Is there anyway to tell if your P2pool actually hit a block? Will the log file show anything like this if a local miner found one?
Are you using the default front end or one of the other front ends like extended or one I am using (can't remember the name), the extend front end has a list of last blocks, that list shows you the blocks you are working on. If no blocks appear then you are not working on any. This front end is quite nice. https://github.com/hardcpp/P2PoolExtendedFrontEndThis is the one P2Pool.org used. Have a look at my frontend - p2pool.smoothrunnings.ca:9332 - I like it much better than the Exteneded Front End. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a complete guide some where to installing Eloipool from scratch? And is there any kind of support site like P2pool has?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
Is there anyway to tell if your P2pool actually hit a block? Will the log file show anything like this if a local miner found one?
Are you using the default front end or one of the other front ends like extended or one I am using (can't remember the name), the extend front end has a list of last blocks, that list shows you the blocks you are working on. If no blocks appear then you are not working on any. |
|
|
|
Some days I get as low as 0 or 1 share, other days (today) I've got 9 shares so far with 6 hours to go ...
Expected is 6 shares a day.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But one thing to remember is the PPLNS window in p2pool is currently 3 days since the move to a 30 second retarget time. So the daily variance in your # of shares is softened, since your payments are tied to the variance in your total # of shares over 3 days instead. Yeah except that since my 150GH/s is small for p2pool the variance is easily pushing results out the window  28th 3 shares 29th 3 shares 30th 3 shares 31st 3 shares 1st 9 shares (Edit: yes the 0/1 shares was the 50GH/s for a couple of days) Rejects 2 shares ... yes better than average  Look here if you are interested. http://198.245.60.111/Pix/20140102-p2poo.pngYes that's variance, yes that's expected, and yes the way the pool handles difficulty is screwed (as I've explained before  ) When I read the last 5 months of posts the other day I saw some discussions you had on the difficulty and large miners having increased difficulty to reduce the total # of shares they have in the sharechain. Edit: Was back around December. I thought there were 2-3 excellent replies that clarified it all for you, but I guess you didn't accept their explanations? The issue there is the reason why the difficulty jumps so violently all over the place. The method used isn't valid. It uses the bitcoind method of estimating difficulty - which with bitcoind is applied to a set of fixed difficulty data and thus produces the expected result. With p2pool it's a random set of difficulty data (that changes each share) and thus produces the exceptionally high varying difficulty ... as can be clearly seen. IMO p2pool has massive variance for small miners and I'd call my 150GH/s here a small miners (which it is)
Yes, if p2pool is dropping 150GH miners like flies that's a serious problem. A single GPU miner somewhere can just not be worried about. When I hear "small miner" I think someone who has an expected share rate below 1 a day, so at times they will not even be in the share chain and receive no payments. I wouldn't think, myself, that a miner with an average 18 shares on the chain is 'small'. My share chain shares have been 3, 6, 9, 9, 15 (though it's lower since 2 shares where rejected and I'd have to work out which 2 they were) I've not reached 18 in 3 days yet ... (... yes I've not commented about the low block finding ... i.e. low payout ... I've not looked at it closely) Edit: just got 2 shares in 3 minutes ... 1 rejected The real issue here is that now that bitcoin network equals to more than the top 500 super computers in the world times 256, that we have reached a level were we are mining faster than there are blocks! So we have run out of bitcoins and will have to wait until the other 20 million become available! LOL  |
|
|
|
Since KNC stopped participating in this thread I don't think it should be moderated at all. Apparently they left their own thread and never came back.
The problem now has come for all bitcoin manufactures. The difficulty and hashing power is growing quicker then what can be made to turn a profit. It was bound to happen. Unless you own your own server farm, raised floors with air conditioning control which costs thousands per month to maintain anything you buy or pre-order right now won't earn you anything. 3TH, 4TH, 5TH, doesn't really matter. Most residential stuff is out of the question and if you want to stay mining you'll need to spend quite a bit on upgrading your entire home electrical system. What most people forgot is they'll spend thousands doing all the electric but completely leave out or forgot the cooling needs. Buying 20 window fans from Walmart isn't going to cut it anymore. You will need some serious cooling power and that cost a fortune. My group is running 4TH to 5TH and the costs to keep that going are quite expensive.
