# Is the really a difference if your plot starts with zero or not?

• Ok I have heard different versions of how your plot file starting and ending numbers should be numbered e.g. sequentially or maybe not have to be sequential.

Example of plots that are NOT SEQUENTIAL which will work;

Plot 1 - id number_100000001_764000_764000
Plot 2 - id number_200000001_2064440_2064440
Plot 3 - id number_300000001_3814120_3814120

Sequential plots;

Plot A - id number_0_764000_764000
Plot B - id number_764000_2064440_2064440
Plot C - id number_2828440_3814120_3814120

What is so wrong with Plot number 1-3 vs. A-C ?
I Prefer 1-3 in MHO.

Here is where I am at as well. Currently plotting one 8TB drive:

id number_0_30,521,344_30,521,344

I would like to start my next 8TB drive at:

id number_40,000,000_30,521,344_30,521,344
Commas are in for reference only !!!
Is starting with 40,000,000 ok ?

• Is there something in BURST mining that would improve your results if the files were sequential?

Digidigm

• Sequence is not required. No difference in mining performance from sequential or non-sequential plots.
So you can start plots from any number to any number, only need to make sure same numbers do not repeat.
(Choose your lucky number ranges )

Updated after insight by @vaxman in below comment
In fact in your sequence example (A-C), each plot's last number is repeating with first number of next plot, which is causing you loss of 1 number.
So even if you intend to plot sequentially(though unnecessary) start next plot with a number greater than last number of previous plot.

• In fact in your sequence example (A-C), each plot's last number is repeating with first number of next plot, which is causing you loss of 1 number.
So even if you intend to plot sequentially(though unnecessary) start next plot with a number greater than last number of previous plot.

You're not counting correctly.
The format is

id_start_length_stagger

It is not id_start_end_stagger.
if I start at 0, do plot 1 nonce, nonce 0 is plotted.
Next nonce is 1.

start=0, length=1 => next=1

start=100, length=400 => next=500

So the OP has no overlap in his example.

Back to the original question - there is no need to be sequential or anywhere in 2^64 in particular. 2^64 is your range, and there is no "magic" number that is best for "you".

• @vaxman @Ozone - Thanks for the information

What I find is that if you do sequential naming, you are LOCKED IN for lack of a better word on the ranges and if you need to take one plot OUT OF SERVICE or better yet want to say INJECT a new plot. Maybe because one of the plots got corrupted or you may want to optimize a plot.

Then you are kind stuck and need to add the plot to the end of the sequence. I am a newbie and this may be just me looking at it too much but its worth putting some time into it to understand a NAMING CONVENTION on the Start Number to allow some flexibitily.

I am plotting an 8TB drive and I don't plan on plotting anything larger so my largest length in my drive farm would be 30521344 giving me;

• id_number_0_30521344_30521344
• Id_number_start__ Length_stagger

Knowing that 8TB is roughly 30521344 +/-, I can assume that any plots lower than 8TB will give me a size lower than 30521344.

A spreadsheet with flexible starting numbers to allow me to interject different plot sizes lower than 8TB and avoid OVERLAPPING PLOTS is in order.

Thank you forum members for clearing up the sequential vs. non sequential dilemma I had.

Digidigm

• Knowing that 8TB is roughly 30521344

That is far to much data for an 8 TB drive;

256 * 2^20 * 30,521,344 = 8,193,010,894,372,864

(A nonce is 256 KiB = 2^20 2^18 Bytes)

For me, one 8 TB drive (note: not 8 TiB) holds just 29,360,128 nonces, but I have an unusual setup with 4% reservation.
https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/7976/online-bytes-to-nonces-calculator-tool/2

edit: sorry, I was in a hurry and totally distracted by something else.
If your setup can fit 30521344 nonces on an 8 TB drive, perfect.
Yours is 3.9% more efficient than mine (zfs w/ckecksums per block).

• Knowing that 8TB is roughly 30521344

That is far to much data for an 8 TB drive;

256 * 2^20 * 30,521,344 = 8,193,010,894,372,864

(A nonce is 256 KiB = 2^20 B )

For me, one 8 TB (note: not 8 TiB) holds just 29,360,128 nonces, but I hav an unusual setup with 4% reservation.
https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/7976/online-bytes-to-nonces-calculator-tool/2

@Vaxman

Ok lets hammer this out;

• Right now I am plotting with xplotter_avx2.exe
• To fire up the plotter I told it to start at zero and use the entire drive
• Here is the line in the bat file: XPlotter_avx2.exe -id id_number -sn 0 -n 0 -t 6 -path M:\Burst\plots -mem 6G
• The program pre-allocates the space on disc and starts plotting
• This is the file name it created and has been plotting now 9 hours: id_number_0_30521344_30521344

Did I misquote or use the wrong terminology when I said the size was 30521344 should I have said nonces?
I am a newbie so that is possible. Going to the link now to read up on what you sent.

• 2^18 = 262144 = 256KiB = 1 nonce
2^20 = 1048576 = 1024KiB = something else

• Did I misquote or use the wrong terminology when I said the size was 30521344 should I have said nonces?

No, you were clear, no misunderstanding.

I did some miscalc above, that was off by 6.4% and that struck me as odd. But all my fault, my kids wanted to see a movie and I was more with them than wth this topic.

Hope your plot goes through as planned - no brown outs, crashes, write errors...

• Weeeeww ok now that we go that out of the way. I was waiting to post my name conventions for file names see below.

Assumptions

• I use xplotter_av2.exe so that program sets the stagger size to the same number of nonces it will generate
• Using this convention allows me, IMHO, to NOT HAVE overlapping plots
• It will allow me to remove a plotted drive for whatever reason and swap one in its place say for optimizing or corruption. Again to avoid overlapping plot files
• Let me know how big the file is +/- just by looking at the first three numbers of the start number

Ok fire away, comments, thought, suggestions are all welcome.

• Here's what I do for file naming conventions:

I have 3 mining accounts, 1234xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 5678xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and 9876xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

So the starting nonces always start with the first 4 numbers of the account, then 8TB drives are numbered 800, 801, 802 etc. 5TB drives the same 500, 501, 502 etc.

So plot files look like:

1234xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_123440200000000_15261024_15261024

4TB drive 402 for account 1234,

5678xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_567850300000000_19076456_19076456

5TB drive 503 for account 5678

9876xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_987680200000000_30522744_30522744

8TB drive 802 for account 9876.

• Here's what I do for file naming conventions:

I have 3 mining accounts, 1234xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 5678xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and 9876xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

So the starting nonces always start with the first 4 numbers of the account, then 8TB drives are numbered 800, 801, 802 etc. 5TB drives the same 500, 501, 502 etc.

So plot files look like:

1234xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_123440200000000_15261024_15261024

4TB drive 402 for account 1234,

5678xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_567850300000000_19076456_19076456

5TB drive 503 for account 5678

9876xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_987680200000000_30522744_30522744

8TB drive 802 for account 9876.

I LIKE IT ALLOT !!!! I did not think far enough out to think I would need multiple accounts.

Thank you