Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2019, 06:24:26 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 [147] 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 ... 814 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2577048 times)
Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 09, 2012, 07:43:11 AM
 #2921


2012-07-07 09:29:47.581000 > Worker q6600 @ 127.0.0.1 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:47.897000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:49.355000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:50.915000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:51.948000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!

M

I have this problem too and I've been doing some counting. The number as of now: accepted:29732 duplicates:2330 rejected:426. That is 7-8% duplicate shares of the total and the actual submitted good shares are only 91%.


What if.. those are the missing 10% we see globally on the p2pool stats?

Ente
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
1558765466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558765466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558765466
Reply with quote  #2

1558765466
Report to moderator
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1006


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2012, 03:04:00 PM
 #2922


2012-07-07 09:29:47.581000 > Worker q6600 @ 127.0.0.1 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:47.897000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:49.355000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:50.915000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!
2012-07-07 09:29:51.948000 > Worker miner1 @ 192.168.0.110 submitted share more than once!

M

I have this problem too and I've been doing some counting. The number as of now: accepted:29732 duplicates:2330 rejected:426. That is 7-8% duplicate shares of the total and the actual submitted good shares are only 91%.


What if.. those are the missing 10% we see globally on the p2pool stats?

Ente

If the pool used 100% of shares to estimate the global pool hashrate instead of 91%, then yes. But I think p2Pool only counts valid shares? If not, you might notice 9% less payout, but reporting would be accurate.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2012, 03:33:15 PM
 #2923


I have this problem too and I've been doing some counting. The number as of now: accepted:29732 duplicates:2330 rejected:426. That is 7-8% duplicate shares of the total and the actual submitted good shares are only 91%.


What if.. those are the missing 10% we see globally on the p2pool stats?

Ente

If the pool used 100% of shares to estimate the global pool hashrate instead of 91%, then yes. But I think p2Pool only counts valid shares? If not, you might notice 9% less payout, but reporting would be accurate.

It counts valid shares and dead-on-arrivals, but not duplicates which are just dropped. So yes, you are right about that.
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2012, 05:32:41 PM
 #2924

Quote
2012-07-09 19:31:07.554921 > Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 rolled timestamp improperly! This may be a bug in the miner that is causing you to lose work!
2012-07-09 19:31:13.877677 > Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 rolled timestamp improperly! This may be a bug in the miner that is causing you to lose work!
2012-07-09 19:31:16.723297 > Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 rolled timestamp improperly! This may be a bug in the miner that is causing you to lose work!
2012-07-09 19:31:22.509470 > Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 rolled timestamp improperly! This may be a bug in the miner that is causing you to lose work!
2012-07-09 19:31:30.192033 > Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 rolled timestamp improperly! This may be a bug in the miner that is causing you to lose work!
Angry
Now what?
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2012, 05:51:28 PM
 #2925

Looks like you have updated to fresh version that checks and warns about double-sending Smiley

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
RandomQ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 09, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
 #2926

I love the latest from cgminer 2.5.0 change log.

----
 I've also created my own workaround for the biggest problem with existing bitforce devices - the can now abort work as soon as a longpoll hits which means literally half as much work on average wasted across longpoll than previously, and a much lower reject rate. Note these devices are still inefficient across longpoll since they don't even have the support the minirig devices have - and they never will according to bfl. This means you should never mine with them on p2pool.
----

P2pool- The Anti BFL pool
 Grin
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
 #2927

So I have been having problems, and now at least I think what's going on.

The problem is this:

p2pool increments the getwork timestamp at every request and assumes that the miner will respect X-Roll-NTime which is set to "expire=10". cgminer (and apparently phoenix) doesn't respect that. Sometimes there is a hash collision from two different getwork requests, both rolled past 10 seconds. (see the cgminer thread)

(The check forrestv added yesterday warning about this, is broken since it only catches 1/12 of the shares rolled past 10 seconds, but that's not very important)

Now, my question is what do I do about it? One reason I get more of these than other people, I suspect, is because the miner produces many shares per minute.

- Would the best short term solution be to increase the local difficulty?
- ckolivas suggested setting --scan-time in cgminer to 10 but that doesn't make much of a difference.
- hack p2pool to inrease the 12 second increment to something higher? That seems a bit risky...

other suggestions?
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 1160


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2012, 11:40:45 AM
 #2928

Actually this is a major problem. If p2pool is rolling ntime and telling the mining software it can roll ntime, there is nothing to guarantee they wont collide. The expire=10 seconds tells the mining software how long it can roll work for, not how far into the future it can roll time. Potentially the software can roll time up to 2 hours into the future within that 10 seconds, so there can be no guarantee the work source and mining software won't clash. If you're asking the mining software to roll time, you shouldn't be rolling it within p2pool, or vice versa. Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself. Since rolling time requires a lot less CPU than generating fresh work, it really is a matter of where you want the time to be rolled - the source of the work (in this case p2pool) or the mining software. It should not be done at both ends.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 12:19:12 PM
 #2929

Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself.
So if I hack the p2pool code, and remove the X-Roll-NTime header altogether as a short term fix, that would make cgminer stop rolling and my problem would be gone? Super easy  Grin I will try it right away.

