i mine with x6500 and mbpm with 100mhs on this pool, i get 8% doa, thats my only problem
What mining program are you using?
Topic: [OFFLINE]P2Pmining.com-Hybrid P2Pool-NO FEE!!!-BTC/NMC/IXC/I0C/DEV/LTC - page 24. (Read 56628 times)
May 15, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
May 15, 2012, 09:09:04 PM
i mine with x6500 and mbpm with 100mhs on this pool, i get 8% doa, thats my only problem
May 15, 2012, 08:00:54 PM
Doesn't matter to me. If the server can't feed 'em fast enough though, it doesn't matter either way.
It may be your local connection. The server is way under loaded. I don't have connection issues with my miners and I am half way across the country (USA) from my server. Check server speed at http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/HDAVmy8qr/p2pmining.com:9332
It may be your local connection. The server is way under loaded. I don't have connection issues with my miners and I am half way across the country (USA) from my server. Check server speed at http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/HDAVmy8qr/p2pmining.com:9332
It may be. It's stabilized though recently, right now everything is going to your server and none to my local. I'm the #2 guy on your miners list, usually, at 2.4g/h. If it drops below that a bit, then traffic is being directed locally. If it drops a lot, then windows decided to turn on auto install of updates and reboot. Again. ARGH. (I think it's done doing that finally...)
M
May 15, 2012, 02:41:43 PM
Your right its because p2pool uses all those redirects that the score is much lower.
May 15, 2012, 02:29:59 PM
Thats a great tool for checking server speeds thank you!!!
Your performance score of your server is 64/100, I tested a few other pools and most scored 90-100.
I also got the server not providing work fast enough errors on your server, but I was running queue 0 so that has a little to do with it.
I'm also on the west coast so my ping time are a little higher.
Your performance score of your server is 64/100, I tested a few other pools and most scored 90-100.
I also got the server not providing work fast enough errors on your server, but I was running queue 0 so that has a little to do with it.
I'm also on the west coast so my ping time are a little higher.
If you look in the performance review you can see what causes the 64/100 isn't the speed but the way p2pool forms it's webpages.
May 15, 2012, 11:02:58 AM
Thats a great tool for checking server speeds thank you!!!
Your performance score of your server is 64/100, I tested a few other pools and most scored 90-100.
I also got the server not providing work fast enough errors on your server, but I was running queue 0 so that has a little to do with it.
I'm also on the west coast so my ping time are a little higher.
Your performance score of your server is 64/100, I tested a few other pools and most scored 90-100.
I also got the server not providing work fast enough errors on your server, but I was running queue 0 so that has a little to do with it.
I'm also on the west coast so my ping time are a little higher.
May 15, 2012, 10:45:17 AM
I didn't jump ship yet 
Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah!
I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah! I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
Doesn't matter to me. If the server can't feed 'em fast enough though, it doesn't matter either way.
It may be your local connection. The server is way under loaded. I don't have connection issues with my miners and I am half way across the country (USA) from my server. Check server speed at http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/HDAVmy8qr/p2pmining.com:9332
May 15, 2012, 05:09:19 AM
I didn't jump ship yet Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah!
I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah! I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
Doesn't matter to me. If the server can't feed 'em fast enough though, it doesn't matter either way.
May 14, 2012, 10:26:09 PM
I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
I'm all for it, I don't see why not.
May 14, 2012, 10:13:24 PM
Quote
A denial-of-service vulnerability that affects all versions of bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt has been reported and fixed. An attacker could isolate a victim's node and cause the creation of blockchain forks.
Because this bug could be exploited to severely disrupt the Bitcoin network we consider this a critical vulnerability, and encourage everybody to upgrade to the latest version: 0.6.2.
Thanks to Forrest Voight for discovering and reporting the vulnerability.
How would I know if I am the victim of this attack?
Your bitcoin process would stop processing blocks and would have a different block count from the rest of the network (you can see the current block count at websites like blockexplorer.com or blockchain.info). Eventually it would display the message:
"WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
(note that this message is displayed whenever your bitcoin process detects that the rest of the network seems to have a different block count, which can happen for several reasons unrelated to this vulnerability).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-critical-vulnerability-denial-of-service-attack-81749 Because this bug could be exploited to severely disrupt the Bitcoin network we consider this a critical vulnerability, and encourage everybody to upgrade to the latest version: 0.6.2.
Thanks to Forrest Voight for discovering and reporting the vulnerability.
