[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool

[Aseras]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over. There's something wrong with the way it reads the stratum response. Someone, Jeff I think, said it has a problem with double byte responses that p2pool makes. On getwork, it just hammers the server and the DOA rate is >25%. Using a very high diff 3000-4000 helps a tiny bit. The highest p2pool would let me go is 6535. Any higher number just comes back as 6535.

Even soloing to a bitcoind alone will crash. It's too much. Hence the need to run a buffer like eloipool between it.

https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/commit/5f061e6c6753adf93acf04b8463badef88c4106e

[kano]

...
The highest p2pool would let me go is 6535. Any higher number just comes back as 6535.
...

Better get that fixed fast ...

[rav3n_pl]

...
The highest p2pool would let me go is 6535. Any higher number just comes back as 6535.
...

Better get that fixed fast ...

I think it is in getwork.py:

Code:

'target': pack.IntType(256).pack(self.share_target).encode('hex'),

[-ck]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over. There's something wrong with the way it reads the stratum response. Someone, Jeff I think, said it has a problem with double byte responses that p2pool makes. On getwork, it just hammers the server and the DOA rate is >25%. Using a very high diff 3000-4000 helps a tiny bit. The highest p2pool would let me go is 6535. Any higher number just comes back as 6535.

Even soloing to a bitcoind alone will crash. It's too much. Hence the need to run a buffer like eloipool between it.

https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/commit/5f061e6c6753adf93acf04b8463badef88c4106e

Well cgminer has changed a lot since the version included with Avalon with lots of bugfixes and improvements, and I can't attest to any code added to the Avalon release so... usual disclaimers apply. On the upside, Xiangfu has said to me on IRC that he will be updating the code to bring it in line with mainline cgminer. But then I'm still out of the loop and only obliged to audit his code if he wants to push it upstream to me.

[gyverlb]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over.

Did you try the avalon branch of p2pool on github? A fix for stratum is there.

[BR0KK]

Could someone point me a way to installing p2pool on a raspberry pi (256 Model)?

Is that even possible or something i shouldn't do?

[stevegee58]

Could someone point me a way to installing p2pool on a raspberry pi (256 Model)?

Is that even possible or something i shouldn't do?

I was able to get it working on a BeagleBone with Ubuntu.  It was a PITA since so many of the required Python packages were missing and I had to download them one at a time until it worked.
I couldn't come up with a reason to actually use that since I already have a spare Linux PC running in the house and I use the BB for other things.

[PatMan]

...
The highest p2pool would let me go is 6535. Any higher number just comes back as 6535.
...

Better get that fixed fast ...

That and the rest......

If ever there was a perfect opportunity for the devs here to go through the p2pool stratum code with a fine comb & spyglass - this is it. Some of us here have been suggesting this for months.....ie: since it was introduced.

But that's another story.....or is it?

[-ck]

Well someone's gotta do it. Ill see what I can do. I can code and tinker. I just don't like to much. I'm gonna be gone a fair bit of April. So if you want to screw with my units you can but you may have to call one of my techs to hard reset them if you bork one and can't reset it remotely.

It's an offer if you are interested in doing it right

Ps I've probably given you 50 coins by now, over the past couple years. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. With xiangfu currently working on bringing the code into line with mainline cgminer, it would be helpful for me to test on an actual unit, and I have some time next week. However I would not be touching the p2pool software code at all since it is in python and a complete mystery to me.

[Aseras]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over.

Did you try the avalon branch of p2pool on github? A fix for stratum is there.

Yes it's not a fix for stratum. It disables work caching. I get 150mhash with it using stratum. Not exactly ideal.

Stratum for avalon on p2pool is terribly broken. I don't know if its p2pool, or cgminer version or a combination of one doing something the other doesn't like. I actually feel like it should be an easy fix since every other stratum pool works fine.

So far the only thing that works is using fix-protocol and getwork with a very high diff. I've been using /4000+16. That seems the best balance. +32 is all late. You have to remember the "miners" are only 300mhash each. It will bring a 3930k running Ubuntu with 32gb of ram to its knees. It pegs 4 processors trying to keep up and eventually crashes as it runs out of memory. I also is 25-35% DOA. You loose 1/3 of your hashrate.

[Aseras]

Well someone's gotta do it. Ill see what I can do. I can code and tinker. I just don't like to much. I'm gonna be gone a fair bit of April. So if you want to screw with my units you can but you may have to call one of my techs to hard reset them if you bork one and can't reset it remotely.

