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

[spiccioli]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

PatMan,

nothing to be fixed here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.it/2012/11/52-p2pool-achieving-expectations.html

spiccioli

[1713577523]

1713577523

[1713577523]

1713577523

[Prattler]

It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. [...]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

What are you talking about? The only problem ATM is an annoying memory leak, but it only seems to affect linux (Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit here).

Otherwise p2pool has never been better.

[gyverlb]

It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. [...]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

What are you talking about? The only problem ATM is an annoying memory leak, but it only seems to affect linux (Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit here).

Otherwise p2pool has never been better.

It doesn't even affect all Linux p2pools: mine doesn't exhibit any leak (Gentoo 64bit).

[PatMan]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

PatMan,

nothing to be fixed here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.it/2012/11/52-p2pool-achieving-expectations.html

spiccioli

A very interesting and informative read indeed, thanks for that link. However, am I right in saying that the information used goes up to mid November? If so, my problems started after that period, especially when the stratum code was implemented, and turning it off made no difference. It's also about that time that the 30 day luck charts started it's gradual but continuous nose dive, or did I read it wrong?

Peace.

Edit: I personally never had any problems with memory leak on 11.04 64bit.

[sharky112065]

The 90-day luck is still very good. We only had 2 or 3 orphans due to a bug which has been fixed. Don't see any problem. Bad luck happens has good luck did. I had up to 117% luck on a 30-day window, I don't see why a 30-day 88% luck now would mean p2pool isn't performing as best or better than any pool out there.

This. * 9000

[sharky112065]

It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. [...]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

What are you talking about? The only problem ATM is an annoying memory leak, but it only seems to affect linux (Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit here).

Otherwise p2pool has never been better.

It doesn't even affect all Linux p2pools: mine doesn't exhibit any leak (Gentoo 64bit).

I am using Debian Squeeze here, and only have had the memory issue once. After restarting P2pool, I have not had the problem again (4+ days now).

[Rogue Star]

I've been having major problems with keeping my orphan/dead rate in check. Some p2pool invocations were getting me 0% efficiency. I don't have much hashing power so it can take up to a day for me to know if it's a problem or not. Memory use goes way up, and then the orphan/dead shares go up with it. I've noticed that the reported length of the share chain length seems to vary quite a bit (from 17K-20K), which doesn't seem right. Aside from the memory spikes, when the orphan/dead rate gets really bad the pool rate charts don't seem to update (the charts for local activity are fine) until I try restarting things. Sometime I just restart p2pool other times I restart bitcoind as well and hope that helps. On the mining side I even tried switching from phoenix to cgminer. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS.

I'd say I've been having problems since sharechain V10, and it has been really bad with sharechain V11

[organofcorti]

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

PatMan,

nothing to be fixed here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.it/2012/11/52-p2pool-achieving-expectations.html

spiccioli

A very interesting and informative read indeed, thanks for that link. However, am I right in saying that the information used goes up to mid November? If so, my problems started after that period, especially when the stratum code was implemented, and turning it off made no difference. It's also about that time that the 30 day luck charts started it's gradual but continuous nose dive, or did I read it wrong?

Peace.

Edit: I personally never had any problems with memory leak on 11.04 64bit.

p2Pool's luck has not been unusual.

Number of blocks since 15th November: 130
Average shares per round / Difficulty since 15th November: 1.018761
CDF: 0.5955248

All quite typical for any pool.

If you want an idea of how unusual pool luck would have to be in order to be either better or worse than 95% of 130 block sequences, the interval of shares per round / difficulty is  [0.8354974, 1.1790661].

So average shares per round / difficulty less than ~ 0.84 or greater than ~ 1.18 over 130 blocks would be unusual. Average shares per round / difficulty = 1.02 is not unusual.

