btharper
|
|
December 03, 2012, 08:16:09 PM |
|
but all other pools are working with bfl singles?
P2Pool generates a sharechain block every 10 seconds (on average) where the bitcoin blockchain only makes one block every 10 minutes (again, average). The BFL single takes ~5 seconds to report back the work it computes. On the full blockchain, or on work from pools this isn't a big deal since a share from five seconds ago is likely to be valid. On P2Pool because of the lower block generation time a share from 5 seconds ago may or may not be valid, hence the high rejection rate (usually DOA iirc). So to fix the problem BFL has to reprogram the singles to report back faster like GPUs or other FPGA units do, or P2Pool has to hardfork and use a longer time between blocks. Neither are particularly useful suggestions as changing P2pool for one manufacturer's mistakes is a lot of work for no reason, and a bad precedent; while getting BFL to update their firmware for an obsolete product is a waste of resources.
|
|
|
|
K1773R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
|
|
December 04, 2012, 02:13:26 AM |
|
@forrestv: could you implement a way to print more details for such messages: Merged block submittal result: True something like this: Merged block submittal for pool <POOLURL> result: True
|
[GPG Public Key]BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1 K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM A K1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: N K1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: L Ki773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: E K1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: b K1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
|
|
|
aTg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 04, 2012, 04:14:36 AM |
|
Pool rate: 330GH/s (21% stale) Share difficulty: 577 Node uptime: 0.376 days Peers: 6 out, 1 in Local rate: 39.1GH/s (62% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0177 hours Shares: 501 total (76 orphaned, 157 dead) Efficiency: 67.76% I'm on version 9.3, which is going on?
|
|
|
|
Rogue Star
Member
Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
|
December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 AM |
|
Pool rate: 330GH/s (21% stale) Share difficulty: 577 Node uptime: 0.376 days Peers: 6 out, 1 in Local rate: 39.1GH/s (62% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0177 hours Shares: 501 total (76 orphaned, 157 dead) Efficiency: 67.76% I'm on version 9.3, which is going on? Have you tried restarting your miner(s)? I find it helps to restart after an upgrade.
|
you can donate to me for whatever reason at: 18xbnjDDXxgcvRzv5k2vmrKQHWDjYsBDCf
|
|
|
rav3n_pl
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1361
Merit: 1003
Don`t panic! Organize!
|
|
December 04, 2012, 09:27:53 AM |
|
Pool rate: 330GH/s (21% stale) Share difficulty: 577 Node uptime: 0.376 days Peers: 6 out, 1 in Local rate: 39.1GH/s (62% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0177 hours Shares: 501 total (76 orphaned, 157 dead) Efficiency: 67.76% I'm on version 9.3, which is going on? Huge DOA rate indicates bad miner config or some issues/lags on connection. See graphs on your node, maybe you see something.
|
|
|
|
Aseras
|
|
December 04, 2012, 03:31:53 PM |
|
9.2 still gives me 100% orphan rate. 9.3 appears to be working ok, although 2 stales/doa right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
aTg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 04, 2012, 04:59:09 PM |
|
Not solved by restarting the workers, only reaches the pool little more than 50% of my power. And if in the version 9.3.
|
|
|
|
Aseras
|
|
December 04, 2012, 05:19:11 PM |
|
Not solved by restarting the workers, only reaches the pool little more than 50% of my power. And if in the version 9.3.
Check bitcoind/qt process usage. If its over 40% drop the process priority to below normal.
|
|
|
|
btctalk
|
|
December 04, 2012, 06:41:48 PM |
|
on my setup everything seems to be going fine on the miner's end but local hash rate shows weird behaviour like sometimes its 0 and sometimes it's twice what it supposed to be... Version: 9.3 Pool rate: 359GH/s (20% stale) Share difficulty: 643 Node uptime: 0.037 days Peers: 6 out, 0 in Local rate: 21.5MH/s (0.0% DOA) Expected time to share: 35.7 hours Shares: 0 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: ???
