[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 636.

Smoovious

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980

Quote from: stevegee58 on October 18, 2012, 07:24:55 PM

I haven't done anything special to limit connections to my knowledge.

I'm not using bitcoind BTW, I'm using bitcoin-qt (the GUI client). I was using it earlier this year like this successfully.

daemon=1
server=1
rpcuser=username
rpcpassword=password
rpcport=8332
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1

all these defined in bitcoin.conf?

-- Smoov

stevegee58

legendary

Activity: 916

Merit: 1003

I haven't done anything special to limit connections to my knowledge.

I'm not using bitcoind BTW, I'm using bitcoin-qt (the GUI client). I was using it earlier this year like this successfully.

Smoovious

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980

Quote from: stevegee58 on October 18, 2012, 07:05:02 PM

I thought I'd try p2pool again but I'm having a heck of a time getting the client to run this time around. I'm running bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 with the .conf file set up correctly as a server. I'm running the latest p2pool client 8.2

When I start run_p2pool.exe I get this in the log file:

Code:

2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 p2pool (version 8.2)
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:8332/' with username 'user'...
2012-10-18 20:03:33.861000 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8333'...

It just sits there and never says success.

Are you limiting the # of connections in bitcoind, and, is bitcoind already at that limit? (that's what the problem is on my end when that happens... it keeps retrying so if you lose a peer connection in bitcoind, then p2pool can get in)

-- Smoov

stevegee58

legendary

Activity: 916

Merit: 1003

I thought I'd try p2pool again but I'm having a heck of a time getting the client to run this time around. I'm running bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 with the .conf file set up correctly as a server. I'm running the latest p2pool client 8.2

When I start run_p2pool.exe I get this in the log file:

Code:

2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 p2pool (version 8.2)
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000
2012-10-18 20:03:33.221000 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:8332/' with username 'user'...
2012-10-18 20:03:33.861000 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8333'...

It just sits there and never says success.

ChipGeek

full member

Activity: 198

Merit: 100

Quote from: BR0KK on October 18, 2012, 05:38:01 PM

Need to buy another miner base....( The mac mini draws way to much power) Since the pi is not good for this I'm still searching :/

Why is the Raspberry Pi not good for this?

I have a R-Pi and have been using it with a BFL Single on non-p2p pools quite well. But as soon as (or if) ASICs arrive I plan on switching back to p2pool on my R-Pi. Assuming there is NOT the same inefficiency that currently exists with BFL on p2pool.

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

That might be caused from USB lagging ..... Have to restart the Mac again. I'll leave tit running now till tomorrow morning (desperately need sleep!)

Need to buy another miner base....( The mac mini draws way to much power) Since the pi is not good for this I'm still searching :/

How many deads should there be for 3,9 ghs?

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Code:

Local rate: 3.87GH/s (2.6% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.217 hours

THIS looks good, only 2,6% DOA

Code:

Shares: 7 total (1 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 49.76%

This looks worse, IMO too many dead shares, looks like something lagging there.

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

might try cgminer on them (i use btcminer; ztex own miner; for them). But im not sure how to use that

and I'm testing a beta release of the ztex bitstream. that might be a problem too here.

Code:

Version: 8.2

Pool rate: 366GH/s (14% stale) Share difficulty: 703

Node uptime: 0.098 days Peers: 10 out, 2 in

Local rate: 3.87GH/s (2.6% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.217 hours

Shares: 7 total (1 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 49.76%

thats what the stats page gives me. Ill let it run for a night and report back. Im online for a few minutes now. As i recall that behavior was the same with p2pool 5 (and all versions below) ittl correct itself after running a while..... I hope so :/

thats the printout of btcminer:

Code:

bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A32E1205-1: f=204,00MHz, errorRate=0,07%, maxErrorRate=0,90%, hashRate=203,9MH/s, submitted 16 new nonces, luckFactor=1,21
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A3468E00-1: f=208,00MHz, errorRate=0,07%, maxErrorRate=0,86%, hashRate=207,9MH/s, submitted 16 new nonces, luckFactor=0,97
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A3469756-1: f=212,00MHz, errorRate=0,41%, maxErrorRate=1,25%, hashRate=211,1MH/s, submitted 15 new nonces, luckFactor=0,87
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346BF8B-1: f=212,00MHz, errorRate=0,03%, maxErrorRate=0,71%, hashRate=211,9MH/s, submitted 14 new nonces, luckFactor=1,00
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346D523-1: f=216,00MHz, errorRate=0,02%, maxErrorRate=0,50%, hashRate=216,0MH/s, submitted 17 new nonces, luckFactor=1,02
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15d4-04A346E12C-1: f=204,00MHz, errorRate=1,17%, maxErrorRate=2,36%, hashRate=201,6MH/s, submitted 18 new nonces, luckFactor=1,22
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,00%, hashRate=228,0MH/s, submitted 10 new nonces, luckFactor=0,57
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-2: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,68%, maxErrorRate=1,36%, hashRate=226,4MH/s, submitted 20 new nonces, luckFactor=0,93
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-3: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,00%, hashRate=228,0MH/s, submitted 14 new nonces, luckFactor=0,89
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-4: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,13%, maxErrorRate=0,51%, hashRate=227,7MH/s, submitted 10 new nonces, luckFactor=0,91
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-1: f=220,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=1,00%, hashRate=220,0MH/s, submitted 12 new nonces, luckFactor=0,80
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-2: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,07%, maxErrorRate=0,82%, hashRate=227,8MH/s, submitted 8 new nonces, luckFactor=0,69
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-3: f=224,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,94%, hashRate=224,0MH/s, submitted 14 new nonces, luckFactor=0,80
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A34644C6-4: f=228,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,00%, hashRate=228,0MH/s, submitted 15 new nonces, luckFactor=0,93
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-1: f=220,00MHz, errorRate=0,74%, maxErrorRate=1,32%, hashRate=218,4MH/s, submitted 15 new nonces, luckFactor=1,03
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-2: f=216,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,00%, hashRate=216,0MH/s, submitted 21 new nonces, luckFactor=1,12
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-3: f=220,00MHz, errorRate=0,00%, maxErrorRate=0,98%, hashRate=220,0MH/s, submitted 24 new nonces, luckFactor=1,06
bus-0-1: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A36E24F2-4: f=216,00MHz, errorRate=0,75%, maxErrorRate=1,03%, hashRate=214,4MH/s, submitted 21 new nonces, luckFactor=1,09
bus-0-0: poll loop time: 49ms (USB: 46ms network: 3ms) getwork time: 7ms submit time: 2ms
bus-0-1: poll loop time: 51ms (USB: 49ms network: 3ms) getwork time: 8ms submit time: 3ms
Total hash rate: 3931,1 MH/s
Total submitted hash rate: 3699,5 MH/s
--------
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: Set frequency from 228,00MHz to 232,00MHz
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
bus-0-0: ztex_ufm1_15y1-04A3461185-1: Set frequency from 232,00MHz to 228,00MHz
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)
New block detected by long polling (submitold = true)

Note: Boards are still in the clocking phase.... so that might be an efficiency killer too?

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Quote from: BR0KK on October 18, 2012, 04:59:32 PM

no i don't use GPUs

im testing p2poo, with my ztex boards (sop FPGAs). I figured it takes some time for them to do real work.

If this boards not catching longpools properly and not returning shares just after they found it p2pool is not good for them.
I read about some FPGAs that making full nonce then returning shares it found. But if longpool hit in mean time they are DOA.
If you using cgminer change
"queue" : "0",
to prevent miner from fetching more work than it need.

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

no i don't use GPUs

im testing p2pool, with my ztex boards (so FPGAs). I figured it takes some time for them to do real work.

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Quote from: BR0KK on October 18, 2012, 04:49:13 PM

seeing the same atm.

Seems to be normal?

Code:

2012-10-18 23:48:46.318000 P2Pool: 17452 shares in chain (9324 verified/17456 total) Peers: 12 (2 incoming)
2012-10-18 23:48:46.319000 Local: 3851MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~4.3% (2-7%) Expected time to share: 13.0 minutes
2012-10-18 23:48:46.320000 Shares: 7 (1 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~57.1% (25-85%) Efficiency: ~51.2% (18-90%) Current payout: 0.0174 BTC
2012-10-18 23:48:46.321000 Pool: 399GH/s Stale rate: 16.3% Expected time to block: 9.2 hours

57% stales? Looks like failed miner config to me.
If you use cgminer (best miner imo) change in config:
"queue" : "0",
"gpu-threads" : "1",

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: forrestv on October 18, 2012, 04:50:08 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 04:42:29 PM

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%. Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

Nothing has actually happened yet. The switchover happens at 95% upgraded, and until then, nothing should change.

I was wondering how that worked. Clever!

M

forrestv

hero member

Activity: 516

Merit: 643

Quote from: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 04:42:29 PM

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%. Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

Nothing has actually happened yet. The switchover happens at 95% upgraded, and until then, nothing should change.

I think the jump in the pool's stale rate was someone joining with a lot of misconfigured miners (FPGAs?). Looking at http://forre.st:9332/static/graphs.html?Day , the good (non-stale) hashrate didn't decline.

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

seeing the same atm.

Seems to be normal?

Code:

2012-10-18 23:48:46.318000 P2Pool: 17452 shares in chain (9324 verified/17456 total) Peers: 12 (2 incoming)
2012-10-18 23:48:46.319000  Local: 3851MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~4.3% (2-7%) Expected time to share: 13.0 minutes
2012-10-18 23:48:46.320000  Shares: 7 (1 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~57.1% (25-85%) Efficiency: ~51.2% (18-90%) Current payout: 0.0174 BTC
2012-10-18 23:48:46.321000  Pool: 399GH/s Stale rate: 16.3% Expected time to block: 9.2 hours

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

I'm showing pool stale rate at 18%. Aside from making my 4% very very efficient, is this normal for a hard branch?

I'm showing 8 at 20% right now.