Thank you!
Smoovious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
 #2930

Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself.
So if I hack the p2pool code, and remove the X-Roll-NTime header altogether as a short term fix, that would make cgminer stop rolling and my problem would be gone? Super easy  Grin I will try it right away.

Thank you!
What is the difference between using long-polling, and not using long-polling, and since it is a 10-second interval anyways, is there any real need for long-polling to begin with?

(requesting a little enlightenment about it)

-- Smoov
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2012, 12:35:56 PM
 #2931

Heh, DiabloMiner fixes this by just watching for the X-Is-P2Pool header. Wink

tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 12:45:07 PM
 #2932

Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself.
So if I hack the p2pool code, and remove the X-Roll-NTime header altogether as a short term fix, that would make cgminer stop rolling and my problem would be gone? Super easy  Grin I will try it right away.

Thank you!
What is the difference between using long-polling, and not using long-polling, and since it is a 10-second interval anyways, is there any real need for long-polling to begin with?

(requesting a little enlightenment about it)

-- Smoov

Long polling means that the pool is waiting with giving a reply until it actually has new work, and that is good even for short period lengths too, I guess. But this issue isn't about long-polling, I think, but whether the server or the client should increment the timestamp when the client runs out of nonces.

Anyhoooo...

Removing the header S-O-L-V-E-D it!  Man, I'm sooo happy! Cheesy
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 1166


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 01:46:57 PM
 #2933

Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself.
So if I hack the p2pool code, and remove the X-Roll-NTime header altogether as a short term fix, that would make cgminer stop rolling and my problem would be gone? Super easy  Grin I will try it right away.

Thank you!
What is the difference between using long-polling, and not using long-polling, and since it is a 10-second interval anyways, is there any real need for long-polling to begin with?

(requesting a little enlightenment about it)

-- Smoov

The LP is not just a notification, it also provides new work that is valid.
So the miner will get the new work immediately rather than having the extra delay of requesting it.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
coinnewb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 11, 2012, 10:15:37 PM
 #2934

Since p2pool generates its own work locally, I see no point even asking the mining software to roll the time if it's going to roll it itself.
So if I hack the p2pool code, and remove the X-Roll-NTime header altogether as a short term fix, that would make cgminer stop rolling and my problem would be gone? Super easy  Grin I will try it right away.

Thank you!
What is the difference between using long-polling, and not using long-polling, and since it is a 10-second interval anyways, is there any real need for long-polling to begin with?

(requesting a little enlightenment about it)

-- Smoov

Long polling means that the pool is waiting with giving a reply until it actually has new work, and that is good even for short period lengths too, I guess. But this issue isn't about long-polling, I think, but whether the server or the client should increment the timestamp when the client runs out of nonces.

Anyhoooo...

Removing the header S-O-L-V-E-D it!  Man, I'm sooo happy! Cheesy

Do you mind sharing the details of changes?  I see the same issue with my setup from time to time.
Thanks.
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 11, 2012, 11:25:58 PM
 #2935

Do you mind sharing the details of changes?  I see the same issue with my setup from time to time.
Thanks.
In the p2pool directory, look for the file p2pool/bitcoin/worker_interface.py. Open it in an editor and remove the line containing "X-Roll-NTime" and remove it.
Code:
     @defer.inlineCallbacks
     def _getwork(self, request, data, long_poll):
         request.setHeader('X-Long-Polling', '/long-polling')
-        request.setHeader('X-Roll-NTime', 'expire=10')
         request.setHeader('X-Is-P2Pool', 'true')

done!
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1360
Merit: 1000


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2012, 11:55:31 PM
 #2936

PM forrestv about that!

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
Some stuff on https://github.com/Rav3nPL/
tucenaber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 337
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 12, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
 #2937

done
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 12, 2012, 12:50:38 AM
 #2938

Anyhoooo...

Removing the header S-O-L-V-E-D it!  Man, I'm sooo happy! Cheesy

I made your change to my side, installed python 2.7.3 64-bit (windows) and all the associated apps needed for p2pool and fired it up.

The dupe message is definitely gone.

Now, however, cgminer on my main miner (4x7870 = 2.6g/h) is complaining non stop about p2pool not providing work fast enough.  I think if my phoenix miner (4x5870 = 1.6g/h) had a better UI, it would be complaining too.

I'm not sure this is an improvement. Sad

M

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 1160


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2012, 02:45:42 AM
 #2939

I would think you're better off making p2pool not roll ntime and leave it to the mining software.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 1166


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
July 12, 2012, 03:28:33 AM
 #2940

Anyhoooo...

Removing the header S-O-L-V-E-D it!  Man, I'm sooo happy! Cheesy

I made your change to my side, installed python 2.7.3 64-bit (windows) and all the associated apps needed for p2pool and fired it up.

The dupe message is definitely gone.

Now, however, cgminer on my main miner (4x7870 = 2.6g/h) is complaining non stop about p2pool not providing work fast enough.  I think if my phoenix miner (4x5870 = 1.6g/h) had a better UI, it would be complaining too.

I'm not sure this is an improvement. Sad

M
However, what this is saying is that your p2pool can't handle a local miner without roll-n-time
So I'd guess your p2pool setup is very slow or has poor network connectivity to your miner since it really should be a local miner talking to a local p2pool and that REALLY should be fast?!?

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Pages: « 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 [147] 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 ... 814 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!