I think before anyone thinks about upgrading their miners they need to stop looking at running them in their house period and start thinking of running out of a co-lo. But before they go down that road they need to figure out if after upgrading all their gear will they be generating enough bitcoins to pay for the co-lo space (rack space, power, and internet)? Most co-lo's have seen charge you per circuit not by how much electricity you use. |
|
|
|
I've been mining since before September, but thank you for your concern. i'm not upset, I don't have any orders with KNC, but many here have begun noticing what I've been pointing out for awhile--MUCH less communication with the community that propped them up, the one thing they always promised not to fail in.
Vague answers isn't good communication, something they also claimed to detest long ago.
I've been saying the same thing for a long time... KNC should be like "We would be nothing without the support you have given us. You trusted us with your cash and it allowed us to become millionaires. We are millionaires now and going to enjoy the best Xmas ever. We've made more money than we ever imagined! To say thanks, we are selling X at knocked down price of x. This offer is only available to October guys (ALL of you. We feel sorry now that we told some of you/treated some of you like second class customers), without which we would not be here. It's our way to say thanks. Sorry we were such greedy a-holes and didn't do better to help you when we shipped you faulty goods. That was our fault, not yours, and it's not right we made you pay extra for our mistakes. Now that we are millionaires, we are going to try harder not to be such greedy a-holes." I hope I get a Xmas card from KNC saying as much! Or will they cheap out on that too?  And not just a crappy Merry Xmas email - a proper printed Xmas card, handsigned by the KNC millionaires club I helped create. Where is the KNC "we won't forget the support you have shown us" they promised to be when they wanted pre-order money back in June? Parasitic, greedy and liars? That's not good. They really need to start turning things around, because we know they took a dump in their pants last week when they finally saw the competition is not far away and poised to rocket past them. They won't get much customer loyalty in the long run if they continue to try to profiteer from their benefactors. They didn't end up selling shit at a knocked down price, nor did I get a Xmas card from knc... Let's face it - when a company hits the big time - they get corporate clients. What a relief too. knc hate their consumer customer base. They have projected that hate since at least mid October (N.B. even thought they don't sell to the general public - well, only in so far as they don't care to offer full 2 year consumer warranties. Have some second hand, used rma boards and if we are lucky they'll last to October and then tough luck...). Now they can sell to corporate clients, who won't care too much if 15 of the 200 machines they receive are faulty. Who needs those damn consumers with their "my rig doesn't work, please fix it" emails. You expect too much! |
|
|
|
|
Is anyone having a hard time finding bitcoin blocks?
|
|
|
|
I think that knc is waiting the right moment for a big status update on Neptune
I wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting for all the other manufactures of bitcoin miners to make their announcements first. It would be kind of funny if Knc was to release a lower nm chip. I heard there are two chip makers that have been able to get the transistors closer together on a single chip die, how close? 14nm. So wouldn't be interesting if Knc turns around says "I know we promised 20nm chips but instead we are using 15nm chips". All those people who got out of their Neptune orders will certainly wish they hadn't. |
|
|
|
Help me. I downloaded all the firmwares from may to december. I have bought 2 wifi routers and used cat5 connection. (i use 192.168.1.100 as static IP) But this message is constant. [Firmware Version] => 20131229 cgminer: 698d677 cgminer-openwrt-packages: 54d7569 luci: 346e3e7 Socket connect failed: Connection refused Can I trust this ftp? http://downloads.canaan-creative.com/software/avalon/20131229/What firewall settings (in OpenWRT) do you use? What pool should I use? What is your LAN IP subnet? example: My LAN is on the 192.168.75.x/255.255.255.0 subnet. So one of my miners has a static IP of; IP - 192.168.75.10, subnet - 255.255.255.0, gateway - 192.168.75.1, DNS - 8.8.8.8 Whatever the LAN IP is on the box, a router, is connected to your internet connection or modem is the gateway. If you don't have the correct gateway the Avalon's fail to connect. |
|
|
|
Power Supply Question:
How do you connect a new psu to an Avalon Gen 2 box with 2 modules? Anyone have any ideas?
You connect the new psu the same way the old psu was connected. |
|
|
|
I really like the p2pool-node-status page more so than the extended front end one. Thanks! Let me know if you see any others. |
|
|
|
Had a nice conversation on irc about multiple payment address support in the share chain, and I can see why that might not be a good thing to support in a generalized way.
However I do want to suggest that the node fee be handled like donation with a special line in the share chain. It would only add 1 address to the share chain per share mined at a node with a fee, but the advantage is a node can't lie about the fee they are charging, and it reduces node and miner variance.