M

Krak

hero member

Activity: 591

Merit: 500

Quote from: BR0KK on October 18, 2012, 03:32:19 PM

Is it normal that every new release ofd p2pool gets its own default BTC address with Bitcoin qt?

Yes. It's a good idea to set a static payout address with the -a flag.

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Upgrades are comming fast with p2pool ?

from 5.0 to 8.2

Just upgraded

Is it normal that every new release ofd p2pool gets its own default BTC address with Bitcoin qt?

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Trying to complie scrypt module on my win7 64 machine:

Code:

C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>setup.py build --compiler=mingw32 install
running build
running build_ext
building 'ltc_scrypt' extension
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -mdll -O -Wall -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC -c scryptmodule.c -o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o
scryptmodule.c: In function 'scrypt_getpowhash':
scryptmodule.c:15:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'scrypt_1024_1_1_256' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -mdll -O -Wall -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC -c scrypt.c -o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.o
writing build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.def
c:\mingw\bin\gcc.exe -shared -s build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.o build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Rel
ease\ltc_scrypt.def -LC:\Python27\libs -LC:\Python27\PCbuild\amd64 -lpython27 -lmsvcr90 -o build\lib.win-amd64-2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x1e): undefined reference to `__imp__PyArg_ParseTuple'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x35): undefined reference to `__imp__PyMem_Malloc'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x44): undefined reference to `__imp__PyString_AsString'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x83): undefined reference to `__imp__Py_BuildValue'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0x8e): undefined reference to `__imp__PyMem_Free'
build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.o:scryptmodule.c:(.text+0xcd): undefined reference to `__imp__Py_InitModule4'
collect2.exe: error: ld returned 1 exit status
error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1

Tried to use VC compiler too:

Code:

C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>vcvarsall
Setting environment for using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 x86 tools.

C:\p2pool-8.2-1-g90b71e5\litecoin_scrypt>setup.py build --compile=msvc install
running build
running build_ext
building 'ltc_scrypt' extension
creating build
creating build\temp.win-amd64-2.7
creating build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe /c /nologo /Ox /MD /W3 /GS- /DNDEBUG -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC /Tcs
cryptmodule.c /Fobuild\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.obj
scryptmodule.c
scryptmodule.c(15) : warning C4013: 'scrypt_1024_1_1_256' undefined; assuming extern returning int
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe /c /nologo /Ox /MD /W3 /GS- /DNDEBUG -I. -IC:\Python27\include -IC:\Python27\PC /Tcs
crypt.c /Fobuild\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.obj
scrypt.c
creating build\lib.win-amd64-2.7
E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\link.exe /DLL /nologo /INCREMENTAL:NO /LIBPATH:C:\Python27\libs /LIBPATH:C:\Python27\PCbuil
d\amd64 /EXPORT:initltc_scrypt build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scryptmodule.obj build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\scrypt.obj /OUT:build\lib.win-amd64-
2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd /IMPLIB:build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.lib /MANIFESTFILE:build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.pyd.manifest
   Creating library build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.lib and object build\temp.win-amd64-2.7\Release\ltc_scrypt.exp
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyMem_Free referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__Py_BuildValue referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyString_AsString referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyMem_Malloc referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PyArg_ParseTuple referenced in function _scrypt_getpowhash
scryptmodule.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__Py_InitModule4 referenced in function _initltc_scrypt
build\lib.win-amd64-2.7\ltc_scrypt.pyd : fatal error LNK1120: 6 unresolved externals
error: command '"E:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\BIN\link.exe"' failed with exit status 1120

Any ideas? I have no troubles on win7 32bit...

forrestv

hero member

Activity: 516

Merit: 643

Quote from: spiccioli on October 18, 2012, 02:30:00 AM

I'm doing the same thing, that is I untar it and then do a

Code:

ln -s ./forrestv-p2pool-7aedd00 p2pool

then I start it with a

Code:

cd p2pool
python ./run_p2pool.py

and it shows, right at the start

Code:

fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount parent )
Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set).
2012-10-18 09:25:08.997911 p2pool (version 7aedd00)

So it finds its version even if I start if from a link

You're not doing exactly the same thing. You're cd'ing in first. Maybe this is because getcwd() from within a symlinked directory returns the original directory name?

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Syke on October 18, 2012, 03:48:02 AM

Quote from: forrestv on October 17, 2012, 10:05:24 PM

* Transaction preforwarding Transactions that you're mining are sent to peers before you get a share, so any block solution you find can be broadcast virtually instantaneously. This could theoretically get our invalid block rate below any other pool's thanks to our large network of nodes.

Excellent work.

Now for the next version. Is it time to start considering ASICs? A lot of the current small miners are going to see difficulty go too high as soon as ASICs come online. I see 2 options:

1. Split ASICs off to a separate pool.
2. Auto-adjust local share difficulty.

I'm not sure this is worth the effort. Presumably it won't be too long before ALL current GPU miners will be bailing because of increased difficulty from ASIC miners.

M

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 636. (Read 2591920 times)