Topic: Mining protocol bandwidth comparison: GBT, Stratum, and getwork (Read 28328 times)
Thanks. I might be granted access to a location with free power (hydro) but it's off the grid and has no internet. There is 4G cell service tho. Didn't know if it's feasible to set up some miners over a cell connection without using hoards and hoards of expensive data.
So is mining over a cellular modem connection basically impossible due to it's bandwidth usage/cost?
Use stratum with higher difficulty.You receive on average one (small) work item per 30s (depending on the pool) + LP and send shares back at your difficulty.
Ozcoin allows you to set your difficulty for each worker.
So is mining over a cellular modem connection basically impossible due to it's bandwidth usage/cost?
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
I came up with 205 KB/sec, or 18 GB/day at the extreme case of difficulty 1 shares with full 1 MB block templates every 30 seconds.In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).
For a datacenter, 558 GB/mo is nothing anyway. The very cheapest of dedicated servers include 2500 GB.
Gonna take me a while ...
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
I came up with 205 KB/sec, or 18 GB/day at the extreme case of difficulty 1 shares with full 1 MB block templates every 30 seconds.In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).
For a datacenter, 558 GB/mo is nothing anyway. The very cheapest of dedicated servers include 2500 GB.
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
I came up with 205 KB/sec, or 18 GB/day at the extreme case of difficulty 1 shares with full 1 MB block templates every 30 seconds.In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).
For a datacenter, 558 GB/mo is nothing anyway. The very cheapest of dedicated servers include 2500 GB.
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.Yet again you fine gentlemen have overestimated my competence.
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).
Surely you jest. Are you sure that's not 18 GB/MONTH?
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.Yet again you fine gentlemen have overestimated my competence.
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
In practice, 2 Th/s would probably be unusable at difficulty 1, so you would be using a variable difficulty pool which would use less bandwidth for submissions (which account for about 134 KB/sec of this estimate).
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.You have never given any credence to your use of the word security in that context.
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.Yet again you fine gentlemen have overestimated my competence.
Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter. Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?
It varies by pool mainly. Pools that support variable difficulty should use approximately the same bandwidth regardless of hashrate.Network difficulty has no effect on bandwidth.
Ignore the troll.
Actually a lot of what Kano said is true, specifically this:
Calculation will depend on if you are using cgminer or not and which protocol you are using.
The least will be cgminer with stratum.
The clone asks for a large amount of transaction data that it doesn't do anything useful with even in stratum
(and asks for that same data sometimes more than once)
The size of that transaction data is in the order of the size of the block.
The least will be cgminer with stratum.
The clone asks for a large amount of transaction data that it doesn't do anything useful with even in stratum
(and asks for that same data sometimes more than once)
The size of that transaction data is in the order of the size of the block.
If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.
Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?
It varies by pool mainly. Pools that support variable difficulty should use approximately the same bandwidth regardless of hashrate.Network difficulty has no effect on bandwidth.
Ignore the troll.
Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?
... use cgminer and look at the API pool stats ...The API 'stats' command - the last 6 numbers on each pool
Calculation will depend on if you are using cgminer or not and which protocol you are using.
The least will be cgminer with stratum.
The clone asks for a large amount of transaction data that it doesn't do anything useful with even in stratum
(and asks for that same data sometimes more than once)
The size of that transaction data is in the order of the size of the block.
And the pool you are mining on may have block size restrictions also e.g. Eligius used to limit every block to 32 transactions for about 5 months so they would be paid more for their work since they seemed to think their pool should be paid more than other pools for the same amount of work - though the real problem was simply that the pool software was crap and got more orphans than the other much better pools.
Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?
January 21, 2013, 09:37:59 PM
Ok... maybe I am misunderstanding things, but why do we want to encrypt miner traffic?
At this point in time - probably no one wants to.However, should any pool enable that, the miners will also currently talk SSL (Curl does that)
The point being that the counters should include the SSL count if any pool uses SSL (which may or may not ever happen)
The cost of including the count is almost zero if there is no SSL data, and pretty close to the same as the cost of counting normal data if instead a pool is using SSL.
... and an aside but related comment ...
My desktop cgminer on a 3.6GH/s Bulldozer uses about 1CPU second per hour OzCoin Stratum mining (at 8 difficulty) on my BFL FPGA
Runtime: 15hrs, 13minutes ...
Top CPU seconds TIME+: 0:15.79
I will also point out that I am also doing an API request to it (summary) every 2 seconds
Edit: and in retrospect, I would guess those numbers might be of great interest to you Inaba once you get the MiniRig SC's working ...
January 21, 2013, 09:07:25 PM
Ok... maybe I am misunderstanding things, but why do we want to encrypt miner traffic?
January 21, 2013, 08:07:38 PM
...
To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.
... and to clarify even more ... your testing is therefore ignoring a case that the clone miner you were testing was also ignoring.To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.
So yes the fact that neither the original cgminer, or the clone were being tested on SSL pools does not in any way negate the fact that the clone code ignores data ... SSL data ... that may or may not be used by the pools.
The silliest thing about this, is that it is only 2 lines of code to support the SSL data ... and even simpler, those 2 lines are just 2 extra case lines.
January 21, 2013, 08:03:30 PM
...
To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.
... and to clarify even more ... your testing is therefore ignoring a case that the clone miner you were testing was also ignoring.To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.
So yes the fact that neither the original cgminer, or the clone were being tested on SSL pools does not in any way negate the fact that the clone code ignores data ... SSL data ... that may or may not be used by the pools.
The silliest thing about this, is that it is only 2 lines of code to support the SSL data ... and even simpler, those 2 lines are just 2 extra case lines.
January 21, 2013, 05:50:37 PM
Kano says......
I have just about had enough of your tone Kano.
I know you have issues with LJR, but FFS, can you be a little less sarcastic and downright NASTY with your posts.
You are seriously putting me of browsing this forum.
You think you are smart, and you probably are (I say probably because of your bitchy low I.Q. attitude).
I think I will have to put you on ignore, because you are just annoying.
I generally have respect and admiration for coders / programmers, but for you sir, I have none.
Put me on ignore ... please Quote
i.e. you are not running the latest cgminer version fool.
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.
Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.
Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:
I have just about had enough of your tone Kano.
I know you have issues with LJR, but FFS, can you be a little less sarcastic and downright NASTY with your posts.
You are seriously putting me of browsing this forum.
You think you are smart, and you probably are (I say probably because of your bitchy low I.Q. attitude).
I think I will have to put you on ignore, because you are just annoying.
I generally have respect and admiration for coders / programmers, but for you sir, I have none.
Jump to: