--expiry 1 --queue 1 --scan-time 1

after 1hr 1/2, reject is at 10.5%
after 6hrs, reject is at 8.5%

Location: Australia

Should I remove --no-submit-stale like for middlecoin?

+1

I'm at 7-8% rejected

to the people calling for an EU server, chill your beans, im in the uk and only have 4.6 % reject for last 24 hours, having a server in the EU is not going to make a hell of a diffrence especially while there are still technical adjustements being made.

I would much have a stable fully working code before getting a locall sourced server to provide bad not tweaked code. Plus Terk has already said its on the to do list so consistantly saying +1 is not going to help at all in this matter except provide further stress to Terk which can lead to mistakes being made.

I would like to take this opertunity to thank Terk for his efforts and rapid responses when issues have arrisen and taking the time and effort to make this pool great and hopefully things will get better.

reject % in general does not really matter as different locations in EU have different ping results to the server

my ping is 222ms. what's yours?

?? of course its pingable.

i'm in the south of England

PING us.clevermining.com (54.200.13.55): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=0 ttl=47 time=176.951 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=1 ttl=47 time=171.402 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=2 ttl=47 time=174.863 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=3 ttl=47 time=171.175 ms

PING eu.wafflepool.com (95.85.28.31) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=16.4 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=17.6 ms

PING middlecoin.com (54.194.173.83) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=1 ttl=53 time=30.4 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=2 ttl=53 time=29.9 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=3 ttl=53 time=28.7 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=4 ttl=53 time=27.5 ms

Terk, any chance that vardiff may come back to help reduce variance for us micro-miners?

but is it down to the new amount of users or the fact there was the server move and i think there may have been a software patch as well?

Just because you have a low reject, doesn't mean everyone in the EU needs to chill. being in the UK we have a relatively good connection to the rest of the world.

http://maps.level3.com/default/#.UwYJkfl_vbA

I think you missed the point i was trying to make, I was trying to say that once the current server is up and running as it should do then Terk will look at implementing an EU server, at the moment he's trying to make sure the current setup/software can handle things the way they should otherwise there is no point adding another server to a bugged code as this could cause further complications.

Its already on the to do list so consistantly adding these +1 posts is not going to add a lot of value to the thread, But this is the internet and people are just impatient i guess and want things yesterday before things are fully fixed.