I think it could be related to this, i get this once in a while in the output: 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779581 P2Pool: 17318 shares in chain (8906 verified/17322 total) Peers: 6 (0 incoming) 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779671 Local: 14316kH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~0.0% (0-66%) Expected time to share: 2.2 days 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779709 Shares: 0 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ??? Efficiency: ??? Current payout: 0.0000 BTC 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779749 Pool: 351GH/s Stale rate: 19.5% Expected time to block: 11.7 hours 2012-12-04 13:39:26.673891 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 644.631003 Total block value: 25.409100 BTC including 508 transactions 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805831 P2Pool: 17319 shares in chain (8907 verified/17323 total) Peers: 6 (0 incoming) 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805917 Local: 14316kH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~0.0% (0-66%) Expected time to share: 2.2 days 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805954 Shares: 0 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ??? Efficiency: ??? Current payout: 0.0000 BTC 2012-12-04 13:39:27.806018 Pool: 351GH/s Stale rate: 19.6% Expected time to block: 11.7 hours 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809477 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809570 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 371, in _runCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809611 > self.result = callback(self.result, *args, **kw) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809648 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 879, in gotResult 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809685 > _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809720 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 821, in _inlineCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809758 > result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809794 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 338, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809833 > return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809868 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809902 > File "/home/shayan/Downloads/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferral.py", line 41, in f 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809938 > result = yield func(*args, **kwargs) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809973 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 821, in _inlineCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810036 > result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810073 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 338, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810109 > return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810145 > File "/home/shayan/Downloads/p2pool/p2pool/util/jsonrpc.py", line 71, in callRemote 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810218 > raise Error_for_code(resp['error']['code'])(resp['error']['message'], resp['error'].get('data', None)) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810259 > p2pool.util.jsonrpc.NarrowError: -32601 Method not found 2012-12-04 13:39:37.247657 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 650.315749 Total block value: 25.411100 BTC including 510 transactions
could it be because I'm using merged minings with litecoin? litecoin pool is working fine, there's no problem with anything. just thought it could be related (no idea how )
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
December 04, 2012, 06:47:57 PM |
|
on my setup everything seems to be going fine on the miner's end but local hash rate shows weird behaviour like sometimes its 0 and sometimes it's twice what it supposed to be... Version: 9.3 Pool rate: 359GH/s (20% stale) Share difficulty: 643 Node uptime: 0.037 days Peers: 6 out, 0 in Local rate: 21.5MH/s (0.0% DOA) Expected time to share: 35.7 hours Shares: 0 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: ???
I think it could be related to this, i get this once in a while in the output: 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779581 P2Pool: 17318 shares in chain (8906 verified/17322 total) Peers: 6 (0 incoming) 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779671 Local: 14316kH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~0.0% (0-66%) Expected time to share: 2.2 days 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779709 Shares: 0 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ??? Efficiency: ??? Current payout: 0.0000 BTC 2012-12-04 13:39:12.779749 Pool: 351GH/s Stale rate: 19.5% Expected time to block: 11.7 hours 2012-12-04 13:39:26.673891 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 644.631003 Total block value: 25.409100 BTC including 508 transactions 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805831 P2Pool: 17319 shares in chain (8907 verified/17323 total) Peers: 6 (0 incoming) 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805917 Local: 14316kH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~0.0% (0-66%) Expected time to share: 2.2 days 2012-12-04 13:39:27.805954 Shares: 0 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Stale rate: ??? Efficiency: ??? Current payout: 0.0000 BTC 2012-12-04 13:39:27.806018 Pool: 351GH/s Stale rate: 19.6% Expected time to block: 11.7 hours 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809477 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809570 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 371, in _runCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809611 > self.result = callback(self.result, *args, **kw) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809648 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 879, in gotResult 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809685 > _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809720 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 821, in _inlineCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809758 > result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809794 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 338, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809833 > return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809868 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809902 > File "/home/shayan/Downloads/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferral.py", line 41, in f 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809938 > result = yield func(*args, **kwargs) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.809973 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 821, in _inlineCallbacks 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810036 > result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810073 > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 338, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810109 > return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810145 > File "/home/shayan/Downloads/p2pool/p2pool/util/jsonrpc.py", line 71, in callRemote 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810218 > raise Error_for_code(resp['error']['code'])(resp['error']['message'], resp['error'].get('data', None)) 2012-12-04 13:39:28.810259 > p2pool.util.jsonrpc.NarrowError: -32601 Method not found 2012-12-04 13:39:37.247657 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 650.315749 Total block value: 25.411100 BTC including 510 transactions
could it be because I'm using merged minings with litecoin? litecoin pool is working fine, there's no problem with anything. just thought it could be related (no idea how ) You can't merge mine bitcoin and litecoin. That doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
btctalk
|
|
December 04, 2012, 06:59:18 PM |
|
You can't merge mine bitcoin and litecoin. That doesn't work.
So how is it possible to have a mining pool that supports LTC and BTC mining? it should be, on different ports
|
|
|
|
Aseras
|
|
December 04, 2012, 07:05:46 PM |
|
you can "merge mine" bitcoins and tell it to submit to litecoin but litecoin will reject every block, probably one every few seconds, you are probably hammering the crap out of your computer trying that.
You have to mine one of the other, they are incompatible.
you run separate instances on different ports, and you can only mine on one or the other with the same worker.
You can have the same gpu or whatever split and mine half on litecoin and half btc, but since btc needs high hashrate and low mem speed, and litecoin needs low rate and high mem speed it's not really feasible.
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
December 04, 2012, 07:12:47 PM |
|
You can't merge mine bitcoin and litecoin. That doesn't work.
So how is it possible to have a mining pool that supports LTC and BTC mining? it should be, on different ports Run p2pool twice with different settings. You will have one pool for BTC and one pool for LTC. Not one pool with ports for both.
|
|
|
|
btctalk
|
|
December 04, 2012, 07:44:33 PM |
|
You can't merge mine bitcoin and litecoin. That doesn't work.
So how is it possible to have a mining pool that supports LTC and BTC mining? it should be, on different ports Run p2pool twice with different settings. You will have one pool for BTC and one pool for LTC. Not one pool with ports for both. Thanks, yeah I end up doing so, I was just waiting for some results to see if it's working alright or not but still I'm getting the ups and downs in local BTC Hash rate...
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
December 04, 2012, 07:46:47 PM |
|
You can't merge mine bitcoin and litecoin. That doesn't work.
So how is it possible to have a mining pool that supports LTC and BTC mining? it should be, on different ports Run p2pool twice with different settings. You will have one pool for BTC and one pool for LTC. Not one pool with ports for both. Thanks, yeah I end up doing so, I was just waiting for some results to see if it's working alright or not but still I'm getting the ups and downs in local BTC Hash rate... For some reasons there are always ups and downs in the hash rate. If you look at the global rate, it seems to follow a sine curve. I've seen it locally on p2pool, and on every pool I've used. Maybe some day I'll understand why. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Aseras
|
|
December 04, 2012, 07:56:51 PM |
|
use the webpage
127.0.0.1:9332 and go to graphs. it should even out over time.
|
|
|
|
btctalk
|
|
December 04, 2012, 08:21:47 PM |
|
thanks all
|
|
|
|
BkkCoins
|
|
December 05, 2012, 04:43:42 AM Last edit: December 05, 2012, 05:02:29 AM by BkkCoins |
|
I'm just trying out p2pool for first time.
I'm getting a lot of these:
Traceback (most recent call last): Failure: twisted.python.failure.DefaultException: sharereply result: too long
Is that normal or is something wrong?
In cgminer it always say the pool is dead. But I'm entering apparently correct values.
netstat -lntp shows it's listening on 0.0.0.0 not 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
tiberiandusk
|
|
December 05, 2012, 05:22:36 AM |
|
I'm just trying out p2pool for first time.
I'm getting a lot of these:
Traceback (most recent call last): Failure: twisted.python.failure.DefaultException: sharereply result: too long
Is that normal or is something wrong?
In cgminer it always say the pool is dead. But I'm entering apparently correct values.
netstat -lntp shows it's listening on 0.0.0.0 not 127.0.0.1
9.3 fixed this problem. Scroll up.
|
|
|
|
BkkCoins
|
|
December 05, 2012, 05:29:53 AM Last edit: December 05, 2012, 05:57:58 AM by BkkCoins |
|
I'm just trying out p2pool for first time.
I'm getting a lot of these:
Traceback (most recent call last): Failure: twisted.python.failure.DefaultException: sharereply result: too long
Is that normal or is something wrong?
In cgminer it always say the pool is dead. But I'm entering apparently correct values.
netstat -lntp shows it's listening on 0.0.0.0 not 127.0.0.1
9.3 fixed this problem. Scroll up. Ah. Ok. I didn't read back much. I'll d/l and try 9.3 then. Thx. edit: Done. That error is gone. But the pool still shows as Dead in cgminer. Using, host: http://127.0.0.1:9332user: 15...address pwd: xxx It should work as the stats/graph interface shows up on 127.0.0.1:9332 edit2: Or does it just always take a while after starting p2pool for it to be alive? I see it now shows up as alive in cgminer after about 10 minutes or so. Now I'm getting this: [2012-12-05 12:54:22] Rejected e26cbf8f.5ca9c8b1 GPU 0 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:29] Accepted 70721a13.01ba3366 GPU 1 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:34] LONGPOLL from pool 3 requested work restart [2012-12-05 12:54:40] Accepted 5634174c.7bfe87fc GPU 0 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:42] Accepted 80dff53a.bf5d8415 GPU 0 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:46] LONGPOLL from pool 3 requested work restart [2012-12-05 12:54:51] Accepted b2d828ba.45538286 GPU 1 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:54] LONGPOLL from pool 3 requested work restart [2012-12-05 12:54:57] Accepted efb1033b.86eb6754 GPU 0 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:54:59] Accepted ec5af0bc.ca0a720d GPU 1 pool 3 [2012-12-05 12:55:05] LONGPOLL from pool 3 requested work restart [2012-12-05 12:55:05] Accepted bb40cf3f.b7e293bc GPU 2 pool 3
Normal for so many LP restarts? I'm probably getting quite high latencies due to my location. Maybe it's not worth me using p2pool with high latency? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
|