[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 258.

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002

Mine Mine Mine

Quote from: PatMan on November 30, 2014, 03:24:17 PM

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 03:08:14 PM

Quote from: PatMan on November 30, 2014, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 11:43:29 AM

does anyone have the latest guide for making own p2pool on linux ? tried some others dont seem quite to work

Are you using the script or installing everything manually?

used the script provided here http://bitcoin.kyros.info/ but then i get stuck right at the end :
--2014-11-30 08:10:02-- (try: 3) https://bitfetch.com/static/bootstrap.7z
Connecting to bitfetch.com (bitfetch.com)|176.9.50.103|:443...

Yeah, I'm not sure if the links still work as it's no longer being updated or maintained. Suggest you do the set-up manually instead?

yeps, learning still especially linux ... looking for a noob proof guide

norgan

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Decentralize your hashing - p2pool - Norgz Pool

geez the share diff is down. pointing some miners back here for a bit.

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 03:08:14 PM

Quote from: PatMan on November 30, 2014, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 11:43:29 AM

does anyone have the latest guide for making own p2pool on linux ? tried some others dont seem quite to work

Are you using the script or installing everything manually?

used the script provided here http://bitcoin.kyros.info/ but then i get stuck right at the end :
--2014-11-30 08:10:02-- (try: 3) https://bitfetch.com/static/bootstrap.7z
Connecting to bitfetch.com (bitfetch.com)|176.9.50.103|:443...

Yeah, I'm not sure if the links still work as it's no longer being updated or maintained. Suggest you do the set-up manually instead?

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002

Mine Mine Mine

Quote from: PatMan on November 30, 2014, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 11:43:29 AM

does anyone have the latest guide for making own p2pool on linux ? tried some others dont seem quite to work

Are you using the script or installing everything manually?

used the script provided here http://bitcoin.kyros.info/ but then i get stuck right at the end :
--2014-11-30 08:10:02-- (try: 3) https://bitfetch.com/static/bootstrap.7z
Connecting to bitfetch.com (bitfetch.com)|176.9.50.103|:443...

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

Quote from: yslyung on November 30, 2014, 11:43:29 AM

does anyone have the latest guide for making own p2pool on linux ? tried some others dont seem quite to work

Are you using the script or installing everything manually?

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002

Mine Mine Mine

does anyone have the latest guide for making own p2pool on linux ? tried some others dont seem quite to work

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

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

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

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

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 10:04:23 PM

Quote from: -ck on November 29, 2014, 10:00:16 PM

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 09:50:19 PM

When mining with P2Pool, I see the message below from cgminer 4.6.1 from Bitmain's firmware. Does this mean that the stale shares are not thrown away?

[2014-11-30 02:45:57] Pool 2 stale share detected, submitting as user requested

No, bitmain decided to add extra block detection code themselves so they filter even more at the driver level.

Thanks for the info.

Exact code if you're interested:
https://github.com/bitmaintech/cgminer/blob/master/driver-bitmain.c#L1294

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: -ck on November 29, 2014, 10:00:16 PM

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 09:50:19 PM

When mining with P2Pool, I see the message below from cgminer 4.6.1 from Bitmain's firmware. Does this mean that the stale shares are not thrown away?

[2014-11-30 02:45:57] Pool 2 stale share detected, submitting as user requested

No, bitmain decided to add extra block detection code themselves so they filter even more at the driver level.

Thanks for the info.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 29, 2014, 09:50:19 PM

When mining with P2Pool, I see the message below from cgminer 4.6.1 from Bitmain's firmware. Does this mean that the stale shares are not thrown away?

[2014-11-30 02:45:57] Pool 2 stale share detected, submitting as user requested

No, bitmain decided to add extra block detection code themselves so they filter even more at the driver level.

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: -ck on November 29, 2014, 01:08:28 AM

Quote from: nreal on November 29, 2014, 12:05:42 AM

Quote from: -ck on November 28, 2014, 09:12:10 PM

Quote from: MissouriMiner on November 21, 2014, 08:47:25 PM

The number 1 issue is fixed with latest firmware, which runs cgminer 4.6.1. When the work restart request comes in, I usually see the flush work within 1 second, then the new block task usually arrives in another second. Often there are new accepted shares submitted within 2 seconds of the work restart request. The new cgminer 4.6.1 has brought new life to the S2. I used to point the S2's to a different pool, while all my other miners used P2Pool. It's so nice to see them doing the full 1000 GH/s with P2Pool. I have 2x S2's and 2x C1's, and all 4 of them run neck-and-neck.

Bear in mind if you are pointing an S1/2/3/4 to p2pool with bitmain's default firmware binaries, they throw out stale shares which is potentially disastrous on p2pool because that can throw out a valid block solve. Kano and I have pointed this out to them numerous times but that behaviour is still in their fork.

Is it enough to get rid of this prob if cgminer is replaced with http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/antminer/s3/4.6.1-141020/ ? Or some option in /etc/config/cgminer params line --submit-stales or similiar??

Any info where to get working or updated cgminers to other ants, heres few s1:s still making noise

Yes it's only fixed with my binaries which I've only made for s3 and 4 and kano's binary for s2. There is no option that will fix it in the bitmain fork.

When mining with P2Pool, I see the message below from cgminer 4.6.1 from Bitmain's firmware. Does this mean that the stale shares are not thrown away?

[2014-11-30 02:45:57] Pool 2 stale share detected, submitting as user requested

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jonnybravo0311 on November 29, 2014, 11:54:58 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:45:13 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:39:32 AM

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.

Thanks, I was using 518. Are you using queue 0 or 1?

M

Doing as you said, setting queue to 0, gives me 965GH/s and 9% rejects. Completely unreasonable, just like my S2.

M

Why am I not surprised by this... Bitmain claims to want to support p2pool... but the only products they've ever released that worked with p2pool out of the gate are the S1 and S3. Even those products use forked versions of cgminer that until recently was based on 3.x. Furthermore, their binaries throw away stale shares, which can lead to potential block solutions being tossed.

I'm not able to get my S2 working reasonably either, even with the latest firmware. Sad

M

jonnybravo0311

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1024

Mine at Jonny's Pool

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:45:13 AM

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:39:32 AM

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.

Thanks, I was using 518. Are you using queue 0 or 1?

M

Doing as you said, setting queue to 0, gives me 965GH/s and 9% rejects. Completely unreasonable, just like my S2.

M

Why am I not surprised by this... Bitmain claims to want to support p2pool... but the only products they've ever released that worked with p2pool out of the gate are the S1 and S3. Even those products use forked versions of cgminer that until recently was based on 3.x. Furthermore, their binaries throw away stale shares, which can lead to potential block solutions being tossed.

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:39:32 AM

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.

Thanks, I was using 518. Are you using queue 0 or 1?

M

I use 0. For pseudo share, I use the following: S2/C1 - 1028, S3 - 518, S4 - 2240 Some people will say setting pseudo doesn't matter. I agree it doesn't really matter for finding shares or average payout. But it does matter if you want to see a constant hashrate in your reports, charts, cgminer interface. It's more of a piece of mind, which is important to me.

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: mdude77 on November 29, 2014, 11:39:32 AM

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.

Thanks, I was using 518. Are you using queue 0 or 1?

M

Doing as you said, setting queue to 0, gives me 965GH/s and 9% rejects. Completely unreasonable, just like my S2.

M

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: decorzomining on November 29, 2014, 10:53:46 AM

Im trying to run my 1 t/h rig i follow the steps and it says there are no workers or my url is wrong which i pointed my rig to my laptop IP becuase thats where i am running the programs off of. if anyone could help me out i would greatly appreciate it !

You need to provide more detail than this. Is your laptop running as a P2Pool node? First, try using a different P2Pool node. For example, you can point your S2 to Coin Cadence. They do not charge a fee. You can read more info on their site. http://minefast.coincadence.com/index.html

Here is CoinCadence Pool Info:
Pool URL: stratum+tcp://minefast.CoinCadence.com:9332
Username: Your_Bitcoin_Address_For_Payment
Password: Not required

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

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.

Thanks, I was using 518. Are you using queue 0 or 1?

M

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

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.

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

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

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 258. (Read 2591928 times)