|
cuz0882
|
 |
February 11, 2012, 02:10:25 AM |
|
I'm still having issues with server communication. It seems that whenever we solve a block, I cannot communicate with the servers for a few minutes, tried all the servers, us1/2/3, tried various miners, kernels and internet connections. While it's not a problem for the most part, there is the problem when we solve a fast block, it can be very possible for me not to be able to submit any shares. My connection works fine for everything else, so I think it might be something to do with me connecting to the US servers from Europe, and when we solve a block, and new work has to be distributed, the fact that I'm in Europe, might be reason why I can't come through the "congested" route. At least that is my idea, been watching it happen every single time we solve a block now, this did not occur at my previous pool (MMC).
Yeah, Ive seen this issue w/ EMC for a while, its like the pool lags out a bit when it solves a block. Thats the only time I get really high stales is after EMC actually solves the block. Im in the US The round duration on the block stats page goes to something like 1500 days when it happens. I don't think a communications problem could cause that. It's not a huge problem but at 2 minutes a block, it comes out to about 1% loss. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 11, 2012, 02:19:53 AM |
|
The 1500 days thing is just a display issue (it's an uninitialized date field in the database basically) - I'm not sure what you mean about a 1% loss, can you clarify?
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
cuz0882
|
|
February 11, 2012, 03:49:18 AM
Last edit: February 11, 2012, 04:05:54 AM by cuz0882 |
|
The 1500 days thing is just a display issue (it's an uninitialized date field in the database basically) - I'm not sure what you mean about a 1% loss, can you clarify?
I got 1% just by taking 2 minutes x 7 blocks a day / 1440 minutes in a day. Two minutes is a guess but it seems to take about that long for the new block to start. If it was a network problem between the miners and the pool the new block should still start right away. I'm assuming that's why the 1500 comes up, because it has no value until the block starts. I was watching a couple times, while refreshing the block page. As soon as it sets back to zero the shares stopped showing as rejected. |
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 11, 2012, 04:38:07 AM |
|
Hmm... I will take a look at that bit of code and see if anything is amiss. My new plan may obsolete any fixes I put there, though... I will see if I can have at least a proof of concept working this weekend for the new DGM and block processing routines... I think it will solve both issues at once, I just have to be careful that it doesn't reduce precision for score keeping.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
February 11, 2012, 12:08:32 PM |
|
All this talk about the delay between blocks has me wondering something. It seems like EMC had less than average invalids right up until it switched to DGM (I wasn't using it back then, but there weren't many comments on the forum about them until after the switch). When a new block is found it is submitted before the DGM calculations are performed, correct? If not, the delay in submitting the found block could be costing a lot more than the delay in starting a new one...
|
|
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 11, 2012, 03:19:52 PM |
|
We've been using DGM almost from the beginning. We started on prop, but quickly switched to GM for about a month or so then to DGM. The instances of invalids started long, long after we switched to DGM.
In any case, though, yes, the blocks are submitted independently of score calculation (block submittal is handled by bitcoind, score calculation is handled in PHP).
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
check_status
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician
|
|
February 12, 2012, 02:43:49 AM |
|
All traffic is encrypted (with the exception of block traffic, since it's meaningless in terms of security) From where to where, my miners to your pool? http://<username>:<password>@us2.eclipsemc.com:8337#US2_EclipseMC http:// It isn't SSL...which is broken by design anyway. http://cryptome.org/0005/ssl-broken.htmDo we OpenVPN to your pool? 4096bit?  Is my tunnel vision justified? |
For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise. If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76. P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List | 1 EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA |
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 12, 2012, 03:19:13 AM |
|
All traffic is encrypted (with the exception of block traffic, since it's meaningless in terms of security) From where to where, my miners to your pool? Yes, correct. That data is useless to anyone except you. http://<username>:<password>@us2.eclipsemc.com:8337#US2_EclipseMC http:// It isn't SSL...which is broken by design anyway. http://cryptome.org/0005/ssl-broken.htmDo we OpenVPN to your pool? 4096bit? Is my tunnel vision justified? No, no and no. SSL is not exactly broken by design if you use it in the proper context. The context that link is talking about is someone with virtually infinite resources and authority being able to intercept your traffic - yes, in that context it's "broken." But then again, you have to consider that someone with those resources can gather that information in a number of different ways, so securing against that type of attack is an exercise in futility and expends resources that can be used elsewhere. What SSL does do is protect against common carrier attacks, as in my ISP or your ISP or someone in between listening in on your communications, or even hijacking it. It's the difference between putting you information on a postcard (no SSL) and putting it in a sealed envelope (SSL). Someone with enough desire to read your letter can open the envelope, but someone has to care enough and have the ability to get at the letter. Whereas anyone who happens by can read your post card. |
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4480
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
February 12, 2012, 05:26:12 AM |
|
Inaba - just ignore him  |
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 12, 2012, 05:32:14 AM |
|
So then what encryption would be occurring from my miners to your pool? None, because there is no need. As I said, any mining data is completely useless to anyone but you. Again, anyone with the resources can get that data via other means, so SSL's robustness is irrelevant. It could be perfectly unbreakable and the data could be gathered via a keylogger, spyware of many sorts, endpoint data gathering, rubber hose, etc... When it comes to the government/LEO, SSL is not intended to prevent them from gathering the data, since they have the resources and/or authority to gather it via other means. Nothing to do with SSL. This is a problem with a company. Looks like a theoretical attack that would require substantial access to a datastream. But at any rate, what is it that you want to know with regards to EMC? |
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
freshzive
|
|
February 12, 2012, 05:51:59 AM |
|
a string of <4 hour blocks would make me really happy seems like every time I check the block stats, we have been going for >8 hours....curse this luck |
|
|
|
|
kripz
|
|
February 12, 2012, 06:44:36 AM |
|
I have closed down the IRC channel. Inaba you can start it up again if you like, you will also have Ops. Remember to start ##Eclipsemc and not #eclipsemc as #xxx names are reserved.
|
|
|
|
check_status
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician
|
|
February 12, 2012, 07:14:45 AM |
|
I'm new to mining so am looking for a pool. I've read some posts, not about the pool, where your response has enlightened me, PSU's for one. Between you and Death and Taxes I have changed my purchase decisions on PSU's.
Regardless of how lame some of my questions may sound to some people, I am learning, even if just to ask better questions.
Basically I'd like to eliminate anyone from disturbing the stream, anyone that might affect my connection to a pool. I'm going to put a firewall on a dedicated internet connection for the miners, so that my surfing, good or bad habits, doesn't interfere with the mining. I don't trust any thing after the plug in my wall and I only need to trust the destination, the pool I connect to, so I am considering VPN, but that still leaves exit node to pool.
If peeking isn't a threat to the mining data, what could happen to that data between my miners and the pool that I should be concerned about? If someone wanted to be malicious what could they do?
|
For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise. If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76. P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List | 1 EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA |
|
|
|
cuz0882
|
|
February 12, 2012, 07:52:32 AM
Last edit: February 12, 2012, 08:05:55 AM by cuz0882 |
|
I'm new to mining so am looking for a pool. I've read some posts, not about the pool, where your response has enlightened me, PSU's for one. Between you and Death and Taxes I have changed my purchase decisions on PSU's.
Regardless of how lame some of my questions may sound to some people, I am learning, even if just to ask better questions.
Basically I'd like to eliminate anyone from disturbing the stream, anyone that might affect my connection to a pool. I'm going to put a firewall on a dedicated internet connection for the miners, so that my surfing, good or bad habits, doesn't interfere with the mining. I don't trust any thing after the plug in my wall and I only need to trust the destination, the pool I connect to, so I am considering VPN, but that still leaves exit node to pool.
If peeking isn't a threat to the mining data, what could happen to that data between my miners and the pool that I should be concerned about? If someone wanted to be malicious what could they do?
Not sure what your concerned about, miners don't need protection. The only thing someone could do it turn them off or redirect them to another account. If either one of those things happened you would know about it. The only thing worth protecting is your bitcoin wallet, maybe your mtgox account... There would be nothing to gain by messing with someones mining computers. I missed the psu talk. I always go with 1500watt to reduce power draw. Power cost is not really a concern but I can only draw a limited amount per breaker. I've been under the impression that multiple rails reduces heat on a single rail, but multiple rails are prone to fail more often. Some more then others, I would love to hear if my thoughts on this are correct. Even with a limited option at 1500 watts. Don't really feel like looking though every page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
check_status
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician
|
|
February 13, 2012, 08:30:03 AM |
|
If I were just mining on an internet connection, no surfing, connected to a pool what can I expect my bandwidth usage to be for a month?
Will it change as I add on more mining power?
|
For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise. If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76. P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List | 1 EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA |
|
|
|
cyberlync
|
|
February 13, 2012, 02:47:01 PM
Last edit: February 13, 2012, 08:47:50 PM by cyberlync |
|
If I were just mining on an internet connection, no surfing, connected to a pool what can I expect my bandwidth usage to be for a month?
Will it change as I add on more mining power?
I cannot give you any specific numbers, but the bandwidth usage is negligible. I am downloading/uploading with full speed pretty often, and it does not affect the miners at all. |
Giving away your BTC's? Send 'em here: 1F7XgercyaXeDHiuq31YzrVK5YAhbDkJhf
|
|
|
Inaba (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 14, 2012, 03:11:49 AM
Last edit: February 14, 2012, 11:19:36 PM by Inaba |
|
Village.idiot: Are you still having problems? If so, can you try replacing the hostname with the IP address and see if it resolves your problem? Trying pinging 208.110.68.115 and see what happens or ping whatever host's IP address directly instead of using the hostname.
EDIT
I just made some DNS changes, let me know if that fixes your problem as well.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
chiropteran
|
|
February 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM |
|
How hard would it be to add a minimum $/BTC value for the paypal auto cashout option? For example, I'd like to set it to $5/BTC. If BTC value is $5 or above, auto cashout to paypal as normal, but if it drops lower either cashout as BTC or just don't auto cashout at all- either option would be fine.
This would be a nice option to protect from random dips in the market without forcing the user to use only manual cashouts.
|
|
|
|
|
