Topic: bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy - page 84. (Read 355678 times)
I added some more logging to the Lp messages so I can figure out why json decoding is dieing. If they appear again tell me.
Its gotta be getwork related with bitclockers.
Cleaned out the non-relevant lines. 4 getworks within 15 seconds and an immediate change to rfc.
Code:
[15:46:04] Server change to bitclockers, telling client with LP
[15:46:04] LP triggered serving miner
[15:46:04] LP triggered serving miner
[15:46:04] LP triggered serving miner
[15:46:04] LP triggered serving miner
[15:46:08] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:46:09] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:46:10] LP Call pool3.bitclockers.com:8332/LP
[15:46:15] writing to database
[15:46:15] RPC request [00668000] submitted to bitcoin.cz
[15:46:20] RPC request [081ca000] submitted to bitcoin.cz
[15:46:21] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:46:21] RPC request [602ed000] submitted to bitcoin.cz
[15:46:23] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:46:25] Server change to rfc, telling client with LP
Cleaned out the non-relevant lines. 4 getworks within 15 seconds and an immediate change to rfc.
Getting this occasionally this morning:
[05:47:43] received lp from: bcpool
Unhandled error in Deferred:
Unhandled Error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 361, in c
allback
self._startRunCallbacks(result)
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 455, in _
startRunCallbacks
self._runCallbacks()
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 542, in _
runCallbacks
current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw)
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1076, in
gotResult
_inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred)
--- ---
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1020, in
_inlineCallbacks
result = g.send(result)
File "G:\Handies\bitHopper\bitHopper\work.py", line 71, in jsonrpc_lpcall
lp.receive(text,server)
File "G:\Handies\bitHopper\bitHopper\lp.py", line 30, in receive
response = json.loads(body)
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\__init__.py", line 326, in loads
return _default_decoder.decode(s)
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\decoder.py", line 366, in decode
obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\decoder.py", line 384, in raw_decode
raise ValueError("No JSON object could be decoded")
exceptions.ValueError: No JSON object could be decoded
[05:47:46] RPC request [getwork] submitted to BitcoinPool.com
[05:47:43] received lp from: bcpool
Unhandled error in Deferred:
Unhandled Error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 361, in c
allback
self._startRunCallbacks(result)
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 455, in _
startRunCallbacks
self._runCallbacks()
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 542, in _
runCallbacks
current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw)
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1076, in
gotResult
_inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred)
---
File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1020, in
_inlineCallbacks
result = g.send(result)
File "G:\Handies\bitHopper\bitHopper\work.py", line 71, in jsonrpc_lpcall
lp.receive(text,server)
File "G:\Handies\bitHopper\bitHopper\lp.py", line 30, in receive
response = json.loads(body)
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\__init__.py", line 326, in loads
return _default_decoder.decode(s)
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\decoder.py", line 366, in decode
obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
File "C:\Python27\lib\json\decoder.py", line 384, in raw_decode
raise ValueError("No JSON object could be decoded")
exceptions.ValueError: No JSON object could be decoded
[05:47:46] RPC request [getwork] submitted to BitcoinPool.com
SliceScheduler is now the default scheduler.
The old default scheduler is now OldDefaultScheduler.
The websites have been moved and renamed.
I would use poclbm because it doesn't have a memory leak but it gives up on getworks really quickly. So I use phoenix with the memory leak for real mining and poclbm for my dev laptop.
EDIT: I have almost all of them installed though because I keep having to fix bugs which appear with specific miners.
The old default scheduler is now OldDefaultScheduler.
The websites have been moved and renamed.
I would use poclbm because it doesn't have a memory leak but it gives up on getworks really quickly. So I use phoenix with the memory leak for real mining and poclbm for my dev laptop.
EDIT: I have almost all of them installed though because I keep having to fix bugs which appear with specific miners.
Quote
I have bitclockers working fine for myself.
C00w been meaning to ask.. what do you mine with? software-wise
do you use poclbm or pheonix
Your slice method has been removed for some reason, only the altslice is left and that doesnt sort.
i am referring to the new default method in c00w which is called SlicedScheduler
Cow, could you add sorting by name (ryo had that in his fork) , it just makes it more natural to read through the webui 
Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
if you take the slice method: it has still my sorting method which is doing exactly as you described (sort by role and then by name)
but i only tested it in firefox...
Your slice method has been removed for some reason, only the altslice is left and that doesnt sort. Ive used it up till recent update from c00ws hopper version and now its giving some error same as dynamicpenalty(which isnt implemented yet) so it seems it was removed o_0
Cow, could you add sorting by name (ryo had that in his fork) , it just makes it more natural to read through the webui
Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
if you take the slice method: it has still my sorting method which is doing exactly as you described (sort by role and then by name)
but i only tested it in firefox...
