that does NOT have a problem with multiple pools as backups.

3 pools: Prohashing(Proswitching-Verified), LitecoinPool(PPS), and ViaBTC(PPLNS)
I normally have the miners on LitecoinPool and have been testing ViaBTC. Both of those pools had a steady 185MH average at the pool and internal.
I switched Prohashing to the top (main pool) and both miners could only get to 126MH max, as low as 90MH at the pool, showing 135MH on the internal.

Once I removed all other pools, Prohashing and the internal dashboards, improved. internal miners dashboards were showing the normal 185-190MH, with the pool dashboard page moving around 160-230MH.
I need to let the new Prohashing only setup run for at least a full week to see a real average, but its a large difference.
daringone wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:48 pm Hey all, newbie here!

I recently purchased a Goldshell Mini-DOGE after sitting on the sidelines for a long time. I ran into a weird issue where it seems that if I have a backup pool configured, my hashrate gets HAMMERED for some reason. It's a roughly 33% increase (clearly very significant) as long as I simply remove the backup pool. Anyone else running into this? Is there a fix, or do I just have to manually fix this in the event something bad happens with Prohashing?
Would you be willing to let us use your Mini-Doge miners for a remote desktop connection to connect to the test system and figure out what's wrong? We don't have this specific hardware to be able to reproduce the issue and will pay for the time your workers are losing money directed at the test system.
User avatar
NearlyDeparted
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:24 am
Location: Nebraska

Re: Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Post by NearlyDeparted » Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:36 pm

Sarah Manter wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:46 am Would you be willing to let us use your Mini-Doge miners for a remote desktop connection to connect to the test system and figure out what's wrong? We don't have this specific hardware to be able to reproduce the issue and will pay for the time your workers are losing money directed at the test system.
I could help out with that. Let me know what you need on my side and when.
User avatar
Sarah Manter
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: Mini-DOGE Hashrate Impacted With Backup Pool Configured

Post by Sarah Manter » Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:14 pm

NearlyDeparted wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:36 pm
Sarah Manter wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:46 am Would you be willing to let us use your Mini-Doge miners for a remote desktop connection to connect to the test system and figure out what's wrong? We don't have this specific hardware to be able to reproduce the issue and will pay for the time your workers are losing money directed at the test system.
I could help out with that. Let me know what you need on my side and when.
Awesome! Can you please submit a Website Chat Support ticket stating that you're willing to let us use your Mini-Doge miners for a remote desktop connection to the test system? Then we can get you connected with the engineer who will be doing the testing.
Post Reply