Bitcoin Forum
April 23, 2014, 01:07:29 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Multiminer: A more efficient way to mine  (Read 18633 times)
CFSworks
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile

Ignore
March 31, 2011, 06:23:06 AM
 #1

Not sure if this will be useful to anyone but me...
I've developed a lot of this stuff for my own in-house use, and in the spirit of being open and transparent, have decided to release this to the general Bitcoin public.

I've designed my own push-based Bitcoin mining protocol. It's called MMP (for Multiminer Protocol) and is a simple line-based protocol that operates over TCP. The idea is that miners don't have to ask for work repeatedly because the server informs clients when new work is available. It's a little bit more efficient than long-polling, which requires a separate connection to wait on the long-poll (I could be wrong; I didn't really study long-polling too in-depth) since everything operates over a single message-based TCP connection. It's also considerably more efficient than JSON-RPC: Requesting more work from the server requires 6 bytes from the client and 170 from the server. (Compare this with 47/605 for JSON-RPC... and that's not counting HTTP headers)

Since nobody uses MMP right now except me, I've created a gateway to Slush's mining pool at mmpgateway.mooo.com on the standard MMP port 8880.
It finally offers push-based work from Slush's pool. Smiley (But please be gentle, this is a friend's home connection; and no, I don't log your password or feed you my own work)
I realize there are other pools out there, and while I'd like to provide a gateway for every one, I don't have the resources. I picked Slush's because it's large and in need of a push-work solution at the moment, but if you operate a pool, I will gladly help you add MMP support if you ask.

MMP was primarily designed for use in my more-serious project, Multiminer Server which is designed to maintain only one outbound connection to a mining pool (or locally-running Bitcoin client), and distribute smaller work units to miners. It's fairly easy to set up; here's a simple configuration to provide 30-bit work to local clients under the username/password "default":
multiminer.exe --mmp --host=mmpgateway.mooo.com --user=PoolUsername.worker --pass=workerpass --admin-user=default --admin-pass=default --mask=30

You can then connect MMP miners to the newly-running MMP server at localhost:8880 and watch them mine.
Also, if you add --web-port=8882, you can use it as an old-fashioned RPC server (which doesn't yet have long-polling) at localhost:8882

Finally, I have poclbm-mmp, which is a slightly-modified version of poclbm that adds an option to connect to MMP servers.
You can connect it to the running multiminer server with this command:
poclbm.exe --mmp --host=localhost --port=8880 --user=default --pass=default -d 0
Or directly to the Slush gateway (which should provide for less stale work, and no polling required):
poclbm.exe --mmp --host=mmpgateway.mooo.com --port=8880 --user=PoolUsername.worker --pass=workerpass -d 0
poclbm-mmp continues to support old-fashioned JSONRPC if you remove the --mmp option.

Phoenix Miner developer

PGP/GPG key: FC5461A3
Personal donations: 1Abq88sPz2MjH4Yi8yZVCbfu1ZXRSP7id5
1398258449
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398258449

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398258449
Reply with quote  #2

1398258449
Report to moderator
Unbeatable Service & Product Support
Grab Your Miners at GAWMiners.com
Order Before April 25th to receive
Double your Hashing Power for 1 week!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1398258449
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398258449

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398258449
Reply with quote  #2

1398258449
Report to moderator
1398258449
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398258449

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398258449
Reply with quote  #2

1398258449
Report to moderator
1398258449
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398258449

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398258449
Reply with quote  #2

1398258449
Report to moderator
1398258449
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398258449

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398258449
Reply with quote  #2

1398258449
Report to moderator
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile

Ignore
March 31, 2011, 06:45:58 AM
 #2

Interesting idea. Couple things:

What does this give over long polling exactly? From reading the protocol, a typical 5970 will still be sending lots of "more" commands as it processes the work then is notified about the new block.

Assuming one doesn't use your gateway, how would this tie into bitcoind? Client sends a more and multiminer passes that to bitcoind as a getwork to fetch the work? Or does your code generate work without going through bitcoind?
CFSworks
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile

Ignore
March 31, 2011, 07:01:11 AM
 #3

Interesting idea. Couple things:

What does this give over long polling exactly? From reading the protocol, a typical 5970 will still be sending lots of "more" commands as it processes the work then is notified about the new block.

Assuming one doesn't use your gateway, how would this tie into bitcoind? Client sends a more and multiminer passes that to bitcoind as a getwork to fetch the work? Or does your code generate work without going through bitcoind?