This might be part of the problem with bitclockers:
Why are there so many getworks being sent to bitclockers? I literally have 4x as many getworks as shares submitted everytime I connect.
The last time I hopped to bitclockers I submitted 9 getworks and 3 shares on one of my workers. The other worker was similar. Do normal miners do this?
Code:
[15:32:09] RPC request [c2577000] submitted to bitcoin.cz
[15:32:14] Server change to bitclockers, telling client with LP
[15:32:14] LP triggered serving miner
[15:32:14] LP triggered serving miner
[15:32:15] writing to database
[15:32:15] LP Call pool3.bitclockers.com:8332/LP
[15:32:15] slush: 117863
[15:32:15] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:32:16] RPC request [4ef05000] submitted to bitcoin.cz
[15:32:16] btcmonkey: 3137405
[15:32:25] bitclockers: 6019
[15:32:27] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:32:31] nofeemining: 4323061
[15:32:32] triple: 2656095
[15:32:38] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:32:42] slush: 132366
[15:32:44] btcmonkey: 3137421
[15:32:44] btcpool24: 712236
[15:32:46] RPC request [52393000] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:32:50] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:32:59] triple: 2656319
[15:33:01] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:33:03] nofeemining: 4323274
[15:33:09] rfc: 567957
[15:33:09] slush: 146966
[15:33:12] btcmonkey: 3137445
[15:33:13] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
[15:33:15] writing to database
[15:33:18] bclc: 5237051
[15:33:26] bitclockers: 8684
[15:33:26] triple: 2656742
[15:33:27] RPC request [getwork] submitted to bitclockers.com
Why are there so many getworks being sent to bitclockers? I literally have 4x as many getworks as shares submitted everytime I connect.
The last time I hopped to bitclockers I submitted 9 getworks and 3 shares on one of my workers. The other worker was similar. Do normal miners do this?
yes c00ws is stable.
bitclockers is a great pool which is why we try so hard. I barely push 300 and they go red all the time.
btcmp doesnt work. You can search this thread for why.
+1 to sorting by name
bitclockers is a great pool which is why we try so hard. I barely push 300 and they go red all the time.
btcmp doesnt work. You can search this thread for why.
+1 to sorting by name
I moved it. I put a modified version back.
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
Cow, could you add sorting by name (ryo had that in his fork) , it just makes it more natural to read through the webui
Even better, sort by name based on mine: A-Z , backup: A-Z , mine_slush: A-Z , nmc: A-Z, disable: A-Z, info: A-Z.
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
Yep, no bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers work semi stable <1gh , total wackjob >1gh , with bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers exact same results.
Im still 99.9% sure its a getwork per worker issue.
I think I agree. I more than doubled my hashrate according to bitclockers by creating a new worker and running two instances of bithopper instead of one, each pointing to its own worker. Still only around half what it should be though.
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
Yep, no bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers work semi stable <1gh , total wackjob >1gh , with bithopper+new ip+new account = bitclockers exact same results.
Im still 99.9% sure its a getwork per worker issue. If you are really bored you can keep track on multiple refreshes on the bitclocks stats page showing the top hashers all dropping down and back up over and over, doesnt seem to be such an issue for low hashers of <1gh .
So in essence, it seems bitclockers idea of QOS is getwork throttling per worker, lame.
bitclockers is working fine..
just make a new account, thats enough
just make a new account, thats enough
Created a new account and its even worse for some reason. Now I cannot even submit a share before bithopper hops away.
have you tried it without bithopper as an immediate (and different worker names)?
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
i still get some connection errors, but not that much as before (atm 1 conn errorevery minute - which bh ignores) - maybe you get more (as you have more getworks in general) - and therefor bh disabled bclockers faster?.
bitclockers is working fine..
just make a new account, thats enough
just make a new account, thats enough
flowers I have, issues still remain when going >1gh of traffic. Its quite reliable to test from my side.
I moved it. I put a modified version back.
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
EDIT: How did you get it to try and load index.html. What scheduler were you using?
bitclockers is working fine..
just make a new account, thats enough
just make a new account, thats enough
who removed/renamed index.html? 
Code:
web.Server Traceback (most recent call last):: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'index.html'
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/twisted/web/server.py, line 127 in process
125 try:
126 resrc = self.site.getResourceFor(self)
127 self.render(resrc)
128 except:
Self
site
twisted.web.server.Site instance @ 0x9890acc
....
Um we could set it up to use multiple accounts. currently you can hack it to use multiple pools with slightly different names. The issue is that we don't have work level slicing only time level slicing so we can't just send an even number of getworks per account. Thats the next goal once I figure out the DB issues.
Cool, I can wait. Im sure it will take care of bitclockers aswell as make other things possible like continues shares from PPLNS/score pools at lower hashrate equivelants based on getwork throttling, would nullify their whole design
Jump to: