yes, i bought 5 fans from that guy as well -- about 6 months ago... back then they were like $10 each and a bit less in bulk, though. i've used 3 of them, no problems from those the non-ref cards get ziptied 120mm fans (or none at all, I have 3 running in a case w/ just a floor fan blowing at them.. i dont think that'd work in summer though... but I guess I wont have to worry about that!) |
|
|
|
It still leaks memory, after less than a day I'm already around 1 Gb of ram used.
spiccioli
I can confirm this. 2 GB (RES) in 2-3 days and then I'm forced to restart. couldnt this be related to the increase in incoming connections? my p2pool is at 300MB, limited to 10 outgoing and 6 incoming connections my bitcoind is limited to 900 outgoing and 1000 total and it's at 4GB (well, ok, 3.5) |
|
|
|
I not understand, why ppl hacking code so bad...
And few funny "version: 1100 'madness'" and lots of "unknowns".
On LTC side only some unknowns.
i liked my 'crazed hookers' better it does the unknown stuff on a ramdisk, i just changed what it said oh, and someone earlier mentioned something about dropping incoming connections to 2... i think that's probably too low, but you do have to check which incoming (and outgoing) peers you have, since it seems like ones that are, say, 200ms+ are detrimental oh, and more.. it's really easy to find fast peers with plenty of bandwidth in europe, but i've killed off a few incoming connections until i finally got a couple of 110-130ms connections in US, a 120ms in canada, and some 140ms or so in russia... i have a decent connection latency wise, but i'm limited to jack and shit for upstream here in rural texas, so.... those seemed not to fluctuate much though |
|
|
|
Rig9 Motherboard Msi X58 Pro-E
CPU Xeon L5638 6 core, 2 Ghz, 12mb
GPU XFX 7970 Arctic Extereme Cooling
GPU XFX 7970 oem Cooling
RAM 4GB
HD 150GB
Case OEM 3u Case
PSU Antec 1200w True Power
<ed: snipped out the rest>
i'm not familiar with those motherboard models.... are the # of PCI-e slots equal to the # of cards in them? or do some have some unused slots? |
|
|
|
|
i got this behavior on v11 that i don't recall ever seeing before:
2013-01-02 21:24:57.170986 > Failure: twisted.internet.defer.TimeoutError: in GenericDeferrer
2013-01-02 21:39:20.329566 > Failure: twisted.internet.defer.TimeoutError: in GenericDeferrer
2013-01-02 21:55:23.730752 > Failure: twisted.internet.defer.TimeoutError: in GenericDeferrer
2013-01-02 21:24:48.933495 Shares: 82 (2 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~6.1% (2-14%) Efficiency: ~103.8% (95-108%) Current payout: 0.5881 BTC
2013-01-02 21:55:30.091965 Shares: 87 (5 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~9.2% (4-18%) Efficiency: ~103.7% (94-109%) Current payout: 0.5825 BTC
(ed: DOA rates were similar, 3% to 2.2%, 27 peers, 7 incoming)
and after noticing that, i reset, and here are my stats after 6 minutes
2013-01-02 22:02:16.745949 P2Pool: 18169 shares in chain (18173 verified/18174 total) Peers: 22 (2 incoming)
2013-01-02 22:02:16.746018 Local: 8137MH/s in last 5.8 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~2.2% (1-5%) Expected time to share: 6.2 minutes
2013-01-02 22:02:16.746042 Shares: 2 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ~0.0% (0-66%) Efficiency: ~114.2% (39-115%) Current payout: 0.5892 BTC
2013-01-02 22:02:16.746085 Pool: 337GH/s Stale rate: 12.4% Expected time to block: 10.5 hours
|
|
|
|
.
I don't know what the problems are with your setup but given your first sentence I'm not willing to take the time reading your previous posts. I'll let you find out for yourself.