It would be nice to see the -fee system work based on bitcoins mined instead of shares. And it would be nice to specify if you only want the -fee to be applied to certain miners instead of the whole network. This way you don't need to worry about your own miner(s) having to pay the same fee. Would also be nice to see more information on the minters, such as a estimate time to payout and the payout itself. |
|
|
|
|
Is there any other front ends other than the extended front end for P2Pool?
|
|
|
|
Is the opening of ports 9333 and 9332 on the firewall only TCP or does UDP need to be open as well?
No, just TCP Then I am not sure why the bitcoin graph on one of my miners doesn't update when the miner is outside my network, but it does update when the miner is inside the network. The hashing graph works while the miner is inside and or outside the network? Almost certainly some other kind of network configuration problem. Firewall still not right, bad gateway, netmask, etc. Well all I can think of is that there is some extra port that needs to be opened for the traffic to be allowed in as it works inside the LAN, but only hashing works from the outside, not the bitcoin graph which is supposedly related to shares according to someone else on github, if that's the case than why would miner get shares inside the network but not from the outside connection? |
|
|
|
Is the opening of ports 9333 and 9332 on the firewall only TCP or does UDP need to be open as well?
No, just TCP Then I am not sure why the bitcoin graph on one of my miners doesn't update when the miner is outside my network, but it does update when the miner is inside the network. The hashing graph works while the miner is inside and or outside the network? |
|
|
|
|
Is the opening of ports 9333 and 9332 on the firewall only TCP or does UDP need to be open as well?
|
|
|
|
FYI, QOS only works on OUTGOING traffic only your LAN, doesn't work on traffic coming back into your network from your WAN port. So shaping the outgoing traffic is only good if you are running a porn site on the same network as your P2Pool! Not true... Depends on the features of your router. Mine allows detailed QoS priority settings for Outgoing and Incoming connections separately across the WAN <-> LAN and can also limit settings across various LAN IPs. If your router only supports outgoing QoS, it's a shitty router/switch. I think it depends on if you set it using a port or mac. Also, your router can't really control the next router. This true, you can't control the ISP's router which sending you the traffic which might explain why the only routers I have seen that provide inbound WAN are enterprise level ones that ISP's would use. I doubt any bitcoin miner would want to become an ISP just so they can have QOS WAN inbound working properly. Enterprise = products from RiverBed and Cisco. I have the somewhat crappy consumer Router that Verizon FioS customers get and like I said above, it supports Inbound and Outbound QoS settings tied to Port, IP, MAC, etc. You can also get pretty granular with your priority tiers and how it manages them.  Note: this is not my setup...just using an example image from the 'net. My settings are actually a bit more elaborate for my various development services, mining related stuff (bitciond, namecoind, p2pool, stratum proxy etc) and my media stuff. And that's not even going into the settings for Traffic Shaping, DSCP, 802.1p, etc. And this router is hardly Enterprise Class. In short; there is a lot of delicate information on this topic. You can't directly QoS traffic coming inbound. When the traffic reaches your router, there's little you can do about it. What you do, is slow the rate of TCP replies, or start dropping packets to limit a certain type, say HTTP traffic, inbound. So, those settings he sees is the router trying to QoS traffic inbound indirectly. It may work, it may not. Ultimately you're at the mercy of whoever is sending you traffic, because once traffic has arrived at your router to QoS, there's nothing that you can do at that point; it's already gone over your internet connection to reach your router, taking up your bandwidth. And even then, the indirect QoS can only work on TCP traffic. UDP traffic is connectionless, and no amount of dropped packets will slow it down. anything will send UDP traffic as fast as it can. You see, when applying QoS to traffic, you put certain types of traffic (HTTP, HTTPS, etc.) into different priority queues (High, medium, and low in this case). The router only applies those queues when sending traffic outbound, because it can't do anything directly to traffic inbound. So, as an example: HTTP traffic is to be put in a low priority queue. Coming inbound, it would traverse your internet connection, and arrive at your router. Then, your router would apply the QoS policy to put it in a low priority queue, which would send it out to your LAN after higher priority traffic, say your bitcoin miner and vice versa when going outbound. Your router can try to drop packets to stem the flow of traffic, hoping that TCP's algorithms take hold and slow down traffic once the other end realizes that traffic is being dropped. But then you end up with dropped packets, etc. in short, your router cannot QoS traffic directly that has not arrived at it yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
