and again a miner that fails on p2pool
20% rejected shares
anybody tried with cgminer 3.11 is this getting better performance?
I'm not seeing anything like these reject levels. Only when I first start p2pool and first connect the device. After a while diff rises, p2pool stops chewing up CPU and then it all calms down to very normal reject and DOA rates and good efficiency.
after 5 hours I still got >20% rejected shares on p2pool.
running cgminer 3.9 from the minepeon on rpi shipped with the bj
will give 3.12 or newer a shot on a linux host PC
No, the current p2pool code will always yield at best a 20% DOA rate for all asic based miners.
If you do a bitcointalk.org search on asicminer blades (I have seven (7) each of Fried Cat's 13GH/s blades lying around collecting dust --open to all offers) and p2pool efficiency, you will see that this is just how things are sans two separate p2pools (one for asic miners and the other for non-asic miners). Attempting to modify p2pool to accommodate both will actually penalize both.
Forking the p2pool code (one p2pool network for asics, and a separate p2pool for legacy) is pretty trivial and with all new bitcoin miners coming onboard being 100% asic, then it is high time to create this asci-only p2pool mining pool.
And when that happens, the asic miners' p2pool DOA rate would be under 1%.
Say, that would be a good name for it: ASIC-P2Pool.
Below is this PM that I got from baloo_kiev that explains all this much better (the "blades" he refers to are 13 GH/s miners) Dated July 9th, 2013 like 7 months ago:
Hello!
Current estimated DOA for eruptor blades is about 42%. After switch to new share period of 30 s, which will hopefully occur within several days, it will drop to about 18%, which is still unacceptable.
The solution I was talking about can reduce estimated DOA to 1-2%, which is about the same as amount of stales you must get on any 'traditional' pool. The solution is simply forking the p2pool with 5 minute share period. It will be a new p2pool with new share chain, not sharing work with 'old p2pool'.
For instance, this means that you will need to gain some other miners' support before launching it. If you want the new pool to generate at least 1 block per 24 hours at current difficulty, you will need at least 100 blades mining in it. Here's a table
showing estimated time to block and time to share for 1 blade at current difficulty at 5-minute share period:
Total hashrate, GH/s (total number of blades) Time to share (for 1 blade), h Time to block, h
500 (50) 4 48
1000 (100) 8 24
2000 (200) 16 12
3000 (300) 24 8
Note that the new p2pool will be suitable for any device, not only the blades, but miners with less than 10 GH total hashrate won't probably want to mine there because of high share difficulty. The coding here must be primitive (as I stated in the post, it's all about a couple of lines) and I can easily do it, but it only makes sense if you make sure first that enough hashrate will be put into the pool!
====================
So fellow Space Cadets, get in touch with user baloo_kiev. Note that forking p2pool code i.e. making it mandatory for all nodes in a viable manner, is as you can expect, politically non-trivial.
KICK ME IN THE ASS TIME: I haven't kept up with p2pool ever since July 2013, so maybe all this has already been addressed and if so, I apologize!