It's an offer if you are interested in doing it right

Ps I've probably given you 50 coins by now, over the past couple years. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. With xiangfu currently working on bringing the code into line with mainline cgminer, it would be helpful for me to test on an actual unit, and I have some time next week. However I would not be touching the p2pool software code at all since it is in python and a complete mystery to me.

Yes, agreed. I tried today to go looking since I used to program python and perl. God some of that code is nuts. Forrest is a genius or a mad hatter. Lol.

It's just too complex for me to dive in and know even where to look. I'm sure if Forrest had an avalon and a few hours he could nail it down.

[PatMan]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over.

Did you try the avalon branch of p2pool on github? A fix for stratum is there.

Yes it's not a fix for stratum. It disables work caching. I get 150mhash with it using stratum. Not exactly ideal.

Stratum for avalon on p2pool is terribly broken. I don't know if its p2pool, or cgminer version or a combination of one doing something the other doesn't like. I actually feel like it should be an easy fix since every other stratum pool works fine.

So far the only thing that works is using fix-protocol and getwork with a very high diff. I've been using /4000+16. That seems the best balance. +32 is all late. You have to remember the "miners" are only 300mhash each. It will bring a 3930k running Ubuntu with 32gb of ram to its knees. It pegs 4 processors trying to keep up and eventually crashes as it runs out of memory. I also is 25-35% DOA. You loose 1/3 of your hashrate.

Agreed, but I'm not sure it's a cgminer thing TBH - although kudos to ckolivas for putting the notion in. I've tried several different miners on p2pool since the stratum code was implemented in an effort to get it working correctly, but to no avail. Like you said, every other stratum pool works fine.

Although I'm sorry that you're not able to use your avalon on p2pool, (it must be very frustrating - & I was looking forward to seeing the results), it is actually quite a relief to finally get some confirmation that the stratum code on p2pool is borked after banging my head against a wall for so long, not to mention a few "experts" living in denial. If there's a plus to all this - then maybe now, finally & at long last, we can get this bug ironed out, get stratum working properly and p2pool back to 100% working order as it was before the stratum code was introduced. This can only be for the benefit of everyone.

It would be a disaster if this opportunity was not taken. Lets see......

[Subo1977]

Sounds like the problem is all in the p2pool end anyway? Can you tell if it's actually successfully connecting directly stratum because that would be essential to avoid p2pool sending a lot and higher diffs would be essential to avoid p2pool receiving a lot.

Avalon Cgminer without fix protocol connects on stratum but resends all work over and over.

Did you try the avalon branch of p2pool on github? A fix for stratum is there.

Yes it's not a fix for stratum. It disables work caching. I get 150mhash with it using stratum. Not exactly ideal.

Stratum for avalon on p2pool is terribly broken. I don't know if its p2pool, or cgminer version or a combination of one doing something the other doesn't like. I actually feel like it should be an easy fix since every other stratum pool works fine.

So far the only thing that works is using fix-protocol and getwork with a very high diff. I've been using /4000+16. That seems the best balance. +32 is all late. You have to remember the "miners" are only 300mhash each. It will bring a 3930k running Ubuntu with 32gb of ram to its knees. It pegs 4 processors trying to keep up and eventually crashes as it runs out of memory. I also is 25-35% DOA. You loose 1/3 of your hashrate.

Agreed, but I'm not sure it's a cgminer thing TBH - although kudos to ckolivas for putting the notion in. I've tried several different miners on p2pool since the stratum code was implemented in an effort to get it working correctly, but to no avail. Like you said, every other stratum pool works fine.

Although I'm sorry that you're not able to use your avalon on p2pool, (it must be very frustrating - & I was looking forward to seeing the results), it is actually quite a relief to finally get some confirmation that the stratum code on p2pool is borked after banging my head against a wall for so long, not to mention a few "experts" living in denial. If there's a plus to all this - then maybe now, finally & at long last, we can get this bug ironed out, get stratum working properly and p2pool back to 100% working order as it was before the stratum code was introduced. This can only be for the benefit of everyone.

It would be a disaster if this opportunity was not taken. Lets see......

+1

[PatMan]

Thanks Subo.

Not bad for a "FUD spreading noob who obviously doesn't understand mining bitcoin" eh? 

[organofcorti]

Thanks Subo.

