I was always under the assumption that if you had your amps all jumping around like that, then there was some issue somewhere... I mean, the GPUs (most) of the time will still run unless it's really bad, but.. re: http://imgbox.com/abhSVwhpExactly what I thought, so I made this thread... Well, I have one computer that has a Sempron that's so horrible that GPU usage jumps between 95-100 quite a bit, so the amps change too. here are some of my 5970's 5970 #1  5970 #2 (a card moderately in need of a new thermal paste job.. but, hey, it's winter and I won't be using it anymore in march or april, right?)  and just for kicks 5870  that one must have some mad caked up thermal paste, not to mention a few holes wherever gpu 2 and 3 sensors are... but it CAN get 1040 core at 1.1750, and is even stable at 1080 @ 1.212. it's like 98 amps then well, at night that is. usually. these 65o days are bothersome links fixed. whee. hmm. just noticed GPU load 95% on card #2. i guess that was probably from switching in to gpu-z with an elite sempron |
|
|
|
I was always under the assumption that if you had your amps all jumping around like that, then there was some issue somewhere... I mean, the GPUs (most) of the time will still run unless it's really bad, but.. re: http://imgbox.com/abhSVwhp |
|
|
|
obviously, but what are the effects on p2pool as a whole? does it report orphaned shares correctly in this scenario, are there other effects?
% of orphan increases @ stats?! yes it does "report" them correctly. a side effect would be the wasted traffic, altough this isnt much. well they certainly aren't reported on the local graphs, otherwise it would show a much higher waste rate in the mining graphs, so that's one of the reasons I ask. i suppose it makes sense since you can't fully verify a share until it's been included in the sharechain. the other reason I ask is the variance we see when there are problems with the nodes/sharechain seem to imply that the orphan/dead rate perhaps isn't reported correctly. another question I had was if sharechain 11 is a hardfork, why does p2pool still connect to clients on sharechain 9 after the fork? i've updated from Ubuntu Server x64 12.04 LTS to 12.10 and I'm still seeing the memory leak and increased orphaned/dead as i approach a day of node uptime. The leak appears to start after about 12 hour, although it's not as pronounced as on 12.04 LTS. Versions 10 and 11 were not hardforks. They triggered the upgrade notifications, but there was no switchover to cut version 9's off. I'm investigating the memory leak; one person experiencing it gave me SSH access and I'm waiting for it to occur. If anyone else wants to lend SSH access, that would be helpful too. well, I know if you start p2pool with tons of old share files, it'll start you out at like 500MB+ memory usage. it'll say something like 35000/35000 shares verified and it'll gradually start removing the old share files, but your memory usage will still stay at 500MB |
|
|
|
The dots are a measure of the weekly average luck. Higher dots are worse luck, lower dots are better luck. BitcoinPool for example has had abysmal luck. p2Pools luck doesn't look unusual.
does HHTT have worse luck than bitcoinpool? |
|
|
|
|
well, i was using the stratum miner thing and i found 3 of those blocks.
at 8000mhash
in like 10 days
and i got about 10 btc instead of 75 =/
|
|
|
|
|
on pools that let you list all the miners, look for all the people at 10-25mhash
|
|
|
|
Assuming Avalon really shipped...I'd say your resell value just fell big time
if you're trying to sell on this forum, sure 5830's still sell for $70+shipping on eBay, that's about $5-$10 less than 6 months ago |
|
|
|
I don't know what to do, I've tried everything I could find on the forum.
I installed bitcoin-qt fresh on my windows install. Started it and let it run for an entire day but when I looked at it later that night noticed it was stuck at like 93% of the blockchain downloaded. Tried to quit out and use the -rescan option. That didn't work, the error message at the bottom displayed was: "Warning: displayed transactions may not be correct! you may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade"
I tried searching for that error too and nothing that was said resolved the issue. I have tried deleting all my blk files in the data directory and letting it redownload the entire blockchain again and it gets stuck downloading every single time. The last time I tried letting it run the error message from before popped up without me ever even restarting the client, the one about displayed transactions may not be correct.
Tried uninstalling and reinstalling bitcoin-qt. Did not work.
Made sure I had enough diskspace, there's plenty of free space for the blockchain.
I have tried using snapshots of the blockchain with a new wallet and it STILL got stuck downloading with the same error as usual popping up after a while.
I don't know what is wrong. It's driving me crazy. I can't access anything stored in my actual wallet because the blockchain won't finish downloading. I was going to say screw it and use my online wallet but I need to import my private keys for that wallet, but can't because bitcoin throws the same error I get about not being up to date when trying to dump.
I have 8 active connections to the network according to the client yet nothing more will download.
if you're using the default directory, delete all the stuff in your /users/<name>/appdata/roaming/bitcoin folder. make a new bitcoin.conf file server=1 daemon=1 rpcuser=crazedhookers rpcpassword=3$9czKO$23LCXMZJO%$#@vndkxccxkvDJSKOJ%#@OPvfcxkvjW$JRO#$@ rpcallowip=127.0.0.1 rpcport=31337 port=8333 listen=0 maxconnections=1 irc=0 upnp=0 keypool=0 dns=0 detachdb=1 logtimestamps=1 connect=5.9.24.81 after blockchain is done downloading, change maxconnections, change listen to 1 (if you want), and remove connect=5.9.24.81, or change it to addnode or something... and I guess you could change keypool to make a ton of addresses you probably wont need to bloat your wallet some |
|
|
|
couldn't be windows. wouldnt have to bother with these dependencies he speaks of |
|
|
|
p2pool's main problem is being penalized for including transactions.
P2pool miners are protecting the network against >50% attacks. That is a HUGE benefit for the bitcoin network. Although the concept sounds good, since p2pool is only around 300-400GH/s - it really isn't protecting anything ... and if p2pool miners do as you suggest below, the larger pools, that include more transactions, are indeed better for BTC ... Most p2pool users don't have the powerful servers and gigabit internet connections, so they should not include every possible 0-fee or 0.0005 BTC/kB transaction. It's not a huge problem if we leave that to the centralized pools.
And I thought forrest made it so that the transactions are really quickly between peers anyways, so are miners really still being penalized? i'd think that it would be moved in a way that wouldnt involve that much more data, but you can see a clear difference in orphans when you set your blocksize to 1000 vs 250000. though i'd go for something like 5000 so it can cherry pick the occasional huge fees. anyway, re: memory leak, check this bad boy out: http://5.9.157.150:9332/static/graphs.html?Monthmaybe it has something to do with DOA shares? is your node public? interested in stats. i put it back up about 4-5 hours ago, not mining on it again yet, though.. just for a relay... it's @ http://nogleg.com:9332 |
|
|
|
p2pool's main problem is being penalized for including transactions.
P2pool miners are protecting the network against >50% attacks. That is a HUGE benefit for the bitcoin network. Although the concept sounds good, since p2pool is only around 300-400GH/s - it really isn't protecting anything ... and if p2pool miners do as you suggest below, the larger pools, that include more transactions, are indeed better for BTC ... Most p2pool users don't have the powerful servers and gigabit internet connections, so they should not include every possible 0-fee or 0.0005 BTC/kB transaction. It's not a huge problem if we leave that to the centralized pools.
And I thought forrest made it so that the transactions are really quickly between peers anyways, so are miners really still being penalized? i'd think that it would be moved in a way that wouldnt involve that much more data, but you can see a clear difference in orphans when you set your blocksize to 1000 vs 250000. though i'd go for something like 5000 so it can cherry pick the occasional huge fees. anyway, re: memory leak, check this bad boy out: http://5.9.157.150:9332/static/graphs.html?Monthmaybe it has something to do with DOA shares? |
|
|
|
So that makes BFGMiner vs CGMiner comparisons off-limits? Inferiority complex? How bizarre |
|
|
|
does bfgminer actually restart dead gpus? I presume so. I've never seen a dead GPU that doesn't also crash the entire system, so I'm not really sure how to test this to make sure it still works. and i hate having to edit cfg files to fix fan speeds, what is up with the 85 max Can you elaborate? Any changes vs cgminer in regard to restarting GPUs? I would say only about 1% of the time my computer also crashes on a GPU failure. That seems to occur w/ heat issues. I've had Windows blue screen and say something about how it was shutting down for the 'safety' of my system. Most of the time they just blink the screen and reset. cgminer says they're dead and it can't restart them, but it takes me about 5 seconds to press q and reload cgminer and the card starts fine. As for the fan thing, I know that's a setting you can change in the program, I just haven't bothered. It may be part of the 'powertune' thing. I just opened the cfg file and changed the 0-85 to 0. What I didn't expect was for it to put an 85% limit on my fans as part of a 'default' config. It shouldn't mess with my clock, memory, or fan settings at all. Just pool settings, intensity, etc. |
|
|
|
My GPU buying is getting less and less, for two reasons, I do have a claim in the ASIC race so relying on that, But also, As my cards drop off this mortal coil, I am less inclined to replace them due to the cards holding price, I mean the 5870 is the same price it was a year ago? So unless I find cheap deals, My farm will get smaller.