A typical 5970 would indeed send lots of "more" requests (tests with 5870s show they request more every 11 seconds or so) but it only needs to send a "more" request when it's getting low on unique hashes to try, since there is no way to get more than 2^32 hashes out of a single work block (without updating the timestamp) -- this same principle applies to getwork-based miners as well.
The primary advantage over long-polling is that it never has more than one connection open to the server. With long-polling, you need one connection open for the long-poll, and another connection to request additional work (however I didn't look at long-polling in depth; I could very well be wrong about this) - the added connections and overhead from HTTP can consume a lot of server resources, so the benefit is mainly toward pool operators struggling to optimize for bandwidth.

Multiminer has JSONRPC support, but only for genuine Bitcoin RPC (as it depends on the getblockcount call in order to function) - but multiminer keeps a stockpile of work (this defaults to 0x200000000 hashes but can be changed with multiminer's setconfig() RPC call) and subdivides down to get small enough work for a client. If the client's mask is 30-bit, and multiminer has a stockpile of two 32-bit units, it will split one of them into 31-30-30-bit work units and assign one of the 30-bits to the clients. The idea is that the miners get smaller work at a time and they don't have to risk tossing as many perfectly-good hashes that could go to another miner. The benefit is especially apparent with slow CPU miners that don't need a full 32-bit unit to function.

In the future, I plan to have Multiminer actually do timestamp-fudging to create work without going through bitcoind; whether I do this sooner or later depends on whether people want this or not.

Phoenix Miner developer

PGP/GPG key: FC5461A3
Personal donations: 1Abq88sPz2MjH4Yi8yZVCbfu1ZXRSP7id5
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile

Ignore
April 02, 2011, 08:35:06 PM
 #4

more efficient than long-polling, which requires a separate connection to wait on the long-poll (I could be wrong; I didn't really study long-polling too in-depth) since everything operates

set up; here's a simple configuration to provide 30-bit work to local clients under the username/password "default":
multiminer.exe --mmp --host=mmpgateway.mooo.com --user=PoolUsername.worker --pass=workerpass --admin-user=default --admin-pass=default --mask=30

You can then connect MMP miners to the newly-running MMP server at localhost:8880 and watch them mine.

So is it possible to run multiminer without using your gateway? IE run multiminer which connects to a local bitcoind and in turn has local clients connecting to via MMP?

I think one advantage to your setup may just be the fact that for solo miners, one could see which miners are connected, their hashrates etc. As someone who mines (solo) but using multiple machines, it's difficult to keep track of when a miner goes down for whatever reason.
jgarzik
Staff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile

Ignore
April 02, 2011, 08:42:13 PM
 #5

A more efficient binary data protocol for this has already been implemented:

     http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3493.0

This is what I plan to add to bitcoind, as it supports multi-mining / push mining / block broadcasting and a host of other applications.

The linked implementation is usable in production already.  Patches for cpuminer will be forthcoming.  If you could add BDP support to poclbm, that would be great!


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile

Ignore
April 02, 2011, 09:19:34 PM
 #6

Hi,

Ok I got multiminer working on a solo miner. poclbm-mmp is about 1mhash slower per 5970 core though. Any idea why this would be?
CFSworks
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2011, 01:22:38 AM
 #7

A more efficient binary data protocol for this has already been implemented:

     http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3493.0

This is what I plan to add to bitcoind, as it supports multi-mining / push mining / block broadcasting and a host of other applications.

The linked implementation is usable in production already.  Patches for cpuminer will be forthcoming.  If you could add BDP support to poclbm, that would be great!



Interesting. I'll give some thought to adding BDP support to Multiminer, in addition to long-polling (both on Multiminer's frontend and backend) - no promises for anything soon, though, as I have something else occupying my time at the moment.

Hi,

Ok I got multiminer working on a solo miner. poclbm-mmp is about 1mhash slower per 5970 core though. Any idea why this would be?

Are you using vectors? With poclbm-mmp, I had to change the OpenCL kernel's vector code slightly to make it compatible with work that is potentially smaller than 32-bit. If you are using 32-bit work, you should be able to drop in the old poclbm kernel (BitcoinMiner.cl) and put it in poclbm-mmp to get the speed back.

Phoenix Miner developer

PGP/GPG key: FC5461A3
Personal donations: 1Abq88sPz2MjH4Yi8yZVCbfu1ZXRSP7id5
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2011, 07:46:28 AM
 #8

Thanks, using -b32 rather than -b30 and reverting BitcoinMiner.cl gave back the speed. Any advantage to the smaller workunits? I mean is it worth giving up a mhash?
CFSworks
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2011, 10:14:22 PM
 #9

Thanks, using -b32 rather than -b30 and reverting BitcoinMiner.cl gave back the speed. Any advantage to the smaller workunits? I mean is it worth giving up a mhash?