Not bad for a "FUD spreading noob who obviously doesn't understand mining bitcoin" eh? 

You're only a "FUD spreading noob" when you talk about things you *don't* understand about mining bitcoin.

[PatMan]

Thanks Subo.

Not bad for a "FUD spreading noob who obviously doesn't understand mining bitcoin" eh? 

You're only a "FUD spreading noob" when you talk about things you *don't* understand about mining bitcoin.

Unnecessary, uncalled for & counter productive. Especially coming from a person of your undoubted mathematical knowledge & reputation.

Constructive criticism is most welcome regarding this problem, derogatory comments are not. It helps nobody & nothing.

[organofcorti]

Thanks Subo.

Not bad for a "FUD spreading noob who obviously doesn't understand mining bitcoin" eh?  

You're only a "FUD spreading noob" when you talk about things you *don't* understand about mining bitcoin.

Unnecessary, uncalled for & counter productive. Especially coming from a person of your undoubted mathematical knowledge & reputation.

Constructive criticism is most welcome regarding this problem, derogatory comments are not. It helps nobody & nothing.

I think you took that the wrong way.

Edit: try reading it as 'One is only a "FUD spreading noob" when one talks about things one *doesn't* understand about mining bitcoin.'

[maqifrnswa]

Although I'm sorry that you're not able to use your avalon on p2pool, (it must be very frustrating - & I was looking forward to seeing the results), it is actually quite a relief to finally get some confirmation that the stratum code on p2pool is borked after banging my head against a wall for so long, not to mention a few "experts" living in denial.

This is the problem: you keep citing the wrong numbers as evidence of a problem.

You think there is a problem with stratum, but you keep using "luck" as your evidence. Your argument is "it is impossible for luck to be this bad, therefore something must be broken." Your premise is false, and I proved it by demonstrating how common such bad luck is in reality. That isn't living in denial, but in reality.

However, this post presents new evidence: "stratum connection crashes p2pool." If that is true, that has nothing to do with luck (a crashed p2pool does not hash and does not contribute to luck). Your use of luck as a metric/evidence is still wrong.

I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with p2pool, I've been saying all along that your arguments are based on either the wrong data or wrong conclusions from data.

[mdude77]

Although I'm sorry that you're not able to use your avalon on p2pool, (it must be very frustrating - & I was looking forward to seeing the results), it is actually quite a relief to finally get some confirmation that the stratum code on p2pool is borked after banging my head against a wall for so long, not to mention a few "experts" living in denial.

This is the problem: you keep citing the wrong numbers as evidence of a problem.

You think there is a problem with stratum, but you keep using "luck" as your evidence. Your argument is "it is impossible for luck to be this bad, therefore something must be broken." Your premise is false, and I proved it by demonstrating how common such bad luck is in reality. That isn't living in denial, but in reality.

However, this post presents new evidence: "stratum connection crashes p2pool." If that is true, that has nothing to do with luck (a crashed p2pool does not hash and does not contribute to luck). Your use of luck as a metric/evidence is still wrong.

I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with p2pool, I've been saying all along that your arguments are based on either the wrong data or wrong conclusions from data.

I've been running p2pool on stratum for about a week with cgminer.  I noticed the hash rate just isn't as high as it should be.  Not significantly lower (2.4gh instead of 2.6), but still lower.  Based on what was revealed about Avalon and stratum, I thought I'd try disabling stratum in cgminer.  Guess what, my hash rate is back where it should be.  Note that I don't have the hash rate degradation on a "conventional" pool with stratum.

Unfortunately while I can only salivate about the idea of having an Avalon, there does seem to be evidence that stratum isn't functioning up to par on p2pool.

M

[maqifrnswa]

I've been running p2pool on stratum for about a week with cgminer.  I noticed the hash rate just isn't as high as it should be.  Not significantly lower (2.4gh instead of 2.6), but still lower.  Based on what was revealed about Avalon and stratum, I thought I'd try disabling stratum in cgminer.  Guess what, my hash rate is back where it should be.  Note that I don't have the hash rate degradation on a "conventional" pool with stratum.

Unfortunately while I can only salivate about the idea of having an Avalon, there does seem to be evidence that stratum isn't functioning up to par on p2pool.

M

THANK YOU! This is a legitimate starting point. This is something that can actually be looked into, do you mind filing an issue:
https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/issues?state=open
(I think forrestv does some triage on this forum as well)