[zvs]

I've been having major problems with keeping my orphan/dead rate in check. Some p2pool invocations were getting me 0% efficiency. I don't have much hashing power so it can take up to a day for me to know if it's a problem or not. Memory use goes way up, and then the orphan/dead shares go up with it. I've noticed that the reported length of the share chain length seems to vary quite a bit (from 17K-20K), which doesn't seem right. Aside from the memory spikes, when the orphan/dead rate gets really bad the pool rate charts don't seem to update (the charts for local activity are fine) until I try restarting things. Sometime I just restart p2pool other times I restart bitcoind as well and hope that helps. On the mining side I even tried switching from phoenix to cgminer. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS.

I'd say I've been having problems since sharechain V10, and it has been really bad with sharechain V11

in your bitcoin.conf file set your maximum block size to something like 5000.  that way if someone puts in some insane fee in a transaction you'll pick it up, but wont significantly raise your # of orphans by keeping the default value, which I believe is 250kb

p2pool's main problem is being penalized for including transactions.  the bonus for solving a block should be the entirety of the transaction fees instead of what it is now... simple fix

memory leak, the second issue:

http://nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?Month

i noticed that when i started up p2pool this last time, I had a bunch of old share files in the directory so it started me at like 35k shares.  it also started p2pool at 530KB memory, and it never cleared it

[mdude77]

I've been having major problems with keeping my orphan/dead rate in check. Some p2pool invocations were getting me 0% efficiency. I don't have much hashing power so it can take up to a day for me to know if it's a problem or not. Memory use goes way up, and then the orphan/dead shares go up with it. I've noticed that the reported length of the share chain length seems to vary quite a bit (from 17K-20K), which doesn't seem right. Aside from the memory spikes, when the orphan/dead rate gets really bad the pool rate charts don't seem to update (the charts for local activity are fine) until I try restarting things. Sometime I just restart p2pool other times I restart bitcoind as well and hope that helps. On the mining side I even tried switching from phoenix to cgminer. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS.

I'd say I've been having problems since sharechain V10, and it has been really bad with sharechain V11

I solved my orphan/dead rate by turning off all port forwarding on my router.  I had it going to p2pool, namecoin, and bitcoin.  Now with the extra bandwidth, my orphan/dead rate is usually significantly lower than the pool.

That said, I'm not convinced there's not something wrong with the pool either.  I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.  I'm on bitminter now.  I was paying 1% fee on p2pool, now I'm paying 0.5% on bitminter, I get less variance, and I still get namecoins.

M

[organofcorti]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

[PatMan]

I've been having major problems with keeping my orphan/dead rate in check. Some p2pool invocations were getting me 0% efficiency. I don't have much hashing power so it can take up to a day for me to know if it's a problem or not. Memory use goes way up, and then the orphan/dead shares go up with it. I've noticed that the reported length of the share chain length seems to vary quite a bit (from 17K-20K), which doesn't seem right. Aside from the memory spikes, when the orphan/dead rate gets really bad the pool rate charts don't seem to update (the charts for local activity are fine) until I try restarting things. Sometime I just restart p2pool other times I restart bitcoind as well and hope that helps. On the mining side I even tried switching from phoenix to cgminer. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS.

I'd say I've been having problems since sharechain V10, and it has been really bad with sharechain V11

I agree, my problems started with v10 also, and got worse with v11 - which also matches up with the beginning of the bad luck streak. It's just too coincidental me thinks........everything before v10 was grand.......but hey, I'm a noob, and I'm not kidding when I say I still have a lot to learn about this. But just look at that chart - something's wrong.

[mdude77]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

It's optional, and called "1% donation to author". 

M

[organofcorti]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

It's optional, and called "1% donation to author". 

M

I apologise, I misunderstood. However, comparing an optional 1% donation to an optional 0.5% donation makes not sense. Can you not select 0.5% as the optional donation to the p2Pool?

[Rogue Star]

While I appreciate the suggestions, I do not want to "degrade" the network by being "greedy". I prefer to promote network health while being passively greedy. You might disagree with saying it degrades the network, but if I were solo mining I'd be able to include all transactions and allow port forwarding without any meaningful cost. You can also say I should be greedy, but again if I were solo mining the cost of including transactions is negligible. Whatever the problem is, I'm pretty sure it's p2pool.

I've also noticed in the network graphs that there is no incoming data from peers in the places where the data is "stuck", so I assume that would explain the very high orphan/dead rates, but perhaps not the above average rates I'm seeing otherwise. I do see outgoing data at those times, which I would think would be somewhat harmful to the network is things are out of sync.

I'm not entirely convinced p2pool is having a bad streak, but I do think the p2pool network is not as healthy as it may appear. One thing I don't think I've seen a good explanation about is the effect of share and/or block chains not being entirely in sync on the network health. I'm sure most people do a good job keeping them in sync, but what of the minority that are not?

[K1773R]

While I appreciate the suggestions, I do not want to "degrade" the network by being "greedy". I prefer to promote network health while being passively greedy. You might disagree with saying it degrades the network, but if I were solo mining I'd be able to include all transactions and allow port forwarding without any meaningful cost. You can also say I should be greedy, but again if I were solo mining the cost of including transactions is negligible. Whatever the problem is, I'm pretty sure it's p2pool.

I've also noticed in the network graphs that there is no incoming data from peers in the places where the data is "stuck", so I assume that would explain the very high orphan/dead rates, but perhaps not the above average rates I'm seeing otherwise. I do see outgoing data at those times, which I would think would be somewhat harmful to the network is things are out of sync.

I'm not entirely convinced p2pool is having a bad streak, but I do think the p2pool network is not as healthy as it may appear. One thing I don't think I've seen a good explanation about is the effect of share and/or block chains not being entirely in sync on the network health. I'm sure most people do a good job keeping them in sync, but what of the minority that are not?

if ur bitcoind isnt synced u get 100% orphan

[mdude77]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

It's optional, and called "1% donation to author". 

M

I apologise, I misunderstood. However, comparing an optional 1% donation to an optional 0.5% donation makes not sense. Can you not select 0.5% as the optional donation to the p2Pool?

Of course I can.  But why? 

M

[organofcorti]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

It's optional, and called "1% donation to author". 

M

I apologise, I misunderstood. However, comparing an optional 1% donation to an optional 0.5% donation makes not sense. Can you not select 0.5% as the optional donation to the p2Pool?

Of course I can.  But why? 

M

You're comparing the fee you pay on Bitminter compared to what you paid on p2Pool:

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool, now I'm paying 0.5% on bitminter, I get less variance, and I still get namecoins.

You might not have meant it that way, but it reads as if you're comparing the two fees.

[mdude77]

I'm been using p2pool for a while, and while there are bad streaks, there's never been one this bad.

Yes, there have:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/51-p2pool-bad-luck-or-flawed.html

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool....

No you weren't. p2Pool does not have a fee.

It's optional, and called "1% donation to author". 

M

I apologise, I misunderstood. However, comparing an optional 1% donation to an optional 0.5% donation makes not sense. Can you not select 0.5% as the optional donation to the p2Pool?

Of course I can.  But why? 

M

You're comparing the fee you pay on Bitminter compared to what you paid on p2Pool:

I was paying 1% fee on p2pool, now I'm paying 0.5% on bitminter, I get less variance, and I still get namecoins.

You might not have meant it that way, but it reads as if you're comparing the two fees.

I am.  It doesn't make sense to use p2pool w/o supporting the author.  And the 0.5% "fee" on bitminter is so I have access to API stats.  In my mind, bitminter comes out ahead.

M

[organofcorti]

I am.  It doesn't make sense to use p2pool w/o supporting the author.  And the 0.5% "fee" on bitminter is so I have access to API stats.  In my mind, bitminter comes out ahead.

M

You could have chosen a 0.5% donation to forrestv. The fee comparison is not valid.