How bizarre... |
|
|
|
|
2013-01-01 08:32:06.699172 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.565199 Share difficulty: 584.008722 Total block value: 25.481000 BTC including 420 transactions
2013-01-01 08:32:07.245097 GOT SHARE! 3cc1ec10 prev 43e63923 age 0.92s
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276257 > Share check failed:
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276323 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276350 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/bitcoin/worker_interface.py", line 70, in _getwork
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276384 > defer.returnValue(self.merkle_root_to_handler[header['merkle_root']](header, request.getUser() if request.getUser() is not None else '', 0))
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276458 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/work.py", line 345, in got_response
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276493 > self.node.set_best_share()
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276536 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 288, in set_best_share
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276569 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value)
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276610 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 445, in think
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276641 > if self.attempt_verify(share):
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276664 > --- <exception caught here> ---
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276690 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 424, in attempt_verify
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276713 > share.check(self)
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276746 > File "/home/jesus/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 314, in check
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276778 > raise ValueError('''gentx doesn't match hash_link''')
2013-01-01 08:32:07.276809 > exceptions.ValueError: gentx doesn't match hash_link
what exactly does that signify?
it would have kept going forever if i had not caught it
re:
log.old.2:2013-01-01 08:19:28.273919 > Share check failed:
log.old.2:2013-01-01 08:23:18.504064 > Share check failed:
would it be from using the latest git bitcoind?
"version" : 79900,
"protocolversion" : 60002,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 214663,
"connections" : 959,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 2979636.61693807,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1357027515,
"keypoolsize" : 1,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : "This is a pre-release test build - use at your own risk - do not use for mining or merchant applications"
i suppose it does give a warning at the end
"blocks" : 214663,
"currentblocksize" : 274839,
"currentblocktx" : 465,
"difficulty" : 2979636.61693807,
"errors" : "This is a pre-release test build - use at your own risk - do not use for mining or merchant applications",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 986,
"testnet" : false
anyway, i set it back to 30k size, as the only time ive had that problem (i guess that's what the other thing with the 25 orphans was as well) is when im not limiting block size
|
|
|
|
How is the block 'bonus' calculated for the person who solves a block? Maybe if the person that solved it got *all* the transaction fees, it would encourage people to include the transactions?
I think it may already work something similar to this, but only a portion of the transaction fees?
Right now I have my block size limit set to 30000 because of all the orphans I was getting with the 200kb block sizes.... but, if the person that solves the block got all the fees included in that block, it'd be worth the extra 5% orphans..
The block solver gets a 0.5% bonus while the rest of the 99.5% is split to all the miners. I still don't know what you're talking about with these orphans, there hasn't been an orphaned block since just over 2 weeks ago. If you're talking about shares, 5% is perfectly within the acceptable range. like this: with maxblocksize at 0, i get much fewer orphans than with maxblocksize at 300,000. it doesn't matter if my efficiency is (bordering) on 100% with maxblocksize at 300,000. when it's at 0, it's 110% or more. the *possible* .5 or so more from fees (of which i'd get around 4 or 5% (ed: more like 3%)) doesn't come close to making that up... it doesn't take high level maths to figure out that you're worse off by including transactionsWhich is a shame, as mining is about verifying transactions for the bitcoin network. I tried to point this out in the p2pool thread but only got silly replies ... so I gave up. I guess that is yet another answer to the question this thread asks ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1423255#msg1423255https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1423312#msg1423312ofc, it could be solved by giving the lucky person that 'solves' the block the entirety of the transaction fees. then (nearly) everyone has incentive to include everything they can get. most pools are colo /dedicated servers on robust networks, so including transactions isnt as big a deal (because all the other pools will receive your block quickly as well) |
|
|
|
How is the block 'bonus' calculated for the person who solves a block? Maybe if the person that solved it got *all* the transaction fees, it would encourage people to include the transactions?
I think it may already work something similar to this, but only a portion of the transaction fees?
Right now I have my block size limit set to 30000 because of all the orphans I was getting with the 200kb block sizes.... but, if the person that solves the block got all the fees included in that block, it'd be worth the extra 5% orphans..
The block solver gets a 0.5% bonus while the rest of the 99.5% is split to all the miners. I still don't know what you're talking about with these orphans, there hasn't been an orphaned block since just over 2 weeks ago. If you're talking about shares, 5% is perfectly within the acceptable range. like this: with maxblocksize at 0, i get much fewer orphans than with maxblocksize at 300,000. it doesn't matter if my efficiency is (bordering) on 100% with maxblocksize at 300,000. when it's at 0, it's 110% or more. the *possible* .5 or so more from fees (of which i'd get around 4 or 5% (ed: more like 3%)) doesn't come close to making that up... it doesn't take high level maths to figure out that you're worse off by including transactionsWhich is a shame, as mining is about verifying transactions for the bitcoin network. I tried to point this out in the p2pool thread but only got silly replies ... so I gave up. I guess that is yet another answer to the question this thread asks ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1423255#msg1423255https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1423312#msg1423312Don't know about your setups but on my system with a bitcoind from git HEAD and its data on SSD: #Max number of nodes to connect to. Another possible bottleneck.
maxconnections=20
#Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=100000
#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=2000
#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=0
#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.0005
leads to an average latency of 0.05s for p2pool<->bitcoind and very low stales. Maybe people with high stales that only go away with blockmaxsize=0 are using a slow version of bitcoind or a slow disk. If I understand my parameters well, I limit a block to 100kB (1/5 of the max and about the current average block size if I'm not mistaken), reserve a small place for old 0-fee transactions that aren't yet included in a block and ask for 0.0005 BTC to include a TX right-away. These are the recommended value I stumbled upon when configuring p2pool some time ago. I haven't tested other values since then so if you think it's not contributing enough, please advise and I'll report any change. if you don't know about my system, you probably shouldnt be commenting at all. mine is run off of a RAM drive, and even on 200kb blocks, it rarely goes above .15s on the 'GetBlockTemplate Latency' ... alas, that's not what's causing my shares with 200kb of transactions to become orphans did you notice this recent run of blocks we had? overall orphan/DOA rate down to 8%? coincidence, im sure. |
|
|
|
How is the block 'bonus' calculated for the person who solves a block? Maybe if the person that solved it got *all* the transaction fees, it would encourage people to include the transactions?
I think it may already work something similar to this, but only a portion of the transaction fees?
Right now I have my block size limit set to 30000 because of all the orphans I was getting with the 200kb block sizes.... but, if the person that solves the block got all the fees included in that block, it'd be worth the extra 5% orphans..
The block solver gets a 0.5% bonus while the rest of the 99.5% is split to all the miners. I still don't know what you're talking about with these orphans, there hasn't been an orphaned block since just over 2 weeks ago. If you're talking about shares, 5% is perfectly within the acceptable range. like this: with maxblocksize at 0, i get much fewer orphans than with maxblocksize at 300,000. it doesn't matter if my efficiency is (bordering) on 100% with maxblocksize at 300,000. when it's at 0, it's 110% or more. the *possible* .5 or so more from fees (of which i'd get around 4 or 5% (ed: more like 3%)) doesn't come close to making that up... it doesn't take high level maths to figure out that you're worse off by including transactions |
|
|
|
|
How is the block 'bonus' calculated for the person who solves a block? Maybe if the person that solved it got *all* the transaction fees, it would encourage people to include the transactions?
I think it may already work something similar to this, but only a portion of the transaction fees?
Right now I have my block size limit set to 30000 because of all the orphans I was getting with the 200kb block sizes.... but, if the person that solves the block got all the fees included in that block, it'd be worth the extra 5% orphans..
|
|
|
|
The massive amount of bandwidth usage certainly doesn't help things. I tried p2pool again yesterday and racked up 1GB in just over 12 hours (even with only ~3 incoming connections). I can't really spare 1.5-2GB a day on a 150GB monthly limit.
I'm coming to the realization that incoming connections don't have to be there. I have mine limited down to 3 to prevent stales and is working just fine. If bandwidth is an issue, don't turn on port forwarding. M If the outgoing connections it picks are good, sure. I'm considering having my local node just have 1 outgoing connection, to my nogleg server. (figured I'd edit this to say that I'm going to shut the local p2pool down right now and maybe rework it later. got an incoming connection now requesting shares that's saturating my upstream, giving me like 30% DOA and 500ms ping times) |
|
|
|
Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection. zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this? Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help? BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today. Yeah, but to do so I had to restart bitcoind. So it could very well have been something wrong with the bitcoind->p2pool connection.... couldn't see how it could be bitcoind itself, since it was still reporting everything as normal... The blocksize was at around 900KB, I thought maybe that might be the issue... although I doubt it was so high for 2 hours |
|
|
|
kano, there are two issues here: - users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
- users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.
I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not. I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions. spiccioli edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones. just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up. M I live in a rural area and the best option here until 2 yrs ago was cable that was limited to 256kbps upstream.... that was called the 'business package' actually, if you're trying to sling around 200kb blocks to multiple peers, the best option in that case I guess would be to just eat close to a second of latency from satellite.... well, if you can get satellite i could in texas! (not wireless in this area tho, hah) |
|
|
|
Hello,
Could you add our new addresses to your database?
93.174.55.27
199.193.117.228
176.9.135.190
176.9.130.31
5.9.207.236
Couldn't it just be made so ' psjk��!�#R,�mmhi from poolserverj� ��' was a 50BTC block? I noticed I got another one just now and it says Deepbit i also mined two p2pool blocks, that said deepbit =p |
|
|
|
2012-12-27 11:05:30.775867 Peer 188.252.14.100:37615 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 11:06:46.966781 Peer 199.241.185.82:34124 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 10:06:29.635862 Peer 38.102.67.75:35397 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:08:09.930458 Peer 46.105.236.77:34589 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:39:22.661182 Peer 67.5.89.140:35547 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-28 04:32:45.287181 Peer 68.102.86.156:33805 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
LoL, I just checked out one of them: http://199.241.185.82:9332/static/you go PoN! |
|
|
|
ok, back to 0, heh
zvs, would you mind trying this in you bitcoin.conf? #Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768
#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096
#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192
#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005
This way you're mining blocks of 32kB max, you can also lower it till you find a good spot, but this way you're still helping the BTC network.  spiccioli would this do it? past_shares = list(tracker.get_chain(share_data['previous_share_hash'], min(height, 100))) tx_hash_to_this = {} for i, share in enumerate(past_shares): for j, tx_hash in enumerate(share.new_transaction_hashes): if tx_hash not in tx_hash_to_this: tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] = [1+i, j] # share_count, tx_count for tx_hash, fee in desired_other_transaction_hashes_and_fees: if tx_hash in tx_hash_to_this: this = tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] else: if known_txs is not None: this_size = bitcoin_data.tx_type.packed_size(known_txs[tx_hash]) if new_transaction_size + this_size > 50000: # only allow 50 kB of new txns/share break new_transaction_size += this_size new_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash) this = [0, len(new_transaction_hashes)-1] transaction_hash_refs.extend(this) other_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash) anyway, ok, i'll set it to 50000 i haven't been running merged mining, unfortunately.. i would have liked to have the 100 namecoins merged mining would cause more DOAs, I'd think.... because you'd have to be running namecoind, ixcoind, whatever else on the same machine as bitcoind... No, MM is solo Mode and dosnt add Orphans/DOAs. If you find a share who is higher or equal the diff of the MM AltChains youl simply submit a block to your local daemon (namecoind here) and thats it, only BTC mining is being p2p, MM is solomode. that's not really true (the part about how it 'doesn't add orphans or DOAs') people started dropping i0coin because it used so much processing power. namecoin and ixcoin do as well, to a lesser extent. if you're dealing with a limited amount of bandwidth, it'll also add to that there's no question that it'll make your bitcoind function slower, though |
|
|
|
Bump
still valid
when they're available, the french->english or english->french translations pay quite a bit on mturk. (unlike some others, like indo-aryan and malay and what not) i haven't visited that site in about a year, but they used to pay like 15-20 cents just to translate some small phrase. essentially only for european languages minus spanish, though... as i recall, russian, french, and german were in the highest demand |
|
|
|
Hey again guys!
I'm in need of Bitcoins to buy something I really
wanted that only accepted BTC and I was thinking,
I'm good at both English and Filipino (Tagalog) and
maybe I could monetize this talent.
I'm fluent in both English and Filipino,
and am offering my talents for a few bitcoins.
I'll translate a max of 6 pages
all at a rate of 0.01 per Translation.
Thanks guys!
Also, if you have some spare bitcoins, please
donate to : 1FF2VEdudhXCt1aueFRQ8froftRr7cxY9W
Thanks again.
you could try checking mturk.com, they might have something like that. though dealing with amazon payments is a pain they sent me half a dozen emails asking for my tax information after i mucked around for a whole $3 or so |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