For CPUs the efficiency benefit is quite apparent, since it takes them longer than 10 minutes to do 2^32 hashes (i.e. they are less than 7158 khps) so giving a cluster of CPUs smaller units means you risk tossing less hashes when the block changes.
For GPUs, it is (at least in theory) better as well, but due to some inefficiencies in the way poclbm switches work (which BitcoinPool's modified poclbm may or may not have solved; I didn't look into it yet) there isn't much benefit to doing so. The -b flag is (mostly) intended for CPU clusters.

Although, I do appreciate you trying different values and providing some feedback on the speed changes. This benefits me as well. Smiley

Phoenix Miner developer

PGP/GPG key: FC5461A3
Personal donations: 1Abq88sPz2MjH4Yi8yZVCbfu1ZXRSP7id5
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 255


View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2011, 03:05:31 AM
 #10

For GPUs, it is (at least in theory) better as well, but due to some inefficiencies in the way poclbm switches work (which BitcoinPool's modified poclbm may or may not have solved; I didn't look into it yet) there isn't much benefit to doing so. The -b flag is (mostly) intended for CPU clusters.

Poclbm-mod works through the entire getwork before asking for more.  It also support long-polling, which means it opens a connection to the server on a side-channel and waits for the server to send a getwork back (which happens when the block changes).  We too noticed that poclbm pulling a getwork every 10 seconds which wasn't efficient.  I'm glad to see that someone else also understands this. Smiley


BitcoinPool.com - 0% Mining Fees - Jump In!
pwnyboy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile

Ignore
May 02, 2011, 10:36:55 AM
 #11

@CFSworks/jedi95, thank you _very_ much for writing and releasing this.  I saw one of you mention in another thread that you would soon release the code for the web status page for your own Multiminer setup after some code clean-up.  Any update on that?
BitLex
Staff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 07, 2011, 11:21:19 AM
 #12

i am using mutliminer-1.4 with phoenix for a few days now,
worked pretty good, actually i get less stale shares on deepbit than connecting miners seperately (0.6% with MM vs 1.2% without).

in the last 2 days though all miners stopped working with an empty-queue-msg at some point and didnt start again 'til i restart multiminer.
noticed the first stop a bit late, so the miners didn't do anything for ~7hours, second time i gladly noticed it after ~1hour.
i've no idea why it happens, but it's kinda sucky.

kindle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile

Ignore
May 08, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
 #13

Seems like its working when solo mining, however I am not to sure what extent it is working well with the new 0.3.21 version of the bitcoin client. I haven't been successful in solving a block yet. Has any one solo mined and solve using this yet?

M4v3R
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604



View Profile

Ignore
May 11, 2011, 02:30:11 PM
 #14

I just wanted to jump in and thank you for the MultiMiner. It works great, and finally I can monitor my rig on my iPhone Cheesy

BitLex
Staff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 11, 2011, 02:35:28 PM
 #15

well, i finally gave up using it, after it just stopped working again twice,
i don't want my GPUs being idle for hours and i just can't watch them all the time.

bitminer
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile

Ignore
May 11, 2011, 09:31:45 PM
 #16

I would like to mine solo. Phonix 1.46 running on my mining rigs and I would like to see all important infos (hashrates etc.) of the my miners in one place.
Is "multiminer" the best aviable tool to monitor multiple miners and share the work between them?
pwnyboy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile

Ignore
May 12, 2011, 03:08:05 AM
 #17

It's my understanding that you can't get that information from multiminer - it's contingent upon the release of a certain python-to-html generation script (or the coding of your own script) which the developers have not yet released.  Not sure why.

There is another option, cdhowie's flexible mining proxy:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506.0

Note that I am still not yet able to use it on a CentOS 5.5 based machine, it generates too many stale shares because long polling is broken, although others seem to have success with it.
bitminer
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile

Ignore
May 13, 2011, 12:29:58 AM
 #18

I've found a bug:
if I stop bitcoin and I check the hashrates of my miners via JSON-RPC request I see about 20% slower rates than their maximum however their real hash rates are 0.
I don't know much about python. Has anyone any idea how to fix this?

 
jedi95
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile

Ignore
May 16, 2011, 05:07:29 AM
 #19

I've found a bug:
if I stop bitcoin and I check the hashrates of my miners via JSON-RPC request I see about 20% slower rates than their maximum however their real hash rates are 0.
I don't know much about python. Has anyone any idea how to fix this?

 

This is a bug in Phoenix. Right now it only displays 0 Mhash/sec in the GUI. It still continues to push the last hashrate in the META. It will be corrected in the next version.

Phoenix Miner developer

Donations appreciated at:
1PHoenix9j9J3M6v3VQYWeXrHPPjf7y3rU
Druas
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78


View Profile

Ignore
June 03, 2011, 06:08:48 AM
 #20

Anyone know of any pools that support this protocol?
Pages: [1] 2  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!