Author

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 517. (Read 2591928 times)

sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.
This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

At 220MH/s estimated time to share is 8 hours. For instance, that means that there's 5% probability of not finding any shares for 24 hours. For two week period, your estimated number of shares is 42, and there's 5% probability to find 31 or less shares, which means only 75% of estimated income. Of course, this also works in positive direction, and your income may be higher than estimated as well. Now if you increase your share difficulty, this variation will be even higher. If you are not a gambler, you want stable income.

When mining in p2pool, your income variance depends on both pool's blockrate variance and your own sharerate variance. For details see my post here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2060914
I guess the only thing I would disagree with you about would be that when I change local diff my time to share goes up. The p2pool estimated time to share only goes up because I'm submitting less shares no? It's not a real measurement of hash speed. Doesn’t the work I’m doing locally stay the same I just submit less garbage.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.
This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

At 220MH/s estimated time to share is 8 hours. For instance, that means that there's 5% probability of not finding any shares for 24 hours. For two week period, your estimated number of shares is 42, and there's 5% probability to find 31 or less shares, which means only 75% of estimated income. Of course, this also works in positive direction, and your income may be higher than estimated as well. Now if you increase your share difficulty, this variation will be even higher. If you are not a gambler, you want stable income.

When mining in p2pool, your income variance depends on both pool's blockrate variance and your own sharerate variance. For details see my post here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2060914
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.
This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
Is it true if you set it too high and not get a share in a round, it basically liked like you weren't there?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.
hero member
Activity: 516
Merit: 643
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.


I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows.  Huh
Code:
$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.
1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!

Can you do instead, replacing P2POOL_PID with run_p2pool.py's PID,
Code:
$ lsof -p P2POOL_PID
and pastebin the output and send it to me? P2Pool shouldn't be using that many files - seeing which it has open could help find the issue.
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 252
I got my BFL 5 GHz miner running for one day on p2pool. Here are the results:
Summary:
Efficiency: ~100.2% (85-110%)
DOA=18.9%

p2pool output:
2013-07-02 11:51:04.571723  Local: 5039MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~18.2% (7-39%) Expected time to share: 20.5 minutes
2013-07-02 11:51:04.571962  Shares: 54 (3 orphan, 6 dead) Stale rate: ~16.7% (9-29%) Efficiency: ~100.2% (85-110%) Current payout: 0.1395 BTC
2013-07-02 11:51:04.572268  Pool: 793GH/s Stale rate: 16.9% Expected time to block: 1.3 days


cgminer output:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):5.408G (avg):5.063Gh/s | A:87607  R:20448  HW:65  WU:70.6/m
 ST: 2  SS: 1  NB: 158  LW: 266781  GF: 1  RF: 0
 Connected to XXX diff 32 with stratum as user raspberrypi+32
 Block: 00a7e1d7004f984f...  Diff:21.3M  Started: [16:15:03]  Best share: 33.3K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management Settings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 BAJ 0:  max 45C 3.81V | 5.279G/5.063Gh/s | A:87607 R:20448 HW:65 WU:  70.6/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stock firmware (version 1.0.0), 1 job per board, no extra cooling or modifications.

cgminer API stats:
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC
FIRMWARE: 1.0.0
MINIG SPEED: 5.26 GH/s
PROCESSOR 3: 15 engines @ 183 MHz
PROCESSOR 7: 14 engines @ 183 MHz
ENGINES: 29
FREQUENCY: 189 MHz
XLINK MODE: MASTER
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE:
XLINK PRESENT: NO
OK
full member
Activity: 194
Merit: 100
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.


I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows.  Huh
Code:
$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.
1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!

Code:
$ lsof -c python -a -i :9332 | wc -l  (miners should be 2xminers -1 )
$ lsof -c python -a -i :9333 | wc -l  (peers 2x -1 )
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 259
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.


I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows.  Huh
Code:
$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.
1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!
full member
Activity: 194
Merit: 100
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.


I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows.  Huh
Code:
$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
Oh.. is there a way to block Litecoin addresses/miners? It's just spamming the console.

I think it would actually be a good idea to block all users that are not a valid address for the network except for whitelisted exceptions (eg, my miners are xxx.worker1, xxx.worker2, etc). This way someone can't get upset if they use an invalid username and hence donate their hashrate to their host.

This would mean bitcoin addresses on bitcoin nodes, litecoin addresses on litecoin nodes, etc. Should be an easy enough thing to add using the 'validateaddress' RPC command.
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 259
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.


I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows.  Huh
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 259
After updating to the last git, I'm starting to get a lot of "Couldn't bind: 24: too many open files"
What's the problem?
I have to restart p2pool each time it happens..

Also wtf, is this normal? That looks like a Litecoin address to me.. I'm hosting a Bitcoin pool.

2013-07-01 12:15:46.267753 Worker Lcn8gbjgv3L9V3WQMEgxxRBrbmEbCVNCF3 submitted share with hash > target:
2013-07-01 12:15:46.267822     Hash:   3509665dafb744bfcfcc932d7cf29052e51c4afe763165b4e3e1f80ec85286a1
2013-07-01 12:15:46.268389     Target: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff


Can you pastebin one of the "too many open files" tracebacks?

And that error is just someone using a Litecoin miner on your pool...
Here it is: http://pastebin.com/iyPupJnp

Oh.. is there a way to block Litecoin addresses/miners? It's just spamming the console.

Ugh.. I keep getting this error each 1.5 hours.. making me restart p2pool each hour or so.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Another possible solution to AMblade-p2pool issue here!

Blade owners could just fork their own p2pool. The only 4 lines of code which need to be changed are share period, p2pool network identifier (prefix), bootstrap nodes, and optionally chain length. As blade's "effective latency" is about 6 seconds, reasonable values for share period are 5 or 10 minutes.

The hardest part is involving miners. You need about 100 blades in total to reach mean rate of 1 block per day. At this hashrate, 1 blade's expected time to share will be 8 and 17 hours for 5 and 10 minute share period correspondingly (or even less if multiple-blade miners adjust their difficulty properly). Maybe someone should make announcements here and in AM blade discussion threads to get feedback and estimate how many blades will support this.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bitcoin network
* Increase SHARE_PERIOD (average time between shares) from 10 seconds to 30 seconds, in order to make it more fair for high-latency miners (read: ASICs)

also...this hasn't been done yet, right?

I think it has been done but switch to new share version will occur when most hashrate upgrades. P2pool graphs show only 1% new version now.
sr. member
Activity: 447
Merit: 250
so does p2pool work properly with bitcoind 0.8.3? wanted to double check before i upgrade

quote author=forrestv link=topic=18313.msg2562076#msg2562076 date=1372036660]
In the next couple days, I'm going to release a hard-forking change to P2Pool that will make the following changes

Bitcoin network
* Increase SHARE_PERIOD (average time between shares) from 10 seconds to 30 seconds, in order to make it more fair for high-latency miners (read: ASICs)
[/quote]

also...this hasn't been done yet, right?
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 259
After updating to the last git, I'm starting to get a lot of "Couldn't bind: 24: too many open files"
What's the problem?
I have to restart p2pool each time it happens..

Also wtf, is this normal? That looks like a Litecoin address to me.. I'm hosting a Bitcoin pool.

2013-07-01 12:15:46.267753 Worker Lcn8gbjgv3L9V3WQMEgxxRBrbmEbCVNCF3 submitted share with hash > target:
2013-07-01 12:15:46.267822     Hash:   3509665dafb744bfcfcc932d7cf29052e51c4afe763165b4e3e1f80ec85286a1
2013-07-01 12:15:46.268389     Target: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff


Can you pastebin one of the "too many open files" tracebacks?

And that error is just someone using a Litecoin miner on your pool...
Here it is: http://pastebin.com/iyPupJnp

Oh.. is there a way to block Litecoin addresses/miners? It's just spamming the console.
hero member
Activity: 516
Merit: 643
After updating to the last git, I'm starting to get a lot of "Couldn't bind: 24: too many open files"
What's the problem?
I have to restart p2pool each time it happens..

Also wtf, is this normal? That looks like a Litecoin address to me.. I'm hosting a Bitcoin pool.

2013-07-01 12:15:46.267753 Worker Lcn8gbjgv3L9V3WQMEgxxRBrbmEbCVNCF3 submitted share with hash > target:
2013-07-01 12:15:46.267822     Hash:   3509665dafb744bfcfcc932d7cf29052e51c4afe763165b4e3e1f80ec85286a1
2013-07-01 12:15:46.268389     Target: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff


Can you pastebin one of the "too many open files" tracebacks?

And that error is just someone using a Litecoin miner on your pool...
Jump to: