 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
something wrong? need to shutdown the pool?
Someone just lost their shame and started mining blocks for the future with no restrain. Not sure if pools running with the supposed rules (2 PoS blocks between PoW, or 10 minutes) will have any possibilities at the moment. Problem is the longer this situation stays, the more it will take for it to fade away (current mined block is almost 2 hours in the future: if problem were solved now, we still would have to wait 2 hours to mine anything). Yup, luckily there's a "safeguard" that prevents the network from accepting blocks that are more than 2 hours in the future, so it won't go much further. I just don't understand why staking doesn't work yet. Also, this is all because of the PoW / PoS rule. This rule is kinda dumb, especially for a coin that wants to be energy efficient. The issue is that PoW miners spend most of their time mining for nothing right now, because their blocks will simply be rejected even if they found one. It also makes the coin a lot more fragile as we can all see today. This rule should just be removed. |
|
|
|
Maybe this could be useful: https://gist.github.com/panzi/6856583. Also, any particular reason you don't merge PRs? The openssl version on Alpine is actually 1.0.2m, not 1.0.0, no idea why there is a conflict with an old version. Thanks I'll look into it. I don't develop using git. I develop in my own confort zone and upload to git when ready fo release. If I merge a PR it messes up MY development environment. It's easier for me to import the changes to my env. Also most everything, git, autoconf, x86, even to some extent c, are all foreign to me and I just hack my way through. I'm learning as I go. Even my vector processing knowledge is based on 1980's tech (Cray). I even knew about OO in the 80s before it was called OO. It took me a while to make the connection when OO became popular. So in a sense I'm working in a foreign country with unfamiliar culture and different language. It's a fascinating experience, I just have to manage my frustration with the many stupid mistakes I make. No problem. Hit me up if I can somehow help, I'm not that familiar with those technologies either but I'd like to help and learn  By the way, I posted a few benchmarks on GitHub to see from which algorithms the speed difference between Alpine and Ubuntu comes. Just posting a link because I don't really want to re-create the table here: https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/pull/41#issuecomment-346017309 |
|
|
|
Maybe this could be useful: https://gist.github.com/panzi/6856583. Also, any particular reason you don't merge PRs? The openssl version on Alpine is actually 1.0.2m, not 1.0.0, no idea why there is a conflict with an old version. |
|
|
|
Endian issues with hodl, I've seen this movie before. I had to write a custom one for Windows. Can you show me the hodl error? I'd like to see it as it might help find a solution, if there is one. If it's an Alpine only issue it may be hard to select. I have a release ready to go, I can include a fix if one is quickly found. It will include the new docker file regardless. Posted it on GitHub, but guess you're more active here? By the way, this can easily be fixed by adding "#include <endian.h>", just need to know in which case ("#ifnfed") I need to include it. algo/hodl/cpuminer-sha512_avx.o: In function `sha512Compute32b_parallel':
sha512_avx.c:(.text+0x369a): undefined reference to `htobe64'
sha512_avx.c:(.text+0x36c8): undefined reference to `htobe64'
Also: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/6.3.0/../../../../x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/bin/ld: warning: libssl.so.43, needed by /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/6.3.0/../../../../lib/libcurl.so, may conflict with libssl.so.1.0.0
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/6.3.0/../../../../x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/bin/ld: warning: libcrypto.so.41, needed by /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/6.3.0/../../../../lib/libcurl.so, may conflict with libcrypto.so.1.0.0
But that's only a warning. There are A LOT of warnings actually. |
|
|
|
A pull request has been received to change the dockerfile. There are 2 changes, one to address an issue with line continuation, but also a change that claims to reduce the image size. Since I know very little about docker I defer to the community for review of the change. If there are any concerns with the change, please raise them. If there are no objections the changes will be included in the next release. https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/pull/41The Docker image could be smaller by using Alpine Linux as the base. Alpine uses libressl by default but also have openssl-1.0.2 in its repo so I'm not sure about any impact on performance. Yes, it could, but didn't quite manage to compile it on alpine yet. If you have more info, please share! I just tried compiling but got the error In file included from algo/echo/aes_ni/hash.c:21:0:
algo/echo/aes_ni/vperm.h:53:7: note: called from here
x = _mm_shuffle_epi8(*((__m128i*)table + 0), x);\
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
algo/echo/aes_ni/hash.c:385:4: note: in expansion of macro 'TRANSFORM'
TRANSFORM(_state[i][j], _k_opt, t1, t2);
^~~~~~~~~
In file included from algo/echo/aes_ni/vperm.h:20:0,
from algo/echo/aes_ni/hash.c:21:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/6.4.0/include/tmmintrin.h:136:1: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline '_mm_shuffle_epi8': target specific option mismatch
_mm_shuffle_epi8 (__m128i __X, __m128i __Y)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from algo/echo/aes_ni/hash.c:21:0:
algo/echo/aes_ni/vperm.h:52:5: note: called from here
t1 = _mm_shuffle_epi8(*((__m128i*)table + 1), t1);\
algo/echo/aes_ni/hash.c:385:4: note: in expansion of macro 'TRANSFORM'
TRANSFORM(_state[i][j], _k_opt, t1, t2);
^~~~~~~~~
source='algo/hodl/aes.c' object='algo/hodl/cpuminer-aes.o' libtool=no \
DEPDIR=.deps depmode=none /bin/sh ./depcomp \
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Iyes/include -Iyes/include -fno-strict-aliasing -I. -Iyes/include -Iyes/include -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -g -O2 -Iyes/include -Iyes/include -c -o algo/hodl/cpuminer-aes.o `test -f 'algo/hodl/aes.c' || echo './'`algo/hodl/aes.c
