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

[Boing7898]

in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows. 

[daemondazz]

Oh.. is there a way to block Litecoin addresses/miners? It's just spamming the console.

I think it would actually be a good idea to block all users that are not a valid address for the network except for whitelisted exceptions (eg, my miners are xxx.worker1, xxx.worker2, etc). This way someone can't get upset if they use an invalid username and hence donate their hashrate to their host.

This would mean bitcoin addresses on bitcoin nodes, litecoin addresses on litecoin nodes, etc. Should be an easy enough thing to add using the 'validateaddress' RPC command.

[centove]

in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows. 

Code:

$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.

[Boing7898]

in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows. 

Code:

$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.

1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!

[centove]

in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows. 

Code:

$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.

1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!

Code:

$ lsof -c python -a -i :9332 | wc -l  (miners should be 2xminers -1 )
$ lsof -c python -a -i :9333 | wc -l  (peers 2x -1 )

[maqifrnswa]

I got my BFL 5 GHz miner running for one day on p2pool. Here are the results:
Summary:
Efficiency: ~100.2% (85-110%)
DOA=18.9%

p2pool output:
2013-07-02 11:51:04.571723  Local: 5039MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~18.2% (7-39%) Expected time to share: 20.5 minutes
2013-07-02 11:51:04.571962  Shares: 54 (3 orphan, 6 dead) Stale rate: ~16.7% (9-29%) Efficiency: ~100.2% (85-110%) Current payout: 0.1395 BTC
2013-07-02 11:51:04.572268  Pool: 793GH/s Stale rate: 16.9% Expected time to block: 1.3 days


cgminer output:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):5.408G (avg):5.063Gh/s | A:87607  R:20448  HW:65  WU:70.6/m
 ST: 2  SS: 1  NB: 158  LW: 266781  GF: 1  RF: 0
 Connected to XXX diff 32 with stratum as user raspberrypi+32
 Block: 00a7e1d7004f984f...  Diff:21.3M  Started: [16:15:03]  Best share: 33.3K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management Settings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 BAJ 0:  max 45C 3.81V | 5.279G/5.063Gh/s | A:87607 R:20448 HW:65 WU:  70.6/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stock firmware (version 1.0.0), 1 job per board, no extra cooling or modifications.

cgminer API stats:
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC
FIRMWARE: 1.0.0
MINIG SPEED: 5.26 GH/s
PROCESSOR 3: 15 engines @ 183 MHz
PROCESSOR 7: 14 engines @ 183 MHz
ENGINES: 29
FREQUENCY: 189 MHz
XLINK MODE: MASTER
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE:
XLINK PRESENT: NO
OK

[forrestv]

in command line:
ulimit -n 8192
and run p2pool

and check later if errors show.

Open files in linux-like system is also opened connections.

I edited /etc/security/limits.conf with limits of 10000 and I've been running p2pool for nearly 3 hours without a crash.
Weird though, because before I upgraded p2pool it was working, even with the limit set at 1024. Maybe it's because more users joined my pool?
Who knows. 

Code:

$ lsof -c python | wc -l

On the node will tell you how many files p2pool has opened.

1494 files, wow.
That's why it was crashing, the limit was at 1024 before.
Thanks for the tip!

Can you do instead, replacing P2POOL_PID with run_p2pool.py's PID,

Code:

$ lsof -p P2POOL_PID

and pastebin the output and send it to me? P2Pool shouldn't be using that many files - seeing which it has open could help find the issue.

[GrapeApe]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

[bitpop]

Is it true if you set it too high and not get a share in a round, it basically liked like you weren't there?

[baloo_kiev]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.

[GrapeApe]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.

This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

[baloo_kiev]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.

This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

At 220MH/s estimated time to share is 8 hours. For instance, that means that there's 5% probability of not finding any shares for 24 hours. For two week period, your estimated number of shares is 42, and there's 5% probability to find 31 or less shares, which means only 75% of estimated income. Of course, this also works in positive direction, and your income may be higher than estimated as well. Now if you increase your share difficulty, this variation will be even higher. If you are not a gambler, you want stable income.

