Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 597. (Read 2591920 times)
January 09, 2013, 03:18:05 PM
FYI, I've been looking at the memory leak issue for 2 days and think I've made some progress. More news soon.
January 08, 2013, 10:50:28 AM
Dear TRC users, pls upgrade your Terracoin client and p2pool. There is at least 3 nodes that are messing in TRC pool:
I have blocked this IPs because of huge wasted traffic (peers are asking for shares over and over again).
Code:
88.69.122.87
94.219.158.58
188.97.132.96
along these lines, I've been trying to optimize my own peer list by seeing which ones send dupe transactions, which ones never are the 'first' to send me a new share, etc. i guess it isn't 'fair' to ppl on bad connections, but.. i've been able to up my max blocksize to 100,000 and now at 51 shares w/ 1 orphan and 1 dead. you can expect around 3-5% just on sheer chance, really.
January 08, 2013, 06:38:28 AM
Dear TRC users, pls upgrade your Terracoin client and p2pool. There is at least 3 nodes that are messing in TRC pool:
I have blocked this IPs because of huge wasted traffic (peers are asking for shares over and over again).
Code:
88.69.122.87
94.219.158.58
188.97.132.96
Maybe forrestv can do a fork? So users with version below specific one will be forked to smaller, separated p2pool./
January 08, 2013, 03:59:19 AM
Dear TRC users, pls upgrade your Terracoin client and p2pool. There is at least 3 nodes that are messing in TRC pool:
I have blocked this IPs because of huge wasted traffic (peers are asking for shares over and over again).
Code:
88.69.122.87
94.219.158.58
188.97.132.96
January 07, 2013, 02:40:39 PM
About memory leaking, this is a ubuntu 64bit after a little more than 48 hours of running latest p2pool
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Code:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5409 user 20 0 1371m 1.2g 3552 S 8.3 30.9 168:18.05 python
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Here is a fedora 16, 32 bit, using pypy after three days, more or less
Code:
14844 user 20 0 1427m 1.3g 14m S 8.3 23.8 428:34.52 pypy
spiccioli.
Gentoo 64 bit, python 2.7.3 after 5 days:
Code:
bitcoin 9030 5.8 11.5 973680 705960 pts/12 Ssl+ Jan02 439:01 /usr/bin/python2.7 run_p2pool.py --disable-upnp --max-conns 6 [...]
I left the options that didn't leak any authentication info, I use merged mining on namecoin. It uses more RAM than it used to (some earlier version didn't need much more than 300M).
I'm merge mining namecoin with 0981bdfb4e3fc266463be104c8e5441720173cb8 on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS 64-bit with python 2.7.3. However, I'm not actively mining on my node.
Code:
Node uptime: 2.771 days Peers: 6 out, 21 in
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
29401 coiner 20 0 635m 366m 4012 S 15 9.3 321:10.29 python
I asked this on IRC, but didn't get much response.
I just have a small GPU rig and so I stopped mining on p2pool. What benefits are there to p2pool if I keep my node online? It has relatively fast hard drives and very fast and stable internet. I'm guessing it would make a DOS attack against p2pool harder. Would one node that isn't mining make a difference in an attack? It might also help with block progation and could reduce orphans. Any way to quantify how much?
January 07, 2013, 09:29:04 AM
About memory leaking, this is a ubuntu 64bit after a little more than 48 hours of running latest p2pool
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Code:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5409 user 20 0 1371m 1.2g 3552 S 8.3 30.9 168:18.05 python
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Here is a fedora 16, 32 bit, using pypy after three days, more or less
Code:
14844 user 20 0 1427m 1.3g 14m S 8.3 23.8 428:34.52 pypy
spiccioli.
Gentoo 64 bit, python 2.7.3 after 5 days:
Code:
bitcoin 9030 5.8 11.5 973680 705960 pts/12 Ssl+ Jan02 439:01 /usr/bin/python2.7 run_p2pool.py --disable-upnp --max-conns 6 [...]
I left the options that didn't leak any authentication info, I use merged mining on namecoin. It uses more RAM than it used to (some earlier version didn't need much more than 300M).
January 07, 2013, 03:21:25 AM
About memory leaking, this is a ubuntu 64bit after a little more than 48 hours of running latest p2pool
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Code:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5409 user 20 0 1371m 1.2g 3552 S 8.3 30.9 168:18.05 python
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Here is a fedora 16, 32 bit, using pypy after three days, more or less
Code:
14844 user 20 0 1427m 1.3g 14m S 8.3 23.8 428:34.52 pypy
spiccioli.
January 06, 2013, 07:04:37 PM
There do seem to be issues with v11 stratum + latest cgminer.
All shares are logging errors like "submitted share with hash > target" using stratum and the diffs running are mostly 1 resulting in a ton of share submissions. Using --fix-protocol in cgminer and forcing getwork seems to work as usual, with much higher diffs being given by p2pool.
