[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 257.

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Quote from: entr04y on December 01, 2014, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 11:34:49 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:04:55 AM

Anyone have a C1 pointing at p2pool? Mine seems to behave like my S2 pre-fix ... abysmal.

I was expecting the C1 to act like a S3, but it doesn't, it acts like an S2. Including the annoying "have to set queue to 0 every reboot" problem.

M

I have C1's using P2Pool. Mine are getting the full 1000GH/s, but they do require the same re-setting of queue after a reboot. I also set the pseudo share difficulty. It has been discussed that setting pseudo difficulty does not effect the overall performance, however setting pseudo difficulty will make cgminer and the UI show the expected hashrate. I use +1028 (If you use +1024, Best Share is not displayed. But with +1028, best Share works. I have no idea why.) Regarding setting the queue, S2/S4/C1 all have the same OS configuration.

I'm not sure if it also gets wiped after a reboot (I'll let you know the next time I have to reboot) but I found that the "save and apply" button on the miner configuration completely re-writes cgminer.conf on my C1s. I've edited /www/pages/cgi-bin/set_miner_conf.cgi to add the options so that I can fiddle with my settings in the gui and still maintain the configs...

That's pretty annoying about the stale shares filtering, have they made any comment regarding that specifcally or are they just ignoring it?

Might be worth while asking ckolivas if the S3 binary he done to fix the stale shares filtering can also be used in the C1? I don't have a C1, but it might be compatible......

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Quote from: mdude77 on December 01, 2014, 07:17:34 PM

Quote from: IYFTech on December 01, 2014, 07:00:55 PM

Agreed on those SP20's - and to think I nearly bought a Prisma........that was close Cheesy

The only thing I saw good about the Prisma was the price war it caused. Otherwise ... not able to use low starting difficulty, power usage changes with ambient temp.. and needs a separate controller?

I'm hoping the SP20 doesn't disappoint.

M

Yeah, I read some real horror stories about them, zero support too - which seems to be a blossoming problem lately......

You'll not be disappointed with the SP20 though Wink

Edit: Although ambient temp plays a major role with the SP20 also - it likes to be c-c-c-cold

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: IYFTech on December 01, 2014, 07:00:55 PM

Agreed on those SP20's - and to think I nearly bought a Prisma........that was close Cheesy

The only thing I saw good about the Prisma was the price war it caused. Otherwise ... not able to use low starting difficulty, power usage changes with ambient temp.. and needs a separate controller?

I'm hoping the SP20 doesn't disappoint.

M

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Agreed on those SP20's - and to think I nearly bought a Prisma........that was close Cheesy

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

Quote from: mdude77 on December 01, 2014, 06:43:01 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 06:35:22 PM

Same here, I'm in the process of clearing out my Bitmain gear for SP-Tech stuff - it's better & it works a treat with p2pool. Their support is superior too, far superior.

Seems like we're back to where we were 18 months ago, lack of compatible hardware & no development......we need a re-write!! Cheesy

I'm keeping an S2, S3, and C1 for support in my app. The proceeds from selling my other Ants went to buying a SP20. The intent is to add support to my monitor for that too.

M

Those SP20 are a good piece of kit, I'm well happy with mine. Got one more S2 to sell (my best one Wink

), then I'll be getting rid of the S3's gradually. I never bothered with the S4 or C1 - too much grief & lack of support, best decision I made too. Interested to see support in your app for the SP20 mdude - cool

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 06:35:22 PM

Quote from: IYFTech on December 01, 2014, 06:17:06 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on December 01, 2014, 06:09:48 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

They're ignoring it, have been since day one.

I really think their p2pool support is lipservice, nothing more.

M

You got that right mdude. They're marketing the "decentralization" thing really hard too, even though it completely isn't. I've always given them the benefit of doubt, especially with their p2pool crap, but I've completely lost faith in them lately......

Same here, I'm in the process of clearing out my Bitmain gear for SP-Tech stuff - it's better & it works a treat with p2pool. Their support is superior too, far superior.

Seems like we're back to where we were 18 months ago, lack of compatible hardware & no development......we need a re-write!! Cheesy

I'm keeping an S2, S3, and C1 for support in my app. The proceeds from selling my other Ants went to buying a SP20. The intent is to add support to my monitor for that too.

M

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

Quote from: IYFTech on December 01, 2014, 06:17:06 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on December 01, 2014, 06:09:48 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

They're ignoring it, have been since day one.

I really think their p2pool support is lipservice, nothing more.

M

You got that right mdude. They're marketing the "decentralization" thing really hard too, even though it completely isn't. I've always given them the benefit of doubt, especially with their p2pool crap, but I've completely lost faith in them lately......

Same here, I'm in the process of clearing out my Bitmain gear for SP-Tech stuff - it's better & it works a treat with p2pool. Their support is superior too, far superior.

Seems like we're back to where we were 18 months ago, lack of compatible hardware & no development......we need a re-write!! Cheesy

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Quote from: mdude77 on December 01, 2014, 06:09:48 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

They're ignoring it, have been since day one.

I really think their p2pool support is lipservice, nothing more.

M

You got that right mdude. They're marketing the "decentralization" thing really hard too, even though it completely isn't. I've always given them the benefit of doubt, especially with their p2pool crap, but I've completely lost faith in them lately......

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: PatMan on December 01, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

They're ignoring it, have been since day one.

I really think their p2pool support is lipservice, nothing more.

M

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

They're ignoring it, have been since day one.

entr04y

newbie

Activity: 23

Merit: 0

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 11:34:49 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:04:55 AM

Anyone have a C1 pointing at p2pool? Mine seems to behave like my S2 pre-fix ... abysmal.

I was expecting the C1 to act like a S3, but it doesn't, it acts like an S2. Including the annoying "have to set queue to 0 every reboot" problem.

M

I have C1's using P2Pool. Mine are getting the full 1000GH/s, but they do require the same re-setting of queue after a reboot. I also set the pseudo share difficulty. It has been discussed that setting pseudo difficulty does not effect the overall performance, however setting pseudo difficulty will make cgminer and the UI show the expected hashrate. I use +1028 (If you use +1024, Best Share is not displayed. But with +1028, best Share works. I have no idea why.) Regarding setting the queue, S2/S4/C1 all have the same OS configuration.

I'm not sure if it also gets wiped after a reboot (I'll let you know the next time I have to reboot) but I found that the "save and apply" button on the miner configuration completely re-writes cgminer.conf on my C1s. I've edited /www/pages/cgi-bin/set_miner_conf.cgi to add the options so that I can fiddle with my settings in the gui and still maintain the configs...

That's pretty annoying about the stale shares filtering, have they made any comment regarding that specifcally or are they just ignoring it?

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: chinesebob on December 01, 2014, 02:14:48 PM

I see a recent block for today but, no payout, p2pool has had a payout listed for me since before and after the block, is there something I need to bang on to make the payout happen?

Something happened to that block. I don't think we all know what yet.

M

chinesebob

newbie

Activity: 64

Merit: 0

I see a recent block for today but, no payout, p2pool has had a payout listed for me since before and after the block, is there something I need to bang on to make the payout happen?

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

I was comparing your results with http://p2pools.org/btc & I noticed forre.st node had been down for over 50 days - has he completely abandoned his node now as well? Or has he just changed his domain?

jedimstr

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mahrens917 on November 30, 2014, 10:54:03 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 30, 2014, 07:17:33 AM

Quote from: mahrens917 on November 29, 2014, 11:36:28 PM

Quote from: naplam on November 28, 2014, 09:33:44 AM

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.

nreal

full member

Activity: 932

Merit: 100

arcs-chain.com

> Error submitting primary block: (will retry)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269638 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269676 > File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 490, in _startRunCallbacks
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269704 > self._runCallbacks()
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269738 > File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 577, in _runCallbacks
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269780 > current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269832 > File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1155, in gotResult
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269856 > _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269880 > File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1099, in _inlineCallbacks
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269913 > result = g.send(result)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269954 > --- ---
2014-12-01 08:58:52.269987 > File "/mnt/60gb/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferral.py", line 41, in f
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270028 > result = yield func(*args, **kwargs)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270059 > File "/mnt/60gb/p2pool/p2pool/bitcoin/helper.py", line 67, in submit_block_p2p
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270112 > factory.conn.value.send_block(block=block)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270136 > File "/mnt/60gb/p2pool/p2pool/util/p2protocol.py", line 102, in
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270169 > return lambda **payload2: self.sendPacket(command, payload2)
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270201 > File "/mnt/60gb/p2pool/p2pool/util/p2protocol.py", line 93, in sendPacket
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270224 > raise TooLong('payload too long')
2014-12-01 08:58:52.270247 > p2pool.util.p2protocol.TooLong: payload too long

Whatsup?

It became orphan because payload too long? Too many users on pool or too many transactions in a block or what?

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: mdude77 on November 30, 2014, 07:17:33 AM

Quote from: mahrens917 on November 29, 2014, 11:36:28 PM

Quote from: naplam on November 28, 2014, 09:33:44 AM

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.

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002