make[2]: *** [Makefile:2491: algo/echo/aes_ni/cpuminer-hash.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[2]: Leaving directory '/cpuminer-opt'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:3506: all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/cpuminer-opt'
make: *** [Makefile:665: all] Error 2
Got it to compile, you can try filoozom/cpuminer-opt:alpine. It's quite a bit smaller but also a little bit slower. Also needs a fix in `algo/hodl/sha512_avx.c`. More info: https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/pull/41#issuecomment-345828950Help would be appreciated! |
|
|
|
A pull request has been received to change the dockerfile. There are 2 changes, one to address an issue with line continuation, but also a change that claims to reduce the image size. Since I know very little about docker I defer to the community for review of the change. If there are any concerns with the change, please raise them. If there are no objections the changes will be included in the next release. https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/pull/41The Docker image could be smaller by using Alpine Linux as the base. Alpine uses libressl by default but also have openssl-1.0.2 in its repo so I'm not sure about any impact on performance. Yes, it could, but didn't quite manage to compile it on alpine yet. If you have more info, please share! Just for info, this image with the multi-stage build process is 55Mb compressed compared to 160Mb for all other images on Docker Hub. You can try it easily over here: https://hub.docker.com/r/filoozom/cpuminer-opt/ |
|
|
|
Thanks! also make sure u just copy blocks not the database
And what about the database? Do I leave the folder empty? Yes  |
|
|
|
Another issue: I keep getting banned from the main node, and have no clue why: trying connection 104.128.225.215 lastseen=0.0hrs
connected 104.128.225.215
send version message: version 71061, blocks=1451225, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=104.128.225.215:8233, peer=104.128.225.215:8233
socket closed
disconnecting node 104.128.225.215
Same when I start from scratch with 0 blocks. Two IPs banned in two days, always around midnight - 1am but that might be a coincidence. Guess it might be related to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg21232956#msg21232956, but editing banscore should not matter with whitelist=104.128.225.215 if I understand it correctly. I don't think that is a ban, disconnect can happen for multiple reasons like network issues. I get that, but I'm getting this very same message for 48 hours now, while it's running without issues on an other IP. If I proxy the connection through another IP, it connects without issues, so it must be an IP ban. And I got two nodes banned already, can't explain why though. try adding banscore=500 dont ask why i dont know why but some users recommended it banscore increases the score (or misbehave as shown in logs), default is 100. With banscore of 500 you are allowing connected peers to submit "bad" blocks to you up to 5 times per ip before your peer bans the other peer. The reason I'm using it now is as workaround for when a proper block is sent but something went wrong, that would case an misbehave score of 100 straight away and causing your peer to ban the other peer for 24 hrs (default setting, if you want to change it. Setting is bantime). Not allowing the re-submit right now gives you an high chance of banning all proper peers and letting you fall behind. This is a workaround for a problem Joe has listed as an issue. Hope this gives a bit of clarity on how banscore works and why i'm using it as an workaround for now. I'm running poolinfo with these settings Which means poolinfo is allowing 5 major missbehaves (1 major is 100 in score) and when they hit a score of 500, poolinfo will ban that ip for 2 hrs (7200 seconds) before allowing that peer to reconnect. Right, but this shouldn't matter with whitelist=104.128.225.215 on my side I think, which means that 104.128.225.215 banned my IPs for misbehaving, doesn't it? I didn't ban anyone, and starting with a fresh wallet doesn't change anything. |
|
|
|
Another issue: I keep getting banned from the main node, and have no clue why: trying connection 104.128.225.215 lastseen=0.0hrs
connected 104.128.225.215
send version message: version 71061, blocks=1451225, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=104.128.225.215:8233, peer=104.128.225.215:8233
socket closed
disconnecting node 104.128.225.215
Same when I start from scratch with 0 blocks. Two IPs banned in two days, always around midnight - 1am but that might be a coincidence. Guess it might be related to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg21232956#msg21232956, but editing banscore should not matter with whitelist=104.128.225.215 if I understand it correctly. I don't think that is a ban, disconnect can happen for multiple reasons like network issues. I get that, but I'm getting this very same message for 48 hours now, while it's running without issues on an other IP. If I proxy the connection through another IP, it connects without issues, so it must be an IP ban. And I got two nodes banned already, can't explain why though. |
|
|
|
Another issue: I keep getting banned from the main node, and have no clue why: trying connection 104.128.225.215 lastseen=0.0hrs
connected 104.128.225.215
send version message: version 71061, blocks=1451225, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=104.128.225.215:8233, peer=104.128.225.215:8233
socket closed
disconnecting node 104.128.225.215
Same when I start from scratch with 0 blocks. Two IPs banned in two days, always around midnight - 1am but that might be a coincidence. magi.conf: rpcuser=magirpc
rpcpassword=8kDXwzM2HP3Xcwg9f6gUyD8FHi9d64GKhN3iSxo4xaP7
server=1
rpcport=8232
rpcbind=0.0.0.0
rpcallowip=********* # IP of my banned daemon
listen=1 # but only one single IP is allowed to access the port via firewall, it's the daemon on the first IP that was banned and the daemon for my pool
connect=104.128.225.215
whitelist=104.128.225.215 # added after first ban
staking=0
posii=0
stakesplitthreshold=1000
stakecombinethreshold=500
Guess it might be related to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg21232956#msg21232956, but editing banscore should not matter with whitelist=104.128.225.215 if I understand it correctly. |
|
|
|
|
Hi edward0181 / penambang could you share your NOMP source code? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
