Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 275. (Read 2591928 times)
October 06, 2014, 10:03:38 AM
October 06, 2014, 03:00:36 AM
I never tried minerd before, so that's what it should look like with stratum. So, I guess in your case, maybe it's a firewall? the +0.0000000 seems out of place also, i'd think even with a cpu something like 0.000001 would be reasonable
I think he is not, because the system is Linux (Ubuntu) started in the log to meet the compound which isCode:
2014-10-06 07:54:59.374809 P2Pool: 0 shares in chain (0 verified/5 total) Peers: 2 (0 incoming)
2014-10-06 07:54:59.375279 Local: 0H/s in last 0.0 seconds Local dead on arrival: ??? Expected time to share: ???
2014-10-06 07:55:02.563667 Peer sent entire transaction 1edf48c6eb2aaad76af659a2e6c2ae96eec7ad8f487f67ed17af40b371e02c25 that was already received
October 06, 2014, 02:22:42 AM
I think for minerd, you just use --no-stratum, and it's better. (for p2pool at least)
If you do do something it's OK, you do not know because of what is a problem?Code:
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] 1 miner threads started, using 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] JSON-RPC call failed: {
"data": null,
"code": -32601,
"message": "Method not found"
}
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] getblocktemplate failed, falling back to getwork
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://127.0.0.1:9327
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] Stratum requested work restart
[2014-10-06 02:21:50] Stratum requested work restart
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 1344 hashes, 12.26 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 12.26 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 1704 hashes, 12.23 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 12.23 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 72 hashes, 12.13 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 3/3 (100.00%), 12.13 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 24 hashes, 11.49 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 4/4 (100.00%), 11.49 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 1344 hashes, 12.31 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 5/5 (100.00%), 12.31 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 84 hashes, 12.00 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 6/6 (100.00%), 12.00 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 828 hashes, 12.23 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 7/7 (100.00%), 12.23 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 696 hashes, 12.18 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 8/8 (100.00%), 12.18 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 516 hashes, 12.18 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 9/9 (100.00%), 12.18 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 360 hashes, 12.24 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 10/10 (100.00%), 12.24 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] thread 0: 336 hashes, 12.30 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:51] accepted: 11/11 (100.00%), 12.30 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] thread 0: 828 hashes, 12.32 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] accepted: 12/12 (100.00%), 12.32 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] thread 0: 576 hashes, 12.34 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] accepted: 13/13 (100.00%), 12.34 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] thread 0: 144 hashes, 12.20 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] accepted: 14/14 (100.00%), 12.20 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] thread 0: 660 hashes, 12.27 khash/s
[2014-10-06 02:21:52] accepted: 15/15 (100.00%), 12.27 khash/s (yay!!!)
I never tried minerd before, so that's what it should look like with stratum. So, I guess in your case, maybe it's a firewall? the +0.0000000 seems out of place also, i'd think even with a cpu something like 0.000001 would be reasonable
October 06, 2014, 02:09:16 AM
I think for minerd, you just use --no-stratum, and it's better. (for p2pool at least)
If you do do something it's OK, you do not know because of what is a problem? October 06, 2014, 01:36:30 AM
I think for minerd, you just use --no-stratum, and it's better. (for p2pool at least)
October 06, 2014, 01:29:42 AM
Mess with some of the difficulty/share settings? I guess that's why it isn't working.
I don't care to fix stratum, since it's about 10% slower than long polling. (ed: well, I wasted a little bit of time on it, until I decided it was better to just remove the logging spam from other ppl)
well and final ed, correction: it's inefficient for end user, unless you care about using up a little more bandwidth, and having more connections open
I don't care to fix stratum, since it's about 10% slower than long polling. (ed: well, I wasted a little bit of time on it, until I decided it was better to just remove the logging spam from other ppl)
well and final ed, correction: it's inefficient for end user, unless you care about using up a little more bandwidth, and having more connections open
I want to start so early.
