Mining protocol bandwidth comparison: GBT, Stratum, and getwork

[kano]

...
I'm pretty sure looking any code is not even necessary considering I'm using PCAP data for my tallies. Learn to read.

Second, it's good to know that you're psychic now and know what version of the software I'm using without even Asking! I'll keep that in mind on my next trip to Vegas.

Edit to clarify: PCAP data matches bfgminers bandwidth efficiency number, while no cgminer api output from any version to date matches. Feel free to run a capture and run the numbers on your own if you don't believe me.

i.e. you are not running the latest cgminer version fool.
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.

Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:

...
Edit: though I will point out that after I added the extra 'network' byte counter to cgminer, I went and looked at the clone code ... and noticed he was ignoring some data ....................
Here's a clue (that he obviously didn't have one of )
https://github.com/bagder/curl/blob/master/src/tool_cb_dbg.c

Edit: I'll even add the picture again - since words are too difficult for a sock puppet to understand

[wizkid057]

...
I'm pretty sure looking any code is not even necessary considering I'm using PCAP data for my tallies. Learn to read.

Second, it's good to know that you're psychic now and know what version of the software I'm using without even Asking! I'll keep that in mind on my next trip to Vegas.

Edit to clarify: PCAP data matches bfgminers bandwidth efficiency number, while no cgminer api output from any version to date matches. Feel free to run a capture and run the numbers on your own if you don't believe me.

i.e. you are not running the latest cgminer version fool.
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.

Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:

...
Edit: though I will point out that after I added the extra 'network' byte counter to cgminer, I went and looked at the clone code ... and noticed he was ignoring some data ....................
Here's a clue (that he obviously didn't have one of )
https://github.com/bagder/curl/blob/master/src/tool_cb_dbg.c

Again, must be psychic. A bad psychic at that. How would I be able to compare PCAP data to your outputs if I wasn't running the code which output the data? Are you really that thick?

And also, do, oh wise one, explain to me how bfgminer's numbers match near perfectly with the PCAP data, yet the as-of-last-night-version of cgminer's api output does not? If there was in fact data being ignored in bfgminer as you claim, then would that not show in a comparison against PCAP data? (I assume kano won't actually try to answer this... wagers?)

[kano]

...
Again, must be psychic. A bad psychic at that. How would I be able to compare PCAP data to your outputs if I wasn't running the code which output the data? Are you really that thick?

And also, do, oh wise one, explain to me how bfgminer's numbers match near perfectly with the PCAP data, yet the as-of-last-night-version of cgminer's api output does not? If there was in fact data being ignored in bfgminer as you claim, then would that not show in a comparison against PCAP data? (I assume kano won't actually try to answer this... wagers?)

You are not running the latest code if you are not seeing the network numbers ... the old code (as I ALREADY said in here quite a while ago) shows the data byte count, not the network byte count ... and ... as I ALREADY stated in this thread ... I would add the network numbers at a later date.
That change is there and has been for 4 days.
You're probably even looking at the wrong git.

... and of course you've again shown your stupidity.

Will I have to redo the words at 2nd grade level for the moron?
I'll quote them yet again just in case a few extra times sinks in:

... and noticed he was ignoring some data ....................

The data being ignored is the SSL data - as the example code I linked clearly shows and the cgminer clone code ignores.
No idea why you are unable to spot that damn obvious point in the code there even after being told about it.
My code includes all 6 cases of data, the cgminer clone only includes 4 of them - it ignores the 2 SSL cases that only a halfwit would not be able to see looking at the code supplied by the Curl developers.

I'm not sure how you magically worked out, that when my code has EXTRA cases that the clone is missing, that I am actually getting the wrong answer.
I wrote my code based on the Curl developers code and thus got it correct.
I've no idea where on earth you got the fail code for the cgminer clone.

In my testing I am not using SSL, so it makes no difference to my numbers.
In your testing, if you are using SSL then you are getting the WRONG answer from the cgminer clone.
For anyone who IS using SSL and the clone miner, they will get the wrong answer.
Yeah I know that's not everyone, but when you write code, it's a good idea to get to work in all cases ... and viewing the Curl developers code has a much better chance of getting the right answer than thinking you are always correct when you often aren't

Sigh.

[kano]

... and then they slink away into the darkness coz they don't want anyone to think that they could be wrong about anything.

So just to clarify in case anyone was wondering where the code is that was committed 4 days ago:

https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer/commit/d3d8772b5ea1d29e6bf8e724fb9a2e662db30c19

... and anyone wondering why my git ... for anyone who bothers to keep track of what is going on with cgminer at the moment ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg1427509#msg1427509

[wizkid057]

(Posting delayed by useless IRC conversation)

You are not running the latest code if you are not seeing the network numbers

When did I ever say I was not seeing the network numbers?  Please quote me on that one.

you've again shown your stupidity.