All shares are logging errors like "submitted share with hash > target" using stratum and the diffs running are mostly 1 resulting in a ton of share submissions. Using --fix-protocol in cgminer and forcing getwork seems to work as usual, with much higher diffs being given by p2pool.
January 06, 2013, 03:07:52 PM
I did that
PatMan,
you can still use p2pool without stratum adding --fix-protocol to cgminer running command line.
spiccioli
Yes, I did that as soon as it started when the new releases came out (see previous posts), but it seemed to defy the while idea for me. If stratum is available then why not use it? Given the choice between 1) getwork on my favorite pool with high DOA/rejects & low payout, 2) stratum on my favorite pool with medium DOA/rejects & low payout, or 3) stratum on a different pool with zero DOA/rejects & good payout - well, it's a no brainer TBH. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just in this for the payouts, but I also can't afford to spend money on wasted electricity for nothing.
I just hope that the fix comes soon, because with stratum enabled and working properly on p2pool it will simply blow the other pools away in my opinion. I'm just a small time GPU miner and still finding my way around the scene, but the numbers and graphs don't lie. I don't know nearly enough about bitcoin and it's inner workings yet, but I can do Math & read a graph.
Peace.
I don't believe it is coincidental - I think it's definitely related to the new releases, the stratum code is buggy for sure. I reluctantly pulled my rigs off of p2pool a couple of days ago due to this, which hurt as I completely love the p2p ethos with this pool, but at the moment it's just not working as it should be. Been running on Ozcoin (stratum enabled) for two days with zero problems & zero rejects, this is how it should be with stratum enabled I believe.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
PatMan,
you can still use p2pool without stratum adding --fix-protocol to cgminer running command line.
spiccioli
Yes, I did that as soon as it started when the new releases came out (see previous posts), but it seemed to defy the while idea for me. If stratum is available then why not use it? Given the choice between 1) getwork on my favorite pool with high DOA/rejects & low payout, 2) stratum on my favorite pool with medium DOA/rejects & low payout, or 3) stratum on a different pool with zero DOA/rejects & good payout - well, it's a no brainer TBH. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just in this for the payouts, but I also can't afford to spend money on wasted electricity for nothing.
I just hope that the fix comes soon, because with stratum enabled and working properly on p2pool it will simply blow the other pools away in my opinion. I'm just a small time GPU miner and still finding my way around the scene, but the numbers and graphs don't lie. I don't know nearly enough about bitcoin and it's inner workings yet, but I can do Math & read a graph.
Peace.
I'm on bitminter because it supports namecoin and stratum.
M
January 06, 2013, 03:03:54 PM
I did that
PatMan,
you can still use p2pool without stratum adding --fix-protocol to cgminer running command line.
spiccioli
Yes, I did that as soon as it started when the new releases came out (see previous posts), but it seemed to defy the while idea for me. If stratum is available then why not use it? Given the choice between 1) getwork on my favorite pool with high DOA/rejects & low payout, 2) stratum on my favorite pool with medium DOA/rejects & low payout, or 3) stratum on a different pool with zero DOA/rejects & good payout - well, it's a no brainer TBH. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just in this for the payouts, but I also can't afford to spend money on wasted electricity for nothing.
I just hope that the fix comes soon, because with stratum enabled and working properly on p2pool it will simply blow the other pools away in my opinion. I'm just a small time GPU miner and still finding my way around the scene, but the numbers and graphs don't lie. I don't know nearly enough about bitcoin and it's inner workings yet, but I can do Math & read a graph.
Peace.
I don't believe it is coincidental - I think it's definitely related to the new releases, the stratum code is buggy for sure. I reluctantly pulled my rigs off of p2pool a couple of days ago due to this, which hurt as I completely love the p2p ethos with this pool, but at the moment it's just not working as it should be. Been running on Ozcoin (stratum enabled) for two days with zero problems & zero rejects, this is how it should be with stratum enabled I believe.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
PatMan,
you can still use p2pool without stratum adding --fix-protocol to cgminer running command line.
spiccioli
Yes, I did that as soon as it started when the new releases came out (see previous posts), but it seemed to defy the while idea for me. If stratum is available then why not use it? Given the choice between 1) getwork on my favorite pool with high DOA/rejects & low payout, 2) stratum on my favorite pool with medium DOA/rejects & low payout, or 3) stratum on a different pool with zero DOA/rejects & good payout - well, it's a no brainer TBH. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just in this for the payouts, but I also can't afford to spend money on wasted electricity for nothing.
I just hope that the fix comes soon, because with stratum enabled and working properly on p2pool it will simply blow the other pools away in my opinion. I'm just a small time GPU miner and still finding my way around the scene, but the numbers and graphs don't lie. I don't know nearly enough about bitcoin and it's inner workings yet, but I can do Math & read a graph.
Peace.
January 06, 2013, 02:50:13 PM
About memory leaking, this is a ubuntu 64bit after a little more than 48 hours of running latest p2pool
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
Code:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5409 user 20 0 1371m 1.2g 3552 S 8.3 30.9 168:18.05 python
and I have 7 peers with 4 incoming ones.
spiccioli.
January 06, 2013, 01:47:50 PM
I don't believe it is coincidental - I think it's definitely related to the new releases, the stratum code is buggy for sure. I reluctantly pulled my rigs off of p2pool a couple of days ago due to this, which hurt as I completely love the p2p ethos with this pool, but at the moment it's just not working as it should be. Been running on Ozcoin (stratum enabled) for two days with zero problems & zero rejects, this is how it should be with stratum enabled I believe.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
PatMan,
you can still use p2pool without stratum adding --fix-protocol to cgminer running command line.
spiccioli
January 06, 2013, 01:34:38 PM
Whats with our super crappy luck the past 5 days? Does it have some thing to do with Stratum support in V10 and v11 released 5 days ago?
PS
PS
I was wondering the same. A bit too coincidental. According to my local graph, 92% are on v11, the rest are on v9. Something up with v11, or is the mix of v9/v11 causing problems?
M
I don't believe it is coincidental - I think it's definitely related to the new releases, the stratum code is buggy for sure. I reluctantly pulled my rigs off of p2pool a couple of days ago due to this, which hurt as I completely love the p2p ethos with this pool, but at the moment it's just not working as it should be. Been running on Ozcoin (stratum enabled) for two days with zero problems & zero rejects, this is how it should be with stratum enabled I believe.
I want to get back on to p2pool, but until the new code is fixed/stable it's just not worth it I'm afraid.
Peace.
January 05, 2013, 04:50:38 PM
Whats with our super crappy luck the past 5 days? Does it have some thing to do with Stratum support in V10 and v11 released 5 days ago?
PS
PS
I was wondering the same. A bit too coincidental. According to my local graph, 92% are on v11, the rest are on v9. Something up with v11, or is the mix of v9/v11 causing problems?
M
January 05, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
Whats with our super crappy luck the past 5 days? Does it have some thing to do with Stratum support in V10 and v11 released 5 days ago?
PS
PS
January 05, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
I'm at 387MB on windows 7 using python x64.
M
so you use python and not py2exe? i think the py2exe is the faulty thing. one time allocated RAM cant be freed anymore maybe, this is usual behavior of such tools.M
give it a try with py2exe, if u got the same "leak" (even it isnt a leak) we would know why this is happening.
January 05, 2013, 03:24:39 PM
It still leaks memory, after less than a day I'm already around 1 Gb of ram used.
spiccioli
I can confirm this. 2 GB (RES) in 2-3 days and then I'm forced to restart.spiccioli
couldnt this be related to the increase in incoming connections?
my p2pool is at 300MB, limited to 10 outgoing and 6 incoming connections
my bitcoind is limited to 900 outgoing and 1000 total and it's at 4GB (well, ok, 3.5)
this is clearly not p2pools fault, its the python version (or py2exe) fault. maybe its even more horrible on winblows.
50 outgoing connections? all manual?
Only have 6 here, 1 of which is manual.
Maybe that's the source of your memory usage.
M
someone else did confirm they have heavy RAM Usage, my guess is that they use winblows with py2exe and therefore it leaks or to be correct, the unused RAM isnt being freed.
I'm at 387MB on windows 7 using python x64.
M
January 05, 2013, 03:19:53 PM
It still leaks memory, after less than a day I'm already around 1 Gb of ram used.
spiccioli
I can confirm this. 2 GB (RES) in 2-3 days and then I'm forced to restart.spiccioli
couldnt this be related to the increase in incoming connections?
my p2pool is at 300MB, limited to 10 outgoing and 6 incoming connections
my bitcoind is limited to 900 outgoing and 1000 total and it's at 4GB (well, ok, 3.5)
this is clearly not p2pools fault, its the python version (or py2exe) fault. maybe its even more horrible on winblows.
50 outgoing connections? all manual?
Only have 6 here, 1 of which is manual.
Maybe that's the source of your memory usage.
M
someone else did confirm they have heavy RAM Usage, my guess is that they use winblows with py2exe and therefore it leaks or to be correct, the unused RAM isnt being freed.
January 05, 2013, 01:45:27 PM
Holliday, thanks.
January 05, 2013, 01:18:52 PM
It still leaks memory, after less than a day I'm already around 1 Gb of ram used.
spiccioli
I can confirm this. 2 GB (RES) in 2-3 days and then I'm forced to restart.spiccioli
couldnt this be related to the increase in incoming connections?
my p2pool is at 300MB, limited to 10 outgoing and 6 incoming connections
my bitcoind is limited to 900 outgoing and 1000 total and it's at 4GB (well, ok, 3.5)
this is clearly not p2pools fault, its the python version (or py2exe) fault. maybe its even more horrible on winblows.
50 outgoing connections? all manual?
Only have 6 here, 1 of which is manual.
Maybe that's the source of your memory usage.
M
Jump to: