[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 270.

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: mahrens917 on October 25, 2014, 05:24:03 PM

Quote from: newbuntu on October 24, 2014, 04:41:19 AM

Every once in a while I see a line that says "bad peer banned ... "
can someone please elaborate on what this actually is?
Is this actually someone attempting something nefarious?
Is this a permanent ban for this peer?
Is there a ban list I can manually edit?
Cheers.

EDIT:
I do have firewalls enabled for each device and at each level of the network.

Looking at the code, I believe the list of bad peers is generated in memory so there is no file store of the bad peers. A peer is added to the list when they submit invalid shares to your node. Looking at my logs I get a few of these and since they are not from the same IP I do not see them as "nefarious". Perhaps they could be due to intent or by mistake but since that IP is banned immediately I don't see it as pertinent.

Thanks for the input.
It's painful, but i'm sitting watching the terminal window non-stop, any address which is flagged as bad peer banned then I add to my list and block the address and address block in my modem, ufw and router.
I also see other errors crop up and a peer drop and i copy the address into a text file, if i get the same peer more than once then I block that IP as well.
Overkill? perhaps. But I'd rather be safe than sorry.

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: newbuntu on October 24, 2014, 04:41:19 AM

Every once in a while I see a line that says "bad peer banned ... "
can someone please elaborate on what this actually is?
Is this actually someone attempting something nefarious?
Is this a permanent ban for this peer?
Is there a ban list I can manually edit?
Cheers.

EDIT:
I do have firewalls enabled for each device and at each level of the network.

Looking at the code, I believe the list of bad peers is generated in memory so there is no file store of the bad peers. A peer is added to the list when they submit invalid shares to your node. Looking at my logs I get a few of these and since they are not from the same IP I do not see them as "nefarious". Perhaps they could be due to intent or by mistake but since that IP is banned immediately I don't see it as pertinent.

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: K1773R on October 25, 2014, 02:46:58 PM

Quote from: newbuntu on October 25, 2014, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: K1773R on October 25, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: K1773R on October 23, 2014, 04:55:57 AM

Quote from: Polyatomic on October 23, 2014, 12:02:40 AM

If you have polled upstream and the recommended value for queue is 1, why use 0.

its a fix for a problem years ago. everyone who still uses/recommends it dosnt know anything about what hes doing Wink

i revoke my statement above. seems there is still crappy HW out that needs this setting.

I'm using S3s. I may experiment with other queue settings to see if there's a noticeable change / difference.

mainly devices with really poor CPU power struggle with the queue (under 100% load), thats why disabling it decreases stales.

That makes a lot of sense, thank you for the explanation.
Cheers.

K1773R

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1008

/dev/null

Quote from: newbuntu on October 25, 2014, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: K1773R on October 25, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: K1773R on October 23, 2014, 04:55:57 AM

Quote from: Polyatomic on October 23, 2014, 12:02:40 AM

If you have polled upstream and the recommended value for queue is 1, why use 0.

its a fix for a problem years ago. everyone who still uses/recommends it dosnt know anything about what hes doing Wink

i revoke my statement above. seems there is still crappy HW out that needs this setting.

I'm using S3s. I may experiment with other queue settings to see if there's a noticeable change / difference.

mainly devices with really poor CPU power struggle with the queue (under 100% load), thats why disabling it decreases stales.

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: K1773R on October 25, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: K1773R on October 23, 2014, 04:55:57 AM

Quote from: Polyatomic on October 23, 2014, 12:02:40 AM

If you have polled upstream and the recommended value for queue is 1, why use 0.

its a fix for a problem years ago. everyone who still uses/recommends it dosnt know anything about what hes doing Wink

i revoke my statement above. seems there is still crappy HW out that needs this setting.

I'm using S3s. I may experiment with other queue settings to see if there's a noticeable change / difference.

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

Quote from: K1773R on October 25, 2014, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: K1773R on October 23, 2014, 04:55:57 AM

Quote from: Polyatomic on October 23, 2014, 12:02:40 AM

If you have polled upstream and the recommended value for queue is 1, why use 0.

its a fix for a problem years ago. everyone who still uses/recommends it dosnt know anything about what hes doing Wink

i revoke my statement above. seems there is still crappy HW out that needs this setting.

Was that an apology? Cheesy

If it was, I accept it Wink

K1773R

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1008

/dev/null

Quote from: K1773R on October 23, 2014, 04:55:57 AM

Quote from: Polyatomic on October 23, 2014, 12:02:40 AM

If you have polled upstream and the recommended value for queue is 1, why use 0.

its a fix for a problem years ago. everyone who still uses/recommends it dosnt know anything about what hes doing Wink

i revoke my statement above. seems there is still crappy HW out that needs this setting.

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

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

Quote from: newbuntu on October 25, 2014, 04:39:44 AM

Quote from: IYFTech on October 23, 2014, 05:36:10 AM

@ Ki773r: PatMan is correct. I done some testing of these settings some time ago & posted the results:

Quote from: IYFTech on August 14, 2014, 08:24:14 AM

Quote from: IYFTech on August 11, 2014, 08:11:02 AM

Quote from: jonnybravo0311 on August 11, 2014, 08:08:31 AM

I've ordered from batch 1, batch 4 and batch 5. Even in batch 5 the issues remain, although I did get "lucky" as one of my batch 5 units actually hashes at 504GH/s stable.

I also have one of those lucky ones at 505Gh/s from B1 - it's the most stable one out the lot!!

Following up from this, I've been experimenting a little more with my settings & here's a screen of the results:

(click for larger)

This is 4 x S3's running at various clock speeds. Looking at the graph, I was running --queue 1 up until ~3am (yup, I'm a night time fiddler Cheesy

) before changing the setting to --queue 0 & letting them run for the same amount of time. It can clearly be seen that after changing the setting to --queue 0, the DOA rate dropped & smoothed out - this was also confirmed by my nodes info page. Average hash rate was slightly higher as a result, so I'll be keeping all my S3's running with the --queue 0 setting from now on. I'm not saying that this will work for everyone, but it's definitely good for my setup & worth giving a try if you're experiencing a higher than expected DOA rate.
The dip in hash rate at the end of the graph was due to a reboot after updating Xubuntu.

Smoke'em if ya got'em Cool

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that my reject rate was at ~4% with --queue 1 - and ~2% with the 0 setting. This is running on a local node.

You are quite knowledgeable of p2pool, but to suggest that someone "doesn't know anything about what he is doing" when they clearly do, belittles you & your "legendary" status. Seems you owe him an apology Wink

Since setting --queue 0 my DOA has dropped to 2.6% and my stale rate is only 1 over the last 16 shares, this is much better than I was getting before making the change.

Cheers.

Glad it worked for you! Wink

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

It's just a bad (blonde Cheesy

) node, nothing malicious. It shouldn't happen too often, but if you're getting a flood of them from the same IP you can block it with IPtables in Ubuntu Wink

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: IYFTech on October 23, 2014, 05:36:10 AM

@ Ki773r: PatMan is correct. I done some testing of these settings some time ago & posted the results:

Quote from: IYFTech on August 14, 2014, 08:24:14 AM

Quote from: IYFTech on August 11, 2014, 08:11:02 AM

Quote from: jonnybravo0311 on August 11, 2014, 08:08:31 AM

I've ordered from batch 1, batch 4 and batch 5. Even in batch 5 the issues remain, although I did get "lucky" as one of my batch 5 units actually hashes at 504GH/s stable.

I also have one of those lucky ones at 505Gh/s from B1 - it's the most stable one out the lot!!

Following up from this, I've been experimenting a little more with my settings & here's a screen of the results:

(click for larger)

This is 4 x S3's running at various clock speeds. Looking at the graph, I was running --queue 1 up until ~3am (yup, I'm a night time fiddler Cheesy

) before changing the setting to --queue 0 & letting them run for the same amount of time. It can clearly be seen that after changing the setting to --queue 0, the DOA rate dropped & smoothed out - this was also confirmed by my nodes info page. Average hash rate was slightly higher as a result, so I'll be keeping all my S3's running with the --queue 0 setting from now on. I'm not saying that this will work for everyone, but it's definitely good for my setup & worth giving a try if you're experiencing a higher than expected DOA rate.
The dip in hash rate at the end of the graph was due to a reboot after updating Xubuntu.

Smoke'em if ya got'em Cool

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that my reject rate was at ~4% with --queue 1 - and ~2% with the 0 setting. This is running on a local node.

You are quite knowledgeable of p2pool, but to suggest that someone "doesn't know anything about what he is doing" when they clearly do, belittles you & your "legendary" status. Seems you owe him an apology Wink

Since setting --queue 0 my DOA has dropped to 2.6% and my stale rate is only 1 over the last 16 shares, this is much better than I was getting before making the change.
If there are any other helpful tweaks I'd be happy to consider them for my miners.

Also, and to re-ask, anyone know precisely what the "bad peer ban" refers to? - is it a malicious activity or just a miner having a blonde moment?
Cheers.

Polyatomic

sr. member

Activity: 257

Merit: 250

Quote from: MissouriMiner on October 25, 2014, 03:06:22 AM

2048 works well for me. Your units are doing well. I also have 2 and only average 3.9 TH/s combined based on cgminer/WebUI output. I'm not sure what the DOA is for those 2 alone because I have a lot of other miners (mine, with same BTC address) on the pool. I think I was seeing around 2% DOA when I tested them for a short time by themselves. If you want to check out my stats, the address is http://bitcoin.missouriminer.com:9332. I have 2x S4's, 5x S3's, and 2x S2's. Totaling 8TH/s with 5.9% DOA. I make about .06 per block. ( P2Pool found 6 blocks in 1 day a few days ago!

) The S2's are driving most of the DOA, but I still get around 950 GH/s with them so I think they are worth running on the pool. I have a dedicated business cable network connection for mining, 100Mb down, 4Mb up. I have 2 separate cable feeds running to my house. 1 business and 1 residential. Good luck.

Fully blown sickness man ...

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: Prelude on October 24, 2014, 08:53:41 PM

Quote from: PatMan on October 24, 2014, 07:14:34 PM

Quote from: Prelude on October 24, 2014, 04:51:51 PM

What are ideal share difficulty and pseudo difficulty settings for an S4?

I don't own an S4, nor am I likely to, but I would hazard a guess at the standard 2048 that they work with? Maybe someone who's running one here can chime in?

Peace

Yeah, I figured 2048 would be ideal for the pseudo difficulty but I'm not sure what to set the other difficulty at? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I just set up a p2pool node on Linux for the first time and I don't have much experience with p2pool in general.

It seems to be working very well without specifying either, though. 2 units are showing a combined 4.2TH/s and about 3% DOA. I'm just wondering if I can tweak anything else to make things as efficient as possible.

2048 works well for me. Your units are doing well. I also have 2 and only average 3.9 TH/s combined based on cgminer/WebUI output. I'm not sure what the DOA is for those 2 alone because I have a lot of other miners (mine, with same BTC address) on the pool. I think I was seeing around 2% DOA when I tested them for a short time by themselves. If you want to check out my stats, the address is http://bitcoin.missouriminer.com:9332. I have 2x S4's, 5x S3's, and 2x S2's. Totaling 8TH/s with 5.9% DOA. I make about .06 per block. ( P2Pool found 6 blocks in 1 day a few days ago!

) The S2's are driving most of the DOA, but I still get around 950 GH/s with them so I think they are worth running on the pool. I have a dedicated business cable network connection for mining, 100Mb down, 4Mb up. I have 2 separate cable feeds running to my house. 1 business and 1 residential. Good luck.

Prelude

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1000

Quote from: PatMan on October 24, 2014, 07:14:34 PM

Quote from: Prelude on October 24, 2014, 04:51:51 PM

What are ideal share difficulty and pseudo difficulty settings for an S4?

I don't own an S4, nor am I likely to, but I would hazard a guess at the standard 2048 that they work with? Maybe someone who's running one here can chime in?

Peace

Yeah, I figured 2048 would be ideal for the pseudo difficulty but I'm not sure what to set the other difficulty at? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I just set up a p2pool node on Linux for the first time and I don't have much experience with p2pool in general.

It seems to be working very well without specifying either, though. 2 units are showing a combined 4.2TH/s and about 3% DOA. I'm just wondering if I can tweak anything else to make things as efficient as possible.

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

Quote from: Prelude on October 24, 2014, 04:51:51 PM

What are ideal share difficulty and pseudo difficulty settings for an S4?

I don't own an S4, nor am I likely to, but I would hazard a guess at the standard 2048 that they work with? Maybe someone who's running one here can chime in?

Peace

Prelude

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1000

What are ideal share difficulty and pseudo difficulty settings for an S4?

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Every once in a while I see a line that says "bad peer banned ... "
can someone please elaborate on what this actually is?
Is this actually someone attempting something nefarious?
Is this a permanent ban for this peer?
Is there a ban list I can manually edit?
Cheers.

EDIT:
I do have firewalls enabled for each device and at each level of the network.

newbuntu

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: pimpstar on October 23, 2014, 09:11:15 PM

Hi everyone,

I'm having a bit of trouble installing/setting up p2pool to mine with litecoin (will be merge mining later when i can get this done first).

The issue im having is whenever i point my miner to my p2pool, it says this after New Work for Worker:

"> Couldn't link returned work's job id with its handler. This should only happen if this process was recently restarted!"

and it just floods with this message.

Any idea on how I can fix this? Any help is greatly appreciated

I get this when I restart the bitcoin program, it all clears up and acts normally after about 2 mins - have you let it run longer than a couple of mins?

pimpstar

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Hi everyone,

I'm having a bit of trouble installing/setting up p2pool to mine with litecoin (will be merge mining later when i can get this done first).

The issue im having is whenever i point my miner to my p2pool, it says this after New Work for Worker:

"> Couldn't link returned work's job id with its handler. This should only happen if this process was recently restarted!"

and it just floods with this message.

Any idea on how I can fix this? Any help is greatly appreciated

MissouriMiner

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

A Q6700 was great in its day, but you can't go by GHz alone. That chip is now 7 years old! That's ancient in compute terms. I use this link below to judge single thread performance. Even a 1 year old i3 is twice as fast. Sorry, don't mean to rip on the Q6700. I loved that chip, in its day. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

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

I was just looking for that - I remember reading it, thanks Wink

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 270. (Read 2592023 times)