How would I know if I am the victim of this attack?
Your bitcoin process would stop processing blocks and would have a different block count from the rest of the network (you can see the current block count at websites like blockexplorer.com or blockchain.info). Eventually it would display the message:
"WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
(note that this message is displayed whenever your bitcoin process detects that the rest of the network seems to have a different block count, which can happen for several reasons unrelated to this vulnerability).
May 14, 2012, 09:52:25 PM
Getting FPGA's to mine on p2pool would be cool.
Is it possible to attack p2pool to slow work?
Is there any type of attack that can increase variance on a pool?
Have you updated bitcoind to 0.6.2 to prevent DoS?
Is it possible to attack p2pool to slow work?
Is there any type of attack that can increase variance on a pool?
Have you updated bitcoind to 0.6.2 to prevent DoS?
I just compiled 0.6.99 a couple days ago
I don't think a p2pool system can be DoS'd.
May 14, 2012, 09:33:24 PM
The only FPGAs that *don't* work with p2pool are the BFL units, but they apparently have plans to fix that. (4-6 weeks?)
May 14, 2012, 09:32:05 PM
Getting FPGA's to mine on p2pool would be cool.
Is it possible to attack p2pool to slow work?
Is there any type of attack that can increase variance on a pool?
Have you updated bitcoind to 0.6.2 to prevent DoS?
Is it possible to attack p2pool to slow work?
Is there any type of attack that can increase variance on a pool?
Have you updated bitcoind to 0.6.2 to prevent DoS?
May 14, 2012, 09:06:32 PM
I didn't jump ship yet Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah!
I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
Just trying some experimenting. For me, cgminer 2.3 works better than 2.4. I must have some of the worst luck though. I jumped on Eclipse for a day and a few hours later that pool was down. Bah! I am thinking of starting a new p2pool with 2 min shares instead of 10second shares. This should reduce all the long polling and help with a lot of issues p2pool has. This may enable FPGAs to be usable with p2pool also. Any comments?
May 14, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
It appears several people have jumped ship in search of better luck, including JayCoin. 
Yeah, p2pool has horrible luck recently. 300+ g/h.. and we get:
16 hour block
33.5 hour block (!!!!)
2.5 hour block that is orphaned
17 hour block
It isn't just p2pmining, it's p2pool in general.
Furthermore, I think there might be something wrong with the p2pmining server. I have 2.4g/h, and 400-600m/h of it keeps getting directed to my local (backup) p2pool. For a short time when I didn't have my local one up and running, cgminer was complaining about the pool not supplying work fast enough. That was with a measily 1.8g/h.
May 14, 2012, 05:10:54 PM
It appears several people have jumped ship in search of better luck, including JayCoin.
May 10, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
yep i went from 8% stales to 1-3% stales and a 50 hash/ms increase with an upgrade to the newest CGminer! would recommend doing so
2.4.1
2.4.1
May 10, 2012, 07:35:38 PM
What miner(s) are you using? Are they the latest versions?
I had stales through the roof when I switched to p2pool until I upgraded my miners.
I had stales through the roof when I switched to p2pool until I upgraded my miners.
I've about given up on my stale % issue, but I'm curious if anyone knows why it might go up during the day and down during the night? It seems to go up to 15+% during the day and settle back to 8% during the night. I'm on a college campus, so I'm assuming network traffic may be the problem. Anyway, thanks for all the hard work Jaycoin, the site works great.
May 10, 2012, 09:18:20 AM
I've about given up on my stale % issue, but I'm curious if anyone knows why it might go up during the day and down during the night? It seems to go up to 15+% during the day and settle back to 8% during the night. I'm on a college campus, so I'm assuming network traffic may be the problem. Anyway, thanks for all the hard work Jaycoin, the site works great.
May 09, 2012, 10:07:02 PM
You can set share difficulty to what ever you want. If you want 3000 share difficulty just add +3000 to the end off your bitcoin-address-username. When you submit a 3000 difficulty share, it would be the same as if you submitted 3000 difficulty 1 shares. You will see more variance in your stats with higher difficulty shares, but it all works out the same in the end. I haven't tried experimenting with much higher difficulty to see if I get a smaller DOA rate.
I mean the actual p2pool share difficulty, not the pseudo-shares. You could have your pool set to work on 3000 difficulty shares to help out the overall health of the network. I'm not sure how you would do this though as it's usually set at the miner level with username/3000. Jump to: