DiabloMiner GPU Miner

[ancow]

I just got this log, but it is the first time out of ~5 runs that this happened. I suspect that it is because deepbit kept timing out and one of the executions was null when the LP response came in.

Code:

[11.07.11 20:22:54] Started                                                  
[11.07.11 20:22:54] Connecting to: http://pit.deepbit.net:8332/, http://swepool.net:8337/
[11.07.11 20:22:55] Using Apple OpenCL 1.0 (Dec 23 2010 17:30:26)            
[11.07.11 20:22:55] Added GeForce 9400 (#1) (2 CU, local work size of 128)   
[11.07.11 20:22:56] DEBUG: swepool.net: Enabling long poll support           
[11.07.11 20:22:56] DEBUG: swepool.net: Enabling roll ntime support          
[11.07.11 20:23:24] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:23:38] DEBUG: swepool.net: Long poll returned                   
Exception in thread "DiabloMiner LongPollAsync for swepool.net" java.lang.NullPointerException
        at com.diablominer.DiabloMiner.DiabloMiner.forceUpdate(DiabloMiner.java:536)
        at com.diablominer.DiabloMiner.DiabloMiner$NetworkState$LongPollAsync.run(DiabloMiner.java:919)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)
[11.07.11 20:23:55] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:24:27] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:24:58] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out

EDIT:
It just happened again, same situation, similar log.

[1714035149]

1714035149

[1714035149]

1714035149

[1714035149]

1714035149

[Druas]

Update: Multiple pool support, use commas

So is this the backup pool option? If the information is the same do we still have to retype it? What about port number and all the settings? I guess my question is if all we want is to enter a new backup pool (sometimes I even have same username and password) is that the only thing we have to put a comma for? I know this is kind of a dumb question, but I think in order to test it I would have to have my primary pool go down to see if secondary kicks in, which I am not in control of and not fond of having happen. Also, if primary goes down and it switches to secondary will it just keep going on secondary even if primary comes back? If secondary goes down will it try primary again?

-u username -p password -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f1
or
-u username1, username2 -p password1, password2 -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332, 8332 -v 2, 2 -w 128, 128 -f 1, 1

[ancow]

-u username -p password -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f1
or
-u username1, username2 -p password1, password2 -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332, 8332 -v 2, 2 -w 128, 128 -f 1, 1

Only commas, no spaces after the commas since the command line would interpret everything after those as a new parameter.

[Druas]

-u username -p password -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f1
or
-u username1, username2 -p password1, password2 -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332, 8332 -v 2, 2 -w 128, 128 -f 1, 1

Only commas, no spaces after the commas since the command line would interpret everything after those as a new parameter.

Ok yeah, but do I have to retype everything? What does a proper line look like with a backup pool?

[ancow]

-u username -p password -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f1
or
-u username1, username2 -p password1, password2 -o us.btcguild.com, pit.deepbit.net -r 8332, 8332 -v 2, 2 -w 128, 128 -f 1, 1

Only commas, no spaces after the commas since the command line would interpret everything after those as a new parameter.

Ok yeah, but do I have to retype everything? What does a proper line look like with a backup pool?

Pretty much the same way, just remove all the spaces after the commas:

Code:

-u username1,username2 -p password1,password2 -o us.btcguild.com,pit.deepbit.net -r 8332,8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f 1

Note that only parameters related to pool connection accept commas; -v, -w and -f don't.

[DareC]

It seems to be using both pools I put in, roughly equally. I was expecting it to be failover (or is btcmine just failing a lot?)

[Druas]

It seems to be using both pools I put in, roughly equally. I was expecting it to be failover (or is btcmine just failing a lot?)

I would prefer failover also.

[DiabloD3]

I just got this log, but it is the first time out of ~5 runs that this happened. I suspect that it is because deepbit kept timing out and one of the executions was null when the LP response came in.

Code:

[11.07.11 20:22:54] Started                                                  
[11.07.11 20:22:54] Connecting to: http://pit.deepbit.net:8332/, http://swepool.net:8337/
[11.07.11 20:22:55] Using Apple OpenCL 1.0 (Dec 23 2010 17:30:26)            
[11.07.11 20:22:55] Added GeForce 9400 (#1) (2 CU, local work size of 128)   
[11.07.11 20:22:56] DEBUG: swepool.net: Enabling long poll support           
[11.07.11 20:22:56] DEBUG: swepool.net: Enabling roll ntime support          
[11.07.11 20:23:24] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:23:38] DEBUG: swepool.net: Long poll returned                   
Exception in thread "DiabloMiner LongPollAsync for swepool.net" java.lang.NullPointerException
        at com.diablominer.DiabloMiner.DiabloMiner.forceUpdate(DiabloMiner.java:536)
        at com.diablominer.DiabloMiner.DiabloMiner$NetworkState$LongPollAsync.run(DiabloMiner.java:919)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)
[11.07.11 20:23:55] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:24:27] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out
[11.07.11 20:24:58] ERROR: Cannot connect to pit.deepbit.net: connect timed out

EDIT:
It just happened again, same situation, similar log.

Update: Fixed race condition

[DiabloD3]

Pretty much the same way, just remove all the spaces after the commas:

Code:

-u username1,username2 -p password1,password2 -o us.btcguild.com,pit.deepbit.net -r 8332,8332 -v 2 -w 128 -f 1

Note that only parameters related to pool connection accept commas; -v, -w and -f don't.

This.

[DiabloD3]

It seems to be using both pools I put in, roughly equally. I was expecting it to be failover (or is btcmine just failing a lot?)

I would prefer failover also.

It makes more sense to load balance to prevent a pool going down from slowing mining.

It also makes it harder for deepbit lol50% situations.

[ned123]

It does make sense to load balance but for people with large hashing power.
For me for example it would decrease earnings, considering I don't have much hashing power (less than 400Mhps). If I split that, short rounds (less than 1-2 min) would be empty for me to often (been there seen that). And we surely need some sort of load balance/failover with all those DDoSes these days.

Maybe you could implement a switch of some sort, so people could test what is better for them?

Or... I simply switch to two smaller pools ...

[c00w]

Hello,

It appears that you use post instead of get when doing Long Polling. That is contradictory to the unofficial spec and really annoying when trying to debug software LP failures.

See https://deepbit.net/longpolling.php

-C00w

[DiabloD3]

Hello,

It appears that you use post instead of get when doing Long Polling. That is contradictory to the unofficial spec and really annoying when trying to debug software LP failures.

See https://deepbit.net/longpolling.php

-C00w

You missed the entire discussion on this. The spec is incorrect if it requires GETs for a JSON-RPC request.

[c00w]

Is there somewhere which actually standardizes long polling? Or an alternate spec I missed?

[DiabloD3]

Is there somewhere which actually standardizes long polling? Or an alternate spec I missed?

Other than Tycho's writeup on it, nope. Its just a bad hack.

[c00w]

Hi,

So just to be clear you are the only miner which actually does gets instead of posts on purpose.

I already fixed my code to deal with your special case but If you truly believe thats the correct way to do it can you please write it down somewhere? If you made a post which is something along the lines of How LP works and how I believe it should work it would make it a lot easier to develop.

[kripz]

Is said discussion recorded somewhere? I couldnt find it.

[ancow]

Is said discussion recorded somewhere? I couldnt find it.

Try looking 2-3 pages up...

[DiabloD3]

Hi,

So just to be clear you are the only miner which actually does gets instead of posts on purpose.

I already fixed my code to deal with your special case but If you truly believe thats the correct way to do it can you please write it down somewhere? If you made a post which is something along the lines of How LP works and how I believe it should work it would make it a lot easier to develop.

Other way around. I never use GET and always POST. The HTTP spec is clear on this, if you have no message body in the request its a GET, if you have no message body in the response its a PUT, if you have both its a POST. JSON-RPC does the actual request mechanism in the JSON in the request, thus it is always a POST.

There is no reason to believe LP should be a GET (even though apparently poclbm and pheonix send GETs with empty message bodies expecting a JSON-RPC response, and pools actually allow this against both the HTTP and JSON-RPC specs), so it seems to be quite clear.

[twmz]

There is no reason to believe LP should be a GET

Except the fact that the person who invented it says it should be a GET in his documentation of how it should work.  But the intentions of the guy who defined the standard doesn't matter... 

And the argument that a JSON-RPC request has to be a POST is irrelevant because the LP request as defined by the Deepbit spec is not a JSON-RPC request just because its response looks like a JSON-RPC response.   Two different standards can have responses that look the same without being the same in all other ways.   

You've defined a new standard.  A "DiabloD3 Long Poll".  Cool.  But they people who are following the published guidelines for the "Deepbit Long Poll" are not idiots (as you appear to be implying).  They are just doing exactly what it says they should be doing.

It's a pointless argument.  Fortunately, it's easy enough for pools and proxies to support both by not caring if there is a POST body or not.