Well, 5870 has dropped some bit tbh. I bought most of mine for about $160 approx. 6 months ago. Now you'd be doing good to clear about $105-$110 after eBay fees. Clearing $100 would be more realistic (have a nice shipping price, too). 5830's, though.... just glanced at eBay and they're still going for $60-$80 before shipping (so average price maybe around $70-$90?). I bought a bunch of mine back in April of 2011 for $100.. That newegg promotion, I'm sure a bunch of people here remember that. I think a few weeks after that there was another promotion (maybe with amazon) where they sold them for like $110 with a shogun steam code. |
|
|
|
Thanks to that tip from conspirosphere.tk I am now running at a steady ( ouch ) 79°C - 80°C
Are you keeping your rig open (without side panel)? That is mandatory for miners. My 58XX radeons are mining @64-65° C downvolted at 0,960v, core 800 (5830) -850 (5870), mem @300, fan @40% I think it's better not to invest in a case at all. If you're fancy, you can get a server rack or fabricate something yourself... if not, you can put your stuff on a piece of cardboard. Use an eraser or something to jam between them to create some space if you aren't using risers. I have one system with 3 GPUs that have had their fans removed (and plate and fancy covering) and just have a floor fan blowing at them instead. re: efficiency, that depends totally on the cost of your electricity, though nowadays I suppose it'd have to be Pretty Damn Cheap to, say, run a 5830 at 1020 core @ 1.163v vs 920 core @ 1.063v. I run mine at 920-160. I think you lose 1 or 2 mhash vs 300 and the 256 worksize... or last I checked, anyway oh, i should mention that whilst a floor fan will always provide more cooling, one must angle it properly to achieve maximum efficiency. i like the use old DVD drives and card casings... and those old honeywell fans are tons better than the new ones. all this nonsense about fans being quiet. i was looking around amazon for a 'loud as shit' fan that puts out a lot of air, but couldnt find any |
|
|
|
Is there any support for the x6500 with cgminer? I know bfgminer has it but I really prefer cgminer. Why do you prefer cgminer? I have been using it since I started mining. I don't follow; why is that a reason to prefer it? If there is something cgminer does that BFGMiner doesn't, that you find value in, I'd prefer to add it to BFGMiner. does bfgminer actually restart dead gpus? and i hate having to edit cfg files to fix fan speeds, what is up with the 85 max anyway, he's always used cgminer, that's why he prefers it. i used phoenix with phoenix rising until about 2 weeks ago |
|
|
|
I've been having major problems with keeping my orphan/dead rate in check. Some p2pool invocations were getting me 0% efficiency. I don't have much hashing power so it can take up to a day for me to know if it's a problem or not. Memory use goes way up, and then the orphan/dead shares go up with it. I've noticed that the reported length of the share chain length seems to vary quite a bit (from 17K-20K), which doesn't seem right. Aside from the memory spikes, when the orphan/dead rate gets really bad the pool rate charts don't seem to update (the charts for local activity are fine) until I try restarting things. Sometime I just restart p2pool other times I restart bitcoind as well and hope that helps. On the mining side I even tried switching from phoenix to cgminer. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS.
I'd say I've been having problems since sharechain V10, and it has been really bad with sharechain V11
in your bitcoin.conf file set your maximum block size to something like 5000. that way if someone puts in some insane fee in a transaction you'll pick it up, but wont significantly raise your # of orphans by keeping the default value, which I believe is 250kb p2pool's main problem is being penalized for including transactions. the bonus for solving a block should be the entirety of the transaction fees instead of what it is now... simple fix memory leak, the second issue: http://nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?Monthi noticed that when i started up p2pool this last time, I had a bunch of old share files in the directory so it started me at like 35k shares. it also started p2pool at 530KB memory, and it never cleared it |
|
|
|
|
1/75th of the transaction fee isnt worth getting 200% more orphans
|
|
|
|
|
whatever that is that's on the git right now is an absolute mess
block 216948 is too big, and thus corrupt, apparently
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
