Topic: Flexible mining proxy - page 4. (Read 88735 times)

this is what is showing up in the apache logs


And this is the command that i am using to launch the miners



Can you maybe try to tell me what the problem is or what other info i need to figure the problem out?

Your server IP or hostname.

So when you say "At this point you should be able to point your workers at the proxy and they will start working." in the installation instructions/



What address should I be using?

I thought about writing it in Java, until I realized that means I would have to write it in Java.  Then I took some Pepto for the resulting nausea.

[citation needed]

If on a LAMP server, Java probably won't be installed by default.  If on a desktop, Java still probably won't be installed by default (unless it's GNU classpath) and in some cases Mono will be installed too, for Banshee/Tomboy/F-Spot.

Honestly, I'd rather focus my energy on adding support for PostgreSQL, which I should have done in the first place...

Please consider porting to Java, now i'll have to install mono?

Everybody will probably have Java already.

The C# getwork/LP backend is now feature-complete and is being tested.  If there are no major issues, expect a release of it before Tuesday.

The getwork code performs failover after 3 seconds if a pool doesn't respond.  This means that a little lag in, say, the DNS lookup can trigger a failover.  This will not be a problem with the C# backend since it will keep a queue of a few pieces of work per pool, populated on a background thread.  Getworks from a worker will pull off of the queue and trigger the background thread to refill it.

That's odd.  poclbm is all I use and I haven't noticed too many problems with it.  I do note that it tends to abort a getwork request after about 5 seconds and try again immediately.  This means that poclbm and the PHP failover code are often at odds, since by the time that the proxy fails over to the second pool, poclbm has aborted the request and is trying again.

Hmm, I'm not sure what I could have changed that would fix this.  The frequency of requests might be causing Apache to try to keep more HTTP worker processes running to serve them.  And if your miners recognize the X-Roll-NTime header (which I just added), that means they will usually only do a handful of getworks per round, and so the number of requests to Apache will drop dramatically.

I don't think you'd be prevented from contributing to the PHP side of the project.    And since I'm not building a compatible framework (like Mono is), I don't think I really need to exclude MS.NET developers from the C# side of the project either.

Been lurking in this thread for awhile now.  Most of the issues I've encountered have already been reported by other users and patched, but I have two things I can't figure out:

1) I have a very disparate number of getworks to shares in the pool summary (251 to 26).

2) I noticed on one of my any of my clients running poclbm that every 60 seconds after starting I get an RPC error before it continues.  I haven't seen this on phoenix or Ufasoft's miners...


I don't know if these are all related or its just a poclbm issue.  I was thinking a timeout in apache/php could be the cause but I don't know the best way to diagnose.

I had noticed for the last two weeks I had an abnormally high number of apache2 processes running (150+) for about 20 active miners.  I'd eventually have to restart after apache stopped responding.  This seems to have cleared with the changes committed in the last 3 days.  Again, also not sure if related.

Excellent project by the way.  I just wish I hadn't been tainted by coding microsoft.net all these years so I could contribute some code.

If you ignore the duplicate/stale stats and focus only on the accepted shares, are the numbers very different over time from what you see mining without the proxy?  I am wondering if the proxy code that retries share submissions on errors is successfully submitting it the first time, but thinks that there was some connection issue and tries again, thereby giving you a duplicate or stale share but also correctly giving you the one accepted share.

I also just added the new s3.mining.eligius.st pool. For some weird reason, I'm getting a lot of invalid shares :

Submitted duplicate shares   17   4
Submitted stale shares   35   0

Which I don't get if I access directly. Anyone else noticed this behavior? The only thing I can see is that worker use the same login on the pool.

He's put the code on Github, so someone else set up a server here: http://multiclone.us.to:18080/ (mining port 18337).
It has the same problem.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17970.msg302834#msg302834

So if i have 2 or more cards, an instance of poclbm or phoenix (which requires one instance per device) hasher running for each card, each pointed to the one proxy account which points to the one miner account on a pool, it doesn't cause issues?

What about multiple accounts for the proxy (so a proxy account for each device) which all point to the one miner account on a pool?

I was thinking the proxy may hand out the same work to multiple cards and if one of the cards solve it, then the others wont know about it and keep hasing.

You could have just done what it suggested: TRUNCATE TABLE work_data;

Multipool is currently down, so I haven't been able to review the problem and proposed fix.

I'm not sure what you mean.  The mining software is responsible for determining how to allocate work to the various devices it supports.  My proxy doesn't know or care how many GPUs you have.

So no problems with getworks and the like? One card solves something and the others some how knows to getwork again?

I'll try the ntime fix later when i get home.

Did you get anywhere with this?

The proxy's lack of support for X-Roll-NTime may have been to blame for this.  Pull down the latest code; I just added X-Roll-NTime support about 45 minutes ago.

Then the proxy will use the same credentials for all three workers.  If pointing all three miners at the same pool using the same account works fine, then pointing them at the same pool using the same account via the proxy will also work.

How so?  The hash-rate calculation queries perform very quickly on my install, and EXPLAIN shows that the indexes are used appropriately.  Which commit are you running from?

@cdhowie, this app is amazing, but need some work of sql optimization and hash-rate calculator

Just try it. It's worked for me well enough.

What happens if i have a single account on a pool and i create 3 miners on the proxy and point them to that one pool using the same account?