Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 518. (Read 2591928 times)

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

From my observation it is some leak in tcp/ip twisted/zope connectors.
Lak occurs when there is some switching in connected nodes and connected miners.
Probably something is "hanging" connections buffers that are spawned in next created connections and making cascade eat of ram.
Found some articles about that. Looks like connections that are not closed "directly" are moved to new instance by default and then even after connection finally drops memory is "eaten" and GC is not freeing it.

It seems to be correlated to the # of peers/workers connected.

I would not be surprised if one of the biggest changes to their "next generation" blade will be the firmware. The first version of the blade's I think really were the quick and dirty to get them going. Version 2 will be the time to fix the problems.

Usb version is controlled by third-party mining software like cgminer and others. Blades are controlled by closed-source software written (poorly!) by some AM's partner company. I guess the only thing can be done here is waiting until AM fixes its dumb software for its smart chips.

Up to 50 shares now!

Not exactly Nasty, but still chugging along nicely, for only a single Erupter.

I increased the number of outgoing connections to the maximum allowed of 10, and that seemed to have helped a lot.  Having more network connections helps keep my node "in the loop" so that it is not the last to find out about the newest blocks.

P2Pool webpage:


P2Pool console dump:


BFGMiner console header text:


BFGMiner pool information:


It's been nicely stable.  I need to upgrade Bitcoin to 0.8.3 (from 0.8.2) and BFGMiner to 3.1.1 (from 3.1.0), so will restart it soon for that.

The sharechain has some P2Pool-specific data (including the winner's payout address) within each share, along with everything needed to compute the current block being mined. So no, this is a very safe change.

Good idea to precalculate the blocks that will be worked on, to reduce latency.  However, curious how this works.  If blocks are now precalculated, delayed by 1 share, then where will the most recent winning share be stored in the sharechain?  I thought it worked now by each miner creating a new block containing their payout address, and trying to solve that, until finding a winning solution, at which point the block becomes a valid share in the sharechain.  If this isn't the case, then where will the payout addresses be stored now?  I hope this doesn't open up an opportunity for a miner to cheat.  Or, do I have it all wrong here?  Thanks!

The USB version doesn't run standalone.

Why would they fix this only in the usb version?

This actually doesn't do anything (thankfully). P2Pool uses the work of a share's 5th parent when sorting sharechain tips, which prevents attacks that would allow you to effectively orphan the tip share on command.

Update!
At last, the blade's mining mechanism is clear to me. Like in AM USB, found solutions are reported immediately. However, unlike AM USB and like BFL devices, work is not restarted. This means that a chip keeps mining the same work for about 12 seconds (I guess it corresponds to full nonce range of 32 bit, and is equal to average chip's time per one diff1 share). Since solutions are reported immediately, this must give slightly less than 50% DOA shares.

There's a solution that can considerably increase mining efficiency on p2pool for ASIC devices, and this solution is... share difficulty. By setting it high you not only help small miners, but also protect yourself from orphan shares! If you are mining with x10 share difficulty, your "DOA" shares will most probably get into the chain, since your share's work is bigger than even 9 min diff shares. With current mindiff of 1500 and expected time to block of 30 hours, ASIC miners (except AM USB which works fine) can set their diff to 15000 without any serious increase of variance. Shares which are first reported DOA in p2pool node log may still get into the chain!

Yes you may say that and you won't get any argument from developers (we weren't remotely involved, engaged or asked).

Thank you very much forrestv and baloo_kiev for your efforts and development. I hope that these Blades will be finally working fine with p2pool soon.

Brief report of p2pool + AM block eruptor blade investigation

1) Blade always works on difficulty 1, regardless of what server tells, so p2pool must always provide diff 1 pseudoshares to account solved work properly. This does not affect real shares difficulty, which can be tuned as usually.

2) Blade does not use long polling. Instead, it makes about 4 getwork requests per second. Looks like it makes as much requests as it can, each providing work to one chip. With 32 chips, it means about 8 seconds per full round. Maybe it doesn't send solutions before doing this full round; this must rersult in about 50% DOA. Or maybe results are put into queue and wait while software is busy requesting new work. In both cases, running it locally may help. Also, I'm not sure that real share DOA will be as high as pseudoshare DOA.

3) "p2pool + stratum proxy + AM blade" setup has some authorization-related issue. This is all I can tell by now, will try to get more details.

P.S. With the difficulty tweak, it works giving about 50% pseudoshare DOA. Real share efficiency is unknown because of little statistics. Those who have AM blades may give it a try at 78.27.191.182:8353 (with your payout address as username).

P.P.S. A question to any developers here. May I officially state that AM blade software is a piece of crap? No stratum, no long polling and constant difficulty in the year 2013. It might be OK for their internal mining but not for a sold product!

yeah, nasty 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nastyfans-the-bitcoin-enthusiast-fan-club-est-2012-86854

5x BFL 60GH/s ASIC Miner
5x BFL BitForce Single FPGA
1x ASICminer USB Block Erupter

Yeah, nasty things are coming 

1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX  this guy has over 200Gh/s on p2pool

BFL SCs?

@Kano: Did you ever retry p2pool after flashing your jally to firmware 1.2.5? There may be something in there that is enabling the reports that recently shipped BFL devices work on p2pool. Mine shipped, so next week I can try to do some real tests - play with different firmware revisions to try to confirm the problem and fix.

Can't wait for update to rejoin with baj