And here's another one bug found. When connected to a pool of miners, so we get an error
Code:
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537252 > Unhandled Error
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537497 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537644 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/main.py", line 595, in run
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537747 > reactor.run()
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537845 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/base.py", line 1192, in run
2014-10-06 06:05:05.537946 > self.mainLoop()
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538049 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/base.py", line 1201, in mainLoop
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538126 > self.runUntilCurrent()
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538196 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/base.py", line 824, in runUntilCurrent
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538268 > call.func(*call.args, **call.kw)
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538337 > --- ---
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538424 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/bitcoin/stratum.py", line 38, in _send_work
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538509 > x, got_response = self.wb.get_work(*self.wb.preprocess_request('' if self.username is None else self.username))
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538584 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/work.py", line 177, in preprocess_request
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538655 > raise jsonrpc.Error_for_code(-12345)(u'p2pool is not connected to any peers')
2014-10-06 06:05:05.538726 > p2pool.util.jsonrpc.NarrowError: -12345 p2pool is not connected to any peers
Miner gives this error
October 06, 2014, 01:09:22 AM
Help pull start, When you start kogad web page with statistics is not active is a log.
And when I do update statistics node, then fly these errors
Maybe that is not installed or not run? Help me.
Code:
2014-10-06 02:46:57.773788 Local: 0H/s in last 0.0 seconds Local dead on arrival: ??? Expected time to share: ???
And when I do update statistics node, then fly these errors
Code:
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330462 > Error in DeferredResource handler:
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330741 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330858 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/util/deferred_resource.py", line 24, in render
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330955 > defer.maybeDeferred(resource.Resource.render, self, request).addCallbacks(finish, finish_error)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331061 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 139, in maybeDeferred
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331164 > result = f(*args, **kw)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331243 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/resource.py", line 250, in render
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331323 > return m(request)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331399 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1237, in unwindGenerator
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331479 > return _inlineCallbacks(None, gen, Deferred())
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331554 > ------
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331629 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1099, in _inlineCallbacks
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331717 > result = g.send(result)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331822 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/web.py", line 198, in render_GET
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331901 > res = yield self.func(*self.args)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332012 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/web.py", line 203, in
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332106 > web_root.putChild('rate', WebInterface(lambda: p2pool_data.get_pool_attempts_per_second(node.tracker, node.best_share_var.value, decent_height())/(1-p2pool_data.get_average_stale_prop(node.tracker, node.best_share_var.value, decent_height()))))
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332204 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/data.py", line 573, in get_pool_attempts_per_second
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332310 > assert dist >= 2
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332406 > exceptions.AssertionError:
Maybe that is not installed or not run? Help me.
Mess with some of the difficulty/share settings? I guess that's why it isn't working.
I don't care to fix stratum, since it's about 10% slower than long polling. (ed: well, I wasted a little bit of time on it, until I decided it was better to just remove the logging spam from other ppl)
well and final ed, correction: it's inefficient for end user, unless you care about using up a little more bandwidth, and having more connections open
October 05, 2014, 10:03:53 PM
Help pull start, When you start kogad web page with statistics is not active is a log.
And when I do update statistics node, then fly these errors
Maybe that is not installed or not run? Help me.
Code:
2014-10-06 02:46:57.773788 Local: 0H/s in last 0.0 seconds Local dead on arrival: ??? Expected time to share: ???
And when I do update statistics node, then fly these errors
Code:
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330462 > Error in DeferredResource handler:
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330741 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330858 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/util/deferred_resource.py", line 24, in render
2014-10-06 02:46:53.330955 > defer.maybeDeferred(resource.Resource.render, self, request).addCallbacks(finish, finish_error)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331061 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 139, in maybeDeferred
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331164 > result = f(*args, **kw)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331243 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/web/resource.py", line 250, in render
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331323 > return m(request)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331399 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1237, in unwindGenerator
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331479 > return _inlineCallbacks(None, gen, Deferred())
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331554 > ------
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331629 > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1099, in _inlineCallbacks
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331717 > result = g.send(result)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331822 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/web.py", line 198, in render_GET
2014-10-06 02:46:53.331901 > res = yield self.func(*self.args)
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332012 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/web.py", line 203, in
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332106 > web_root.putChild('rate', WebInterface(lambda: p2pool_data.get_pool_attempts_per_second(node.tracker, node.best_share_var.value, decent_height())/(1-p2pool_data.get_average_stale_prop(node.tracker, node.best_share_var.value, decent_height()))))
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332204 > File "/home/ubuntu/p2pool-doge1-8/p2pool/data.py", line 573, in get_pool_attempts_per_second
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332310 > assert dist >= 2
2014-10-06 02:46:53.332406 > exceptions.AssertionError:
Maybe that is not installed or not run? Help me.
October 05, 2014, 08:41:31 PM
Update: 2nd test.
Looks like Bitmain are tinkering with their settings:
Slightly higher hash rate, much higher DOA/Reject - over 30%....
Looks like Bitmain are tinkering with their settings:
Slightly higher hash rate, much higher DOA/Reject - over 30%....
October 05, 2014, 07:28:55 PM
Well, if you believe the BitmainWarranty account, and can stomach the screenshot where they "tested" for only a minute, then the S4 works with p2pool: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9075999.
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already.....
Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see.......
Well, initial results are in - and it ain't good:
Looks like they decided to switch it off pretty sharpish when they saw the reject/DOA rate too.....my DOA rate instantly climbed from ~2% to over 18% even before the hash rate reached 2Th, if it was ever going to get to 2Th - which I doubt. I wish they'd let it run for the 10 minutes they said they would, maybe they're changing some settings......but it looks like the S4 is really a badly disguised S2
Oh dear.
October 05, 2014, 06:40:16 PM
It doesn't need to be faster.
Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though.....
I don't think it'd be worth the trouble. If you understand the principle behind how p2pool works, and its short comings, the best bet is to start from scratch with a new design that addresses the flaws in p2pool.
M
Exactly. Been saying this for over a year.......
October 05, 2014, 06:38:52 PM
It doesn't need to be faster.
Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though.....
I don't think it'd be worth the trouble. If you understand the principle behind how p2pool works, and its short comings, the best bet is to start from scratch with a new design that addresses the flaws in p2pool.
M
October 05, 2014, 06:27:14 PM
How's it working out - did they do it yet?
Nothing yet......
It doesn't need to be faster.
Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though.....
October 05, 2014, 06:18:02 PM
Well, if you believe the BitmainWarranty account, and can stomach the screenshot where they "tested" for only a minute, then the S4 works with p2pool: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9075999.
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already.....
Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see.......
How's it working out - did they do it yet?
October 05, 2014, 05:52:41 PM
You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?
As I said last time this same request came up, there are 2 scaling issues. One is the client itself, which rewriting it in c will help, and the other is the scaling of the overall pool size, which will not be helped. No point spending 1000 hours coding on the former unless you have a solution for the latter (yes that's how long it would take me to rewrite p2pool in c).
October 05, 2014, 05:52:22 PM
You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?
M
Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it.........
It doesn't need to be faster. It's the 30 second restart that Antminers have a problem with. (All of them, although the S2 is by far the worst.) I've watched the work flow through my proxy (that I created), and I can see the rejects come after the work restart, and the Ants are still using old jobids.
M
October 05, 2014, 05:50:34 PM
Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy?
Great work again ck - nice one
In terms of keeping your local p2pool client running as low overhead as possible, combining miners through the proxy helps. In terms of (possibly, assuming my interpretation is right) helping minimise p2pool's variance for small miners to keep them on board, it would only come into effect if your hashrate is > 5% of the overall pool hashrate.Great work again ck - nice one
I do that when mining remotely, p2pool or not. Locally I don't like using a proxy because it hides my workers.
M
October 05, 2014, 05:50:23 PM
You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?
M
Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it.........
October 05, 2014, 05:48:01 PM
You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?
M
October 05, 2014, 05:41:08 PM
So you mean the share difficulty for the worker is 10x alt chain difficulty, ie, right now about 86million instead of 8.6 million?
If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty.
Yes.If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty.
Code:
2014-10-05 18:40:00.095528 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 136297626.452028 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
In fact I've seen it go as high as 240million. Jump to: