Okay, so I am testing vanitymining.. I use a Sapphire 7950 OC at 1200 Mhz https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Vanitygen: AMD Radeon 58XX, 68XX GPUs: up to 23.5 Mkey/s.
AMD Radeon 69XX GPUs: up to 19.5 Mkey/s. my 5830's can do 24MKey/s, but it's still not anywhere near worth it well, piachu wasn't too bad. i did that like 3 times in 5 minutes or so Address: 1PiachuEZabE5sx1jqWVwvijsGYmzSibYo is my favorite by far it looks like it's up to 5 now |
|
|
|
|
this 1Piachu seems to have been solved many times already, are there multiple Piachus requested? *scratch*
Don't suppose anyone wants 1PiachuZqeLaJcNDwcro1BH5PFBZVx4Gf7?
haha
|
|
|
|
I had an extension cord that the connection between the surge protector and the extension cord melted as well. It wasn't anywhere near 15A.. although I'm not sure what it was rated for. M Yeah, I talked to a few more people about it... I think it probably wasn't even related to the 13A (oh, I discovered it was rated for 13A and not 15A.... but I had had it going for about 9 months with a constant 12.5-13A pull) or whatever.... just happens sometimes, I guess. Most of 'em thought it was the surge protector at fault, rather than the extension cord... I did get a 25 ft 12 gauge extension cord this time, though.. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
ps: i'm changing my maxblocksize back to 0
please don't, this way you're not processing transactions which is the whole meaning of mining. give blockmaxsize a low value, like 8kB, so that it does not create too many orphans but still processes transactions. Btw, orphans that solve a block are as good as any other share you submit. my 2c spiccioli Version: 9.4-22-g9f125de-dirty Pool rate: 309GH/s (11% DOA+orphan) Share difficulty: 594 Node uptime: 0.108 days Peers: 30 out, 4 in 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... 2012-12-27 07:41:57.626431 Shares: 32 (29 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~100.0% (89-100%) Efficiency: ~0.0% (0-13%) Current payout: 0.4531 BTC 2012-12-27 07:41:57.626457 Pool: 318GH/s Stale rate: 14.9% Expected time to block: 11.2 hours 2012-12-27 07:41:58.047236 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.792246 Share difficulty: 651.157952 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions 2012-12-27 07:41:59.128533 GOT SHARE! 6671a2fe prev 0c4a8330 age 1.52s 2012-12-27 07:41:59.167586 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.776695 Share difficulty: 645.238513 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions 2012-12-27 07:41:59.176192 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.776695 Share difficulty: 645.238513 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions 2012-12-27 07:41:59.591497 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.826294 Share difficulty: 645.238513 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions 2012-12-27 07:42:00.638139 P2Pool: 17312 shares in chain (17317 verified/17317 total) Peers: 34 (4 incoming) 2012-12-27 07:42:00.638220 Local: 7367MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~5.9% (4-9%) Expected time to share: 6.3 minutes 2012-12-27 07:42:00.638246 Shares: 33 (29 orphan, 3 dead) Stale rate: ~97.0% (84-100%) Efficiency: ~3.6% (0-19%) Current payout: 0.4559 BTC |
|
|
|
If the p2pool client is running on your computer at home then the upload speed is probably the bottleneck for most people.
I have 30 KB/s upload speed for example. A 500KB block would need almost 17 seconds to upload. With 10 p2pool connections this would be 170 seconds.
I believe p2pool doesn't transfer all the block's content: IIRC transactions are preemptively exchanged between nodes before a block is found and only a shorter representation of the block with references to these transactions should be transfered. It may not transfer the whole thing, but from my experience w/ the larger block sizes, you get tons more orphans. I wish it showed local orphans/DOA on the graphs so that it could be analyzed more quickly.. I'll dig through my logs later and check the orphan amts compared to block size sometime in the next few days... I do see the reasoning behind the lower amt of outgoing connections though, it does make sense... since not everyone will be on a dedicated server like a 'pool'. I still think it'd be nice if it were configurable up to 30 instead of maxing out at 10, though.... I believe the # of incoming connections is default capped at 30? That should probably be lower, actually.. and I've solved two blocks out of equiv of 200,000 difficulty 1 shares so far.... -48 btc.... sadface |
|
|
|
That's definitely on the hot side, you should aim to keep it below 80°C, 85°C max. My HD 5870 runs at 81°C when mining at 915MHz, the fan is spinning at only 33% speed. Try cleaning the heatsink, there is probably a big wall of dust right where the fan blows the air into the heatsink.
I have my fans set to be at 100% if it hits 60oC... Some people say all this junk about fans dying so easily if they're at 100% constantly, but I've had 5 fans die out of ~15 cards running non-stop for the last 10 months.... you can always buy a replacement fan for $10, too.  all the rejections cause of p2pool. that card is running at 50oC right now... but just because it's in like 40o ambient temp =p i don't like it when my cards go above 80oC. that includes any of the GPU sensors... if you don't have a good thermal paste job, your main sensor could read 65oC, but you could have another sensor at 85oC.. i've had a few like that that I've gotten from ebay. you should get those all within 10oC (ideally within 5oC)... the VRM temps, I don't like them being above 100oC, but it doesn't BOTHER me until they get to 110oC. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know where to buy these... or selling some yourself?
I'm getting ready to sell my 5830's and if I could get the fans for $10 or less, I'm thinking that'd probably increase the value $15-$20 vs having some 120mm fan ziptied on (plus I get to keep my $5 120mm fan!)..
|
|
|
|
i'm at 188 shares and 1 orphan now, after modifying source to allow more outgoing connections
u see  i just improved ur mining alot  Well, now I'm at 20 shares and 3 orphans. Not a huge sample, but.. my conclusion would be that the initial outgoing # is too low. 10 as max is also too low. you should be able to set it up to 20-30. but, most orphans come from the size of the blocks. i did ~250 shares with 2 orphans with a maxblocksize of 10000, essentially making blocks of 5 or 6 transactions... later on I changed that to nothing, so all blocks had just 1 transaction. that also lowered the "GetBlockTemplate Latency" to a couple milliseconds, as can be seen at: http://nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?DayNow I've set it back to a 500kB max block size and am at that 20 blocks w/ 3 orphans. My GetBlockTemplate latency has also increased, though tbh, I don't find that very relevant. It's a good diagnostic for spotting out possible issues, like if you have maxblocksize set to 0 and it's taking half a second, then that's a problem, I guess. That 1/4th or 1/3rd of a second later may matter in 1 out of 500 orphans. The bigger issue would be network slowness & latency. A bigger problem for p2pool than the network as a whole, since most pools will be run on dedicated servers on good networks. p2pool is different, because it has all these people mining w/ many of them on crap connections. For me to make the most bitcoins, then I should make all blocks with 0 transactions, to limit orphans. my block solved w/ maxblocksize of 10000: http://blockchain.info/tx/971d3109bdc197d1bb8d1334896db2235941b1da884081dee9e94df666a37e84i doubt getting 25.5 instead of 25.01 would make up for all the extra orphans that are caused by having transactions included (in p2pool) It seems to me like if you're keen on p2pool, you'd be better off running a private network with a select group of people, rather than losing 5, 10, or 15% of your hashing power due to people with poor connections... or else just set your maxblocksize to 0. ps: i'm changing my maxblocksize back to 0 |
|
|
|
|
i'm at 188 shares and 1 orphan now, after modifying source to allow more outgoing connections
|
|
|
|
|
ok, now see if it shows last share received by 5.9.24.81 a lot, at least for european nodes
(if you dont have incoming conns blocked anyway)
i'm not generating any myself
(ed like 30min later)
interesting, is everyone seeing an increase in bandwidth? mine is expected, but it seems everyone elses is jumping too. coincidence? am i checking the wrong 5 servers?
guess i'll kick it back to *30 connections if it's still like that in 15m
how bizarre. changed it back. according to the stats, the orphans went from 12% to 19% in the 45m or so I did that (i ended up with 120 outgoing peers). i stopped it, may try it again some other time
|
|
|
|
New fast p2pool node. Address: http://hostv.pl:9332/Location Roubaix, Francja (OVH Datacenter RBX) Server: core i7 @ 3.2GHz, 16GB Ram , 2x2TB SATA Connection: 1Gbps If someone want I can add support for ipv6 Fee: 0.5% but I will change to 0.0% after new release p2pool p2pool updatet to 9.0-dirty bitcoind v0.7.1-154-ge12efb9-dirty-beta Get work latency less than 0.1s ( 0.0546s avg) the more transactions you are carrying, the higher the latency is when i have 2000 transactions waiting, it gets to around .4s, when i have 100 transactions, it's like .02s not rly a fair measurement, since *generally* the more transactions you have, the more tx fees you get... (notwithstanding accepting a lot of 0 fee transactions) person X might have a .2s latency, but be mining towards 25.5 payout, person Y might have .1 but be mining towards 25.1 surely there's a better way to graph that data, like a graph that shows the latency as well as the current block size. in the grand scheme of things, 100 or 200 ms isn't going to kill you. it's how slow the shares spread on the p2p network. mostly caused by the extremely small # of outgoing connections. it's a wise move to edit the source to allow more than 10 outgoing, barring a connection via a modem or ISDN in fact, i think sometime in the next hour or so, i'll start up a p2pool node with 100 or 200 outgoing connections and just see if it lowers the entire network orphan rate |
|
|
|
i have a bitcoind that has 800 connections
This may be the cause of your DOA. It was already said here, but you shouldn't have that many connections on your bitcoind. The network code for bitcoin isn't yet optimized and with that many connections you're effectively harming yourself and the network as a whole... I'll drop it to 500 and move everything back over tomorrow and see how it goes. I'm 95% sure the +25 outgoing connections reduced the orphans by at least 50%. The DOA rate is still a bit high, but I also get 150ms ping times to my hetzner server. I have 24GB of RAM on my home computer, so I might just end up installing the p2pool server here. |
|
|
|
And... there's a new one. Kris, will we also be able to buy this one through walletbit? hmm... so $6.50 for dungeon defenders? i'd be interested |
|
|
|
I recompiled to do 30 outgoing connections and restarted, has been running about an hour or two so far... nothing else has changed, didn't reload bitcoind or change anything else running on the server. I guess I'll also mention that the pool DOA rate was ranging from 15-18% when I switched
Sample size isn't big enough now, but maybe in 5 or 6 hours
(you can see the swapover on my graph quite clearly @ the 9pm indicator)
err, I killed it for now. Have to redownload the blockchain, messed up while recompiling w/ higher fee settings. I believe it was around 85 shares with 3 orphans.... with the 30 outgoing connections. The precompiled version only allows you to set it to 10, however ed: nm, found the stats file. was 87 shares, 4 orphans and 3 DOA.... vs the 72 shares, 9 orphans, and 2 DOA earlier. the DOA was probably just random chance. don't think so for orphans |
|
|
|
do we have to worry about nvidia cards too :O   Well so far Ive only seen this behaviour in 5970's .. my 5850's & 5830 seem to be fine still, as well as my 6950. Who knows bout nv cards =P yeah, same. i only have two 5970s left. not sure about the second one, but the first one artifices all over the place. it'll mine fine, but i wouldn't want to do anything else on it. i actually reduced the res mode on that monitor to make it less irritating i've never had a problem with 5830's or 5870's being 'destroyed' like that oh, i run mine at 205 memory also |
|
|
|
SetupBuilt mining rig with parts from newegg. Bought 5970 off ebay. Installed BAMT. Was mining at around 730 hash for a couple months before I came home to find the gpu's fan was making loud noises. Replaced fan and started having the problem listed below. Lowered hash rate to 700 seemed to fix the problem for a couple weeks. Now the below has happened again. ProblemWhenever the rig starts to mine it just locks up. Doesn't matter how I start mining, the screen freezes and the monitor goes black a couple seconds later telling me there's no connection. However the computer is still on and running. I can access the gui and ssl before it starts mining. However after it attempts to start mining the gui locks up, monitor goes blank and tells me there's no connection, and I can't access gpumon through ssl. I could lurk around the computer sometimes through ssl after it started mining in the past, but whenever I tried to access gpumon, the connection locked up. Can't really tell if its mining after it locks up but deepbit does say it connected at some point. Likely OutcomeI'm pretty sure the gpu was damaged somehow when the fan went out because I had problems mining and had to reduce the hash rate to fix the problem. However I have heard that the newer gpus will shut down if they get too hot. Just wanted to make a quick post and maybe get some more experienced answers.  Well, if the card feels hotter than it should, then it's still doing something. If it doesn't, then it isn't. It's typical for a card to blackscreen and reacquire after failing w/ a too high clock setting, overheating, or w/e. I've always had problems getting 5970's going again without restarting my computer, but 5830's and 5870's when I was testing mine, I'd just let it crash, drop the clock speed 5mhz and try again. Apparently, the card actually boots up and works fine (no artificing or anything?) so it's still worth decent money to sell as 'parts'. If it was a card I had though, I'd make sure to find out what the problem was before taking 50% value or w/e. I had a card that did the same thing, the fan died while I was away and when I came back it was throttling itself, getting ~120mhash on the GPU closest to the fan (the fan that was laboring to spin at like 800rpm) and ~50mhash on the other. The GPU temps were over 100o, I imagine the VRM's were over 120 or 130o. I replaced the fan, put the card back in, and haven't had any problems with it since. I've actually been running it at (I believe) 920 core and 1.112 volts lately since winter started (i'm in texas, so it rarely gets super cold here, but maybe this weekend I'll try 1.125). I've got all the 'stable' settings on a sheet of paper in the other room.... It's one of my better 5970's though. They range from about 860-950 stable at that voltage.. Uhm... All my cards used to run stable in the summer at 0.99v,... err.. I think it was 725/300.... but you could just see if it works at 0.99, 600/300 or something similar. |
|
|
|
|
I recompiled to do 30 outgoing connections and restarted, has been running about an hour or two so far... nothing else has changed, didn't reload bitcoind or change anything else running on the server. I guess I'll also mention that the pool DOA rate was ranging from 15-18% when I switched
Sample size isn't big enough now, but maybe in 5 or 6 hours
(you can see the swapover on my graph quite clearly @ the 9pm indicator)
|
|
|
|
it may be slower, u wont get orphans due to that since u sibmit ur shares to the p2pool sharechain. i usually got 0 orphans and some doas due to the reason i got 100 connections to other nodes.
hmm, do you (or anyone else) have a list of all the p2pool nodes that are connectable (i guess there's an -addnode equivalent?) that sustain 3+ ghash?? oh, everyone feel free to addnode 5.9.24.81 in p2pool list 5.*.*.* is illegal. if ur pool is accessable then just wait otherwise use --outgoing-conns hashrate of the pool dosnt matter. illegal? it's just some hetzner server i've had for like 9 months =p well, the higher the hashrate the more shares that originate from there was my thinking. i'll try the outgoing thing later... thanks this dosnt matter, shares are being broadcasted. sure, but they aren't being broadcast fast enough across the network. there wouldn't be so many orphans, if there wasnt a problem i just had another share orphaned, that actually had a child (bitcoin address was 1Cgxxxxxxxxx)... 5 seconds later, both mine and 1Cg's were gone and replaced with another tree. that's happened once approx. 2 1/2 months for the bitcoin blockchain (the 2nd instance being on 10-07). maybe change the difficulty to even out to three per minute instead of the current... five, I think it is? I'm at 72 shares, 9 orphans, 2 DOA.. my p2pool server is located on a major hub @ hetzner, I also get 10ms ping times to the OVH french datacenter.... bandwidth limits are 1gbit/1gbit. i have a bitcoind that has 800 connections which was the 'hub' node on blockchain ever since it was implemented until a few days ago (it keeps dropping me and I don't run it 24/7 anymore).... so, i think it pushes things out fairly quickly. the attitude people have about orphans on the p2pool network is troublesome. it's not something that should exist to the extent that it does |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
