[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 714.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: twmz on April 21, 2012, 01:03:16 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 21, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Poor connection to the bitcoin network could result in higher BLOCK orphans but p2pool has <1% block orphan rate which is similar to other pools.

We have 331 total blocks and 6 of them orphaned. That's a rate of 1.8%.

OK stand corrected. The larger point is that share orphans don't affect the pools payout. Only orphaned blocks do. Most well running pools lose about 1% to 2% of revenue due to orphaned blocks.

So if we consider <1% to be optimal. Then at worse p2pool is 1% worse than optimal.

twmz

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 21, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Poor connection to the bitcoin network could result in higher BLOCK orphans but p2pool has <1% block orphan rate which is similar to other pools.

We have 331 total blocks and 6 of them orphaned. That's a rate of 1.8%.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote

If it is something other than variance, it is probably the orphans. Compared to a big pool your average P2Pool user has:
- a slower, higher latency internet connection
- a stock, unoptimized bitcoind
- may not have any incoming bitcoind connections at all because port 8333 is blocked

Share orphans don't have any effect on block generation rate. Period. Shares are completely worthless and just a method to track division of work and profits.

Poor connection to the bitcoin network could result in higher BLOCK orphans but p2pool has <1% block orphan rate which is similar to other pools.

arklan

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1008

is there any theory as to WHY p2pool's having os much trouble lately? is it pure probability playing out?

iopq

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Shadow383 on April 21, 2012, 12:35:33 AM

Luck really has been awful on p2pool lately - a friend of mine's getting into mining with his dual 7970 gaming PC, got him to point them at p2pool.
Result = 15 hours of 1.3Ghash/s with nothing to show for it thanks to the orphaned block today Roll Eyes

Needless to say, he's switched to standard PPS pools Tongue

Our overall luck since p2pool started though is horrific! Mathematically I make it something like a 2% chance of a pool doing this badly over that time period.

both of the pools I mined on have went down
the back-up first and then the main, lol

p2pool will never go down or have lag or have its wallet stolen

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Nice, your friend is now paying useless fees. His fault, i don't care Wink

cabin

sr. member

Activity: 604

Merit: 250

Quote from: Shadow383 on April 21, 2012, 12:35:33 AM

Luck really has been awful on p2pool lately - a friend of mine's getting into mining with his dual 7970 gaming PC, got him to point them at p2pool.
Result = 15 hours of 1.3Ghash/s with nothing to show for it thanks to the orphaned block today Roll Eyes

Needless to say, he's switched to standard PPS pools Tongue

Our overall luck since p2pool started though is horrific! Mathematically I make it something like a 2% chance of a pool doing this badly over that time period.

If it is something other than variance, it is probably the orphans. Compared to a big pool your average P2Pool user has:
- a slower, higher latency internet connection
- a stock, unoptimized bitcoind
- may not have any incoming bitcoind connections at all because port 8333 is blocked

These things put them at a disadvantage and may result in slightly more orphans, which just looks like slightly worse luck since I don't think we can track down all the orphans at the moment.

Shadow383

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Luck really has been awful on p2pool lately - a friend of mine's getting into mining with his dual 7970 gaming PC, got him to point them at p2pool.
Result = 15 hours of 1.3Ghash/s with nothing to show for it thanks to the orphaned block today Roll Eyes

Needless to say, he's switched to standard PPS pools Tongue

Our overall luck since p2pool started though is horrific! Mathematically I make it something like a 2% chance of a pool doing this badly over that time period.

forrestv

hero member

Activity: 516

Merit: 643

Quote from: kano on April 19, 2012, 09:13:06 PM

That's why I was saying that if it was a P2Pool it has been modified.

The 2 reasons for thinking it is something like P2Pool are that every block (that I looked at) comes from a different IP address and it uses the coinbase payments.

The fact that they are generating bad blocks (including a bad txn) means of course that they are running non-upgraded bitcoind's
Anyway, I guess if no one reading here knows about it, it can't be helped.

Pity it's wasting even a small amount of hashing power (a bit more that a block a week)

I believe that they're BitPenny blocks - they were discussed in IRC yesterday.

ragnard

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Quote from: twmz on April 18, 2012, 11:15:42 AM

I have very high efficiency with my current p2pool setup. Here are my current stats (it has been a week or two since I most recently restarted p2pool):

Code:

Shares: 896 (22 orphan, 10 dead) Stale rate: ~3.6% (2-5%) Efficiency: ~102.6% (101-104%)

I have been consistently getting approx 3.5% stale rate for the past month or so, so this is not a fluke. Here are some musings...

Just to add for comparison. I'm running my p2pool node on a VMWare virtual machine on a pretty new Dell Poweredge in a datacenter with a 100Mbps fiber uplink to large Internet backbone providers.

My p2pool node was restarted a couple weeks ago and since then I have these stats:

Code:

Stale rate: ~4.3% (1-9%) Efficiency: ~105.1% (100-108%)

and

Code:

load average: 0.10, 0.06, 0.05

My 2 miners with around 700MH/s connect to the p2pool server over the Internet and have ~20ms RTT ping to it. So, running on a virtual machine does pretty good. Assuming a somewhat modern server, I think the quality of your connectivity is more important. I should also note that another virtual machine on the same server is running the CPU at 100% doing litecoin mining, so the server is being worked plenty hard.

Doff

sr. member

Activity: 327

Merit: 250

Local rate: 866MH/s (2.5% DOA)

Shares: 17 total (2 orphaned, 1 dead) Efficiency: 89.90%

Are these normal stats for P2pool? 2 Orphaned 1 dead, seems bad but I'm not sure. I love using this pool but I always feel like I'm just losing BTC when I use it for some reason.

Maybe someone can educate me as to what a normal payout I could expect in a 24hr period with that hash rate, orphaned, and dead.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: forrestv on April 19, 2012, 02:20:02 PM

Quote from: kano on April 18, 2012, 07:50:07 PM

The address getting the largest (now failed) payments is: 1FcTuPJzdekvzTyQ5dXsnsVyT4F5G1tCjc
If it is P2Pool though, it's slightly modified
(it doesn't have the 0 BTC payment tacked on the end of all P2Pool coinbase txn's - but I wonder if it is documented anywhere what that actually is?)

They can't be P2Pool blocks - the 0 output at the end is essential to P2Pool's operation. It links P2Pool's internal data for a particular share to the block that share would have mined. (The other alternative is sticking it in the coinbase, but the coinbase of the block that I looked at is nearly empty.)

That's why I was saying that if it was a P2Pool it has been modified.

The 2 reasons for thinking it is something like P2Pool are that every block (that I looked at) comes from a different IP address and it uses the coinbase payments.

The fact that they are generating bad blocks (including a bad txn) means of course that they are running non-upgraded bitcoind's
Anyway, I guess if no one reading here knows about it, it can't be helped.

Pity it's wasting even a small amount of hashing power (a bit more that a block a week)

bitpop

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1060

p2pool mhash is a big guesstimate

hashalfahalve

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Support the bitcoin economy, use BTC merchants

Is someone perhaps able to help me understand why the hash rate reported on the p2pool console output says 3722MH when my miners are saying 4099MH?

I have a 2.36% reject rate, so even with that in account, shouldn't I still be seeing 4002MH?

I can't seem to figure out where the 280-300MH loss is!

When I increase aggression on cgminer and get a higher reject rate, the p2pool output shows a higher hashrate! So confusing...

camolist

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Krak on April 19, 2012, 02:12:39 PM

What specs are on your VPS? I'm thinking about renting one that's local to me, but I dunno how much I should be looking at spending.

it was just 300mb of ram but that was looking to be a bit low so upping it to 512 on the reinstall

cpu was 1% guaranteed on one core am upping that to 1% guaranteed on 8 cores since the price difference is only $5.6 a month

cpu is hard to compare to other hosts because using FAR more then 1% will always be possible (i've tried litecoin mining on these and found 1% of the cpu could use 90+% the vast majority of the time) (and an interesting note was it was still not profitable only paying for 1% of the cpu and using 90% with litecoins)

forrestv

hero member

Activity: 516

Merit: 643

Quote from: kano on April 18, 2012, 07:50:07 PM

The address getting the largest (now failed) payments is: 1FcTuPJzdekvzTyQ5dXsnsVyT4F5G1tCjc
If it is P2Pool though, it's slightly modified
(it doesn't have the 0 BTC payment tacked on the end of all P2Pool coinbase txn's - but I wonder if it is documented anywhere what that actually is?)

They can't be P2Pool blocks - the 0 output at the end is essential to P2Pool's operation. It links P2Pool's internal data for a particular share to the block that share would have mined. (The other alternative is sticking it in the coinbase, but the coinbase of the block that I looked at is nearly empty.)

Krak

hero member

Activity: 591

Merit: 500

What specs are on your VPS? I'm thinking about renting one that's local to me, but I dunno how much I should be looking at spending.

camolist

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 19, 2012, 01:53:42 PM

hmm given the major difference is the the # of orphans it makes me think your connectivity is the largest factor.

that's what i was thinking

but adding in 50-60ms to connect to the datacenter which then connects out to the peers i would expect close to the same results unless my connectivity to the datacenter is so much better then to the peers

waiting for setup on the vps to finish to start testing if increasing the cpu/ram (it was way low before) lowers the dead rates a bit. but i think the dead rate on the server end has more to do with the 50-60ms trip back and forth getting new work to the miners

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

hmm given the major difference is the the # of orphans it makes me think your connectivity is the largest factor.

If the p2pool and/or bitcoind instances were slow (due to insufficient memory, I/O, or CPU time) then at least in theory one would expect to see higher deads not orphans.

Obviously more testing is needed but my guess is the datacenter has a lower latency link to the avg peer. Thus you are learning about new shares quicker and getting your shares into the chain quicker. I may need to play around and see about recording latency to peers. See if there is any correlation between orphan and peer latency and/or # of peers.

camolist

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 18, 2012, 08:37:45 AM

Can you dig into the stats and see why?

running locally it was getting high orphan rates (about 3 for every 1 dead) about 15% stale overall - this was over about 4 days time period with 1200mh

running on the vps at a datacenter after two days it had 1 orphan and 3 dead - 5.8% stale

rebuilding vps to be multi core and a bit more ram once it's back up i'll be increasing from 1.2 to 1.6 gh and will let it run for a few days then try once more on a local copy of p2pool for the same amount of time and compare exact numbers

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 714. (Read 2591919 times)