So much hate... and I thought we had some love....

Code:

<wizkid057> kanoi: actually, all jokes and conflicts aside, I'd like to think you have at least a *tiny* amount of respect for me, in any case
<@kanoi> You wrote a pool you can't be a complete idiot :D
<@kanoi> lol
<wizkid057> lol
<@kanoi> few poeple can do that successfully :P
<wizkid057> and somewhere buried in there is, "yeah, you arent so bad, wizkid057" :P
* wizkid057 hugs kanoi
* @kanoi runs screaming

... well, maybe not... but anyway. 

The data being ignored is the SSL data

Well, I'll start by pointing out that mining over SSL is a feature that is pretty useless anyway IMO... why waste resources encrypting/decrypting data that is essentially public knowldege already anyway?
that has no bearing on my tests. I stated that the majority of my testing was done against eloipool, which does not support SSL.

All long tests were done against eloipool, and some shorter comparison tests done against various other pools with expected results.

So, I obviously never tested that.  And that is also irrelevant to the data, since you said youself bfgminer has the non-SSL cases handled.

I will, however, rerun my longer PCAP tests against your network-bytes code instead of testing it for a short time (since it is newer than the beginning of my tests), to see how it goes with cgminer.

I shall report back soon!

[kano]

(Posting delayed by useless IRC conversation)

My last post (I'm referring to) was about 9 hours ago ...

...
I stated that the majority of my testing was done against eloipool, which does not support SSL.

... majority ...

All long tests were done against eloipool, and some shorter comparison tests done against various other pools with expected results.

So, I obviously never tested that.  And that is also irrelevant to the data, since you said youself bfgminer has the non-SSL cases handled.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know that "other pools" don't allow SSL ...

... and ignoring SSL means that if some "other pool" does support SSL, then the code will ignore the SSL data in the count.

Yeah I know I keep repeating it ... but I hope for it to eventually sink in ...

... and noticed he was ignoring some data ....................

[wizkid057]

(Posting delayed by useless IRC conversation)

My last post was about 13 hours ago ...

...
I stated that the majority of my testing was done against eloipool, which does not support SSL.

... majority ...

All long tests were done against eloipool, and some shorter comparison tests done against various other pools with expected results.

So, I obviously never tested that.  And that is also irrelevant to the data, since you said youself bfgminer has the non-SSL cases handled.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know that "other pools" don't allow SSL ...

... and ignoring SSL means that if some "other pool" does support SSL, then the code will ignore the SSL data in the count.

Yeah I know I keep repeating it ... but I hope for it to eventually sink in ...

... and noticed he was ignoring some data ....................

To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.

[kano]

...
To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.

... and to clarify even more ... your testing is therefore ignoring a case that the clone miner you were testing was also ignoring.

So yes the fact that neither the original cgminer, or the clone were being tested on SSL pools does not in any way negate the fact that the clone code ignores data ... SSL data ... that may or may not be used by the pools.

The silliest thing about this, is that it is only 2 lines of code to support the SSL data ... and even simpler, those 2 lines are just 2 extra case lines.

[Thistled]

Kano says......

i.e. you are not running the latest cgminer version fool.
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.

Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:

I have just about had enough of your tone Kano.
I know you have issues with LJR, but FFS, can you be a little less sarcastic and downright NASTY with your posts.

You are seriously putting me of browsing this forum.

You think you are smart, and you probably are (I say probably because of your bitchy low I.Q. attitude).

I think I will have to put you on ignore, because you are just annoying.

I generally have respect and admiration for coders / programmers, but for you sir, I have none.

[kano]

Kano says......

i.e. you are not running the latest cgminer version fool.
See, when you don't even take any notice of what is going on with cgminer and only stare into your master's eyes and at your masters crappy clone (as to be expected by the sock puppet you are), don't show your stupidity by assuming you know what you are talking about cgminer, coz you are wrong.
As per my screen, it does indeed.
The code has been there for 4 days.

Though I will repeat what I said above since clearly your ability to read is deficient:

I have just about had enough of your tone Kano.
I know you have issues with LJR, but FFS, can you be a little less sarcastic and downright NASTY with your posts.

You are seriously putting me of browsing this forum.

You think you are smart, and you probably are (I say probably because of your bitchy low I.Q. attitude).

I think I will have to put you on ignore, because you are just annoying.

I generally have respect and admiration for coders / programmers, but for you sir, I have none.

Put me on ignore ... please

[kano]

...
To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.

... and to clarify even more ... your testing is therefore ignoring a case that the clone miner you were testing was also ignoring.

So yes the fact that neither the original cgminer, or the clone were being tested on SSL pools does not in any way negate the fact that the clone code ignores data ... SSL data ... that may or may not be used by the pools.

The silliest thing about this, is that it is only 2 lines of code to support the SSL data ... and even simpler, those 2 lines are just 2 extra case lines.

... and with his latest release Luke-Jr has added the SSL code lines.

[Luke-Jr]

...
To clarify even more, I've re-skimmed my PCAP data and no data was encrypted on any pool I tested with.
So, even if bfgminer code does not account for SSL data usage, its still as irrelevant to my testing as it was many posts ago.

... and to clarify even more ... your testing is therefore ignoring a case that the clone miner you were testing was also ignoring.

So yes the fact that neither the original cgminer, or the clone were being tested on SSL pools does not in any way negate the fact that the clone code ignores data ... SSL data ... that may or may not be used by the pools.

The silliest thing about this, is that it is only 2 lines of code to support the SSL data ... and even simpler, those 2 lines are just 2 extra case lines.

... and with his latest release Luke-Jr has added the SSL code lines.

And ironically, that still doesn't fix it. I did add it, because it gets a little closer, but it is currently impossible to get the real number from libcurl when SSL is in use. Good thing SSL is still useless for mining.

[Inaba]

Ok... maybe I am misunderstanding things, but why do we want to encrypt miner traffic? 

[kano]

Ok... maybe I am misunderstanding things, but why do we want to encrypt miner traffic?  

At this point in time - probably no one wants to.

However, should any pool enable that, the miners will also currently talk SSL (Curl does that)

The point being that the counters should include the SSL count if any pool uses SSL (which may or may not ever happen)

The cost of including the count is almost zero if there is no SSL data, and pretty close to the same as the cost of counting normal data if instead a pool is using SSL.

... and an aside but related comment ...
My desktop cgminer on a 3.6GH/s Bulldozer uses about 1CPU second per hour OzCoin Stratum mining (at 8 difficulty) on my BFL FPGA
Runtime: 15hrs, 13minutes ...
Top CPU seconds TIME+: 0:15.79
I will also point out that I am also doing an API request to it (summary) every 2 seconds

Edit: and in retrospect, I would guess those numbers might be of great interest to you Inaba once you get the MiniRig SC's working ...

[Fuzzy]

Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?

[kano]

Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?

... use cgminer and look at the API pool stats ...
The API 'stats' command - the last 6 numbers on each pool

Calculation will depend on if you are using cgminer or not and which protocol you are using.
The least will be cgminer with stratum.
The clone asks for a large amount of transaction data that it doesn't do anything useful with even in stratum
(and asks for that same data sometimes more than once)
The size of that transaction data is in the order of the size of the block.

And the pool you are mining on may have block size restrictions also e.g. Eligius used to limit every block to 32 transactions for about 5 months so they would be paid more for their work since they seemed to think their pool should be paid more than other pools for the same amount of work - though the real problem was simply that the pool software was crap and got more orphans than the other much better pools.

[Luke-Jr]

Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?

It varies by pool mainly. Pools that support variable difficulty should use approximately the same bandwidth regardless of hashrate.
Network difficulty has no effect on bandwidth.

Ignore the troll.

[crazyates]

Is there a simple formula us plebs can use to calculate bandwidth given current difficulty, rig hash rate etc?

It varies by pool mainly. Pools that support variable difficulty should use approximately the same bandwidth regardless of hashrate.
Network difficulty has no effect on bandwidth.

Ignore the troll.

Actually a lot of what Kano said is true, specifically this:

Calculation will depend on if you are using cgminer or not and which protocol you are using.
The least will be cgminer with stratum.
The clone asks for a large amount of transaction data that it doesn't do anything useful with even in stratum
(and asks for that same data sometimes more than once)
The size of that transaction data is in the order of the size of the block.

If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.

[Luke-Jr]

If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.

Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.

[Fuzzy]

If you're looking for the absolute least amount of network traffic, CGMiner's implementation of Stratum is the best.

Not really.. you can degrade BFGMiner's stratum security with the --skip-security-checks parameter.

Yet again you fine gentlemen have overestimated my competence.

Lets say I have a 2 Th (2,000 Gh) rig, and I need to tell the server collocation host how much bandwidth I think I'm going to use per month, what is the extreme upper limit of the standard deviation?