When mining in p2pool, your income variance depends on both pool's blockrate variance and your own sharerate variance. For details see my post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg2060914#msg2060914

[GrapeApe]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.

This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

At 220MH/s estimated time to share is 8 hours. For instance, that means that there's 5% probability of not finding any shares for 24 hours. For two week period, your estimated number of shares is 42, and there's 5% probability to find 31 or less shares, which means only 75% of estimated income. Of course, this also works in positive direction, and your income may be higher than estimated as well. Now if you increase your share difficulty, this variation will be even higher. If you are not a gambler, you want stable income.

When mining in p2pool, your income variance depends on both pool's blockrate variance and your own sharerate variance. For details see my post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg2060914#msg2060914

I guess the only thing I would disagree with you about would be that when I change local diff my time to share goes up. The p2pool estimated time to share only goes up because I'm submitting less shares no? It's not a real measurement of hash speed. Doesn’t the work I’m doing locally stay the same I just submit less garbage.

[daemondazz]

I guess the only thing I would disagree with you about would be that when I change local diff my time to share goes up. The p2pool estimated time to share only goes up because I'm submitting less shares no? It's not a real measurement of hash speed. Doesn’t the work I’m doing locally stay the same I just submit less garbage.

If you double the difficulty then you half the number of shares you submit, but each share is worth double. Because you're submitting less shares, the variance you will see will increase.

[zvs]

i just turned my stuff back to p2pool for a final hurrah i suppose you could say, before i shut everything down

but doesn't anyone find it concerning that someone has 33% of the hashrate?  i also was unable to locate the IP address of this person, so they're probably behind a firewall, without many outgoing connections, judging from the other nodes I checked (IP address reported as relaying their share is quite a spread)

just found it curious since i've gotten 2 orphans out of 6 already,  both because of the double share from 1Nasty

although i guess it could be partally attributed to using a US server

[mdude77]

i just turned my stuff back to p2pool for a final hurrah i suppose you could say, before i shut everything down

but doesn't anyone find it concerning that someone has 33% of the hashrate?  i also was unable to locate the IP address of this person, so they're probably behind a firewall, without many outgoing connections, judging from the other nodes I checked (IP address reported as relaying their share is quite a spread)

just found it curious since i've gotten 2 orphans out of 6 already,  both because of the double share from 1Nasty

although i guess it could be partally attributed to using a US server

Why would it be disconcerting?  p2pool is really small.  there are filthy rich miners who have more than the entire hash rate of p2pool.

M

[zvs]

I am mining at 220 MH/s, are there any reasons why I shouldn’t raise my  difficulty? If I were to put it at 512 would this have any negative impact on my side? It's just less traffic right? I already know this doesn’t change my chances of finding a share of the required difficulty. I'm just wondering what happens on my end.

At that hashrate, you probably don't want to increase difficulty. It will not significantly change network load but will increase income variance.

This gets to the crux of my question. How or why would it increase income variance at a pool like p2pool where we are looking for high difficulty shares. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking why? Do we need to submit these lower diff shares for some reason?

At 220MH/s estimated time to share is 8 hours. For instance, that means that there's 5% probability of not finding any shares for 24 hours. For two week period, your estimated number of shares is 42, and there's 5% probability to find 31 or less shares, which means only 75% of estimated income. Of course, this also works in positive direction, and your income may be higher than estimated as well. Now if you increase your share difficulty, this variation will be even higher. If you are not a gambler, you want stable income.

When mining in p2pool, your income variance depends on both pool's blockrate variance and your own sharerate variance. For details see my post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg2060914#msg2060914

I guess the only thing I would disagree with you about would be that when I change local diff my time to share goes up. The p2pool estimated time to share only goes up because I'm submitting less shares no? It's not a real measurement of hash speed. Doesn’t the work I’m doing locally stay the same I just submit less garbage.

the answer to your question is

no, it wouldn't change anything, unless this amount was higher than the share difficulty

i.e. MrT/500+500, wouldnt matter.  MrT+2000 would, if the share difficulty was under 2000

the hash rate reported on your stats will be bizarre (that's what it uses those small ones for), but in the grand scheme of things you'd still get just as many shares

[zvs]

i just turned my stuff back to p2pool for a final hurrah i suppose you could say, before i shut everything down

but doesn't anyone find it concerning that someone has 33% of the hashrate?  i also was unable to locate the IP address of this person, so they're probably behind a firewall, without many outgoing connections, judging from the other nodes I checked (IP address reported as relaying their share is quite a spread)

just found it curious since i've gotten 2 orphans out of 6 already,  both because of the double share from 1Nasty

although i guess it could be partally attributed to using a US server

Why would it be disconcerting?  p2pool is really small.  there are filthy rich miners who have more than the entire hash rate of p2pool.

M

because it decreases efficiency of other people using p2pool when someone is using inefficient connection and is able to put out 33% of hashrate?

does it need further explaining?

ok, so i just decided to check the headers for the hell of it

P2Pool > Share 9c6eb9d6
Parent: ded30170
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:36:10 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372941370.955215)
Payout address: 1MAv44YHbeh9mt3tHUdxDqG7J8acjA9byh

trumped by:

P2Pool > Share ff119beb
Parent: ded30170
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:36:11 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372941371.258362)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

P2Pool > Share e82be749
Parent: ff119beb
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:36:13 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372941373.962954)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

so 1 out of 4 headers that happened to be shown

[mdude77]

i just turned my stuff back to p2pool for a final hurrah i suppose you could say, before i shut everything down

but doesn't anyone find it concerning that someone has 33% of the hashrate?  i also was unable to locate the IP address of this person, so they're probably behind a firewall, without many outgoing connections, judging from the other nodes I checked (IP address reported as relaying their share is quite a spread)

just found it curious since i've gotten 2 orphans out of 6 already,  both because of the double share from 1Nasty

although i guess it could be partally attributed to using a US server

Why would it be disconcerting?  p2pool is really small.  there are filthy rich miners who have more than the entire hash rate of p2pool.

M

because it decreases efficiency of other people using p2pool when someone is using inefficient connection and is able to put out 33% of hashrate?

does it need further explaining?

This seems like a problem with p2pool, not with the miner.  We want more hashrate, but not too much in one spot?

M

[zvs]

two more examples, checking .. 10 minutes later, i guess

P2Pool > Share cf9f191e
Parent: c3435999
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:03 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942683.824745)
Payout address: 1CdYbiq38Qaah942iZHiRBJGeDpPbzBVnQ

orphaned by:

P2Pool > Share 0381e766
Parent: c3435999
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942685.644919)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

P2Pool > Share ceb6366f
Parent: 0381e766
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:13 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942693.886554)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

and

P2Pool > Share d910f792
Parent: c3435999
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:04 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942684.812593)
Payout address: 1MAv44YHbeh9mt3tHUdxDqG7J8acjA9byh

orphaned by:

P2Pool > Share 0381e766
Parent: c3435999
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942685.644919)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

P2Pool > Share ceb6366f
Parent: 0381e766
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 07:58:13 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372942693.886554)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

...

well, the one share every 30 seconds would help.  should be implemented asap

and two seconds is a long time

*************

ed: i dunno, 5 minutes later?

P2Pool > Share 62cb0c45
Parent: f5b92a74
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:14:00 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943640.972359)
Payout address: 1GLJUmBLH83dbEj5GvbFTyhsJrjUaFV1jH

orphaned by (6 seconds, lol):

P2Pool > Share 7b374ec9
Parent: f5b92a74
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:14:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943646.213323)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

P2Pool > Share 3d593a0f
Parent: 7b374ec9
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:14:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943646.210475)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

and

P2Pool > Share 0928924a
Parent: 095962f9
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:12:24 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943544.504013)
Payout address: 1GPFgDFABseWT1Mp8J7pxQkNooKrKmKNHb

orphaned by (this one should have been DOA anyway, but just including it since it would have been orphaned regardless):

P2Pool > Share b7be01ca
Parent: 095962f9
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:12:23 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943543.308732)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

P2Pool > Share f5a3278b
Parent: b7be01ca
Time first seen: Thu Jul 04 2013 08:12:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) (1372943564.581696)
Payout address: 1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX

..

check the verified heads, you'll probably find at least one

ah, 15 minutes later.