kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 05:07:11 AM |
|
The question is if KnC has fixed the 10s LP issue (10s job reset) ... a KnC takes 10s to do an LP So with that issue, 33% of your mining time on p2pool is ... idle.
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 10:29:47 AM Last edit: November 16, 2013, 01:44:45 PM by zvs |
|
@zvs: When I'm mining on your node, and it goes down, my cgminer client totally locks up and stops working. Other nodes, however, don't have that problem and cgminer properly switches to failover nodes. Has anyone else seen this on your node? I don't remember the error it gave; I stopped mining on it after it happened a few times (3 times last week).
I thought about it some more... since this behavior should be common to all p2pools (stratum "interrupted" after a 90s period of no block/new work), mine shouldn't cause a disconnect/lockup/whatever any more (or less) frequently than any others. Maybe latency has something to do with it? A really small window for stratum to reconnect? ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) If you're in the US, 198.12.127.2 should have low latency... I'll drop the fee on it to 0%, anyway (ed: in about 10-15 minutes, have to check log and redo --p2pool-node's and such)... if ANYONE wants to mess with it. I assume that port 9332 works, though it does seem a bit odd that not one person has mined on there in 2-3 weeks though ok, done. i changed something in the code that might or might not do something as well 198.12.127.2:9332, has 0% fee now ed: i just tested it myself. had the 90s delay, didn't get an interrupted on my vid card, so i think i fixed it. i'll reset 5.9.24.81 in a bit and put it back to 0% for a while
|
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 01:46:10 PM |
|
What flags are you using for cgminer? I have had a dozen types of miners including a Jupiter on my node and they always fail over fine to my backup pool when I take the node down for maintenance. failover-only is the only thing I add to my conf for ASICs.
No flags set - it's essentially a default Jupiter but with 4 pools for failover. The symptom I've recently seen has been 2 Jupiters which stop hashing at the exact same time. When investigated, cgminer is no longer running, screen is no longer running. This behavior has not happened on other pools - only on p2pool and now twice in less than a week. Failover works correctly for other non-p2pools. With the combination of no idle worker alerts and this crashing behavior, it's just easier and safer to use standard pools. Looking forward to when p2pool gets an alert feature.
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 01:53:10 PM Last edit: November 16, 2013, 02:42:39 PM by zvs |
|
d'oh, I hadn't reset it yet and someone started.... and I got the 1/100 chance of the share.. still putting together a p2pool-node list =/ oh, it's set to wrong name, anyway... have to use payout address ![Undecided](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/undecided.gif) ok, i think the whole interrupt thing should be fixed now, and it's set back to 0% ed: haha, figures that hetzner's network starts messing up right after i fix that. it's definitely reissuing the work faster now though, so no 1-2 second delay there if it goes 90 seconds w/o anything. at least when hetzner isn't getting 20% ploss and 400ms ping times
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 16, 2013, 10:19:21 PM |
|
To all p2pool users: Please consider using the patched Bitcoin main client that de-prioritises re-used addresses patched Bitcoin main client that de-prioritises re-used addresses. This will not affect the processing of payments to the addresses that p2pool users all re-use for our reward payments, as confirmed by the author of the patch. The future value of everyone's Bitcoin depends on removing the effectiveness of the coloured lists. De-prioritising re-used addresses will make Green listed addresses unattractive, and hopefully it will be possible to change the culture, using HD keychains, to need to re-use addresses by anyone, including making mining with an alternating address a reality (which can only be a privacy enhancement). forrestv, please consider the options. Right now, it is possible that p2pool could benefit from moving to a self defined username model, with the p2pool client requesting a new public key for reward payments each time we hit a new round. Possibly this could introduce problems with orphaning blocks that are found consecutively, on the rare occasions that this has occured on p2pool. In the future, enabling the use of BIP32 keychains for reward payment is also an option. Do not be concerned that this is a privacy issue, multiple keychains can be created per wallet, and so you can create a specific keychain to use only with p2pool or whoever else you wish to mine with. Support the discouraging of address re-use.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 04:30:10 AM |
|
OK, so I'm guessing people probably use 204.10.105.113:9332/static because of the domain p2pool.org... even though it's horribly set up & has a 2% fee. quite sad really, when one looks at the one month/one year chart. (oh and ofc he never took me up on my offer, no mails from that guy) now, second question, why do people use elizium.name?... or is it just all local traffic? though I'd be shocked if 95% or more of it wasn't just from random people using a remote p2pool. 400 shares I think is enough to get a trend & 55 orphans is bad. I can see there's 11 outgoing connections, but I guess I'll assume that those are just random outgoing connections? It looks like my node @ 198.12.127.2 used one of its random outgoing connections to hook up w/ it, but not connected to me at the other two places. normally i'd add it to --p2pool-node since it seems to be on a fast enough computer & good connection, but i've just been observing the sub 100% efficiency for the last few days & curiosity killed the cat. Is it all just because of that interface? The most important part is busted (the share explorer). I also don't understand why so many people use 183.136.216.39:9332/static/graphs.html?Year when it's absolutely horrid. 10 outgoing connections, that are either totally random or not good choices. For location (China), he's not connecting to some critical western US & Russian nodes that he should be on. I *think* it's also on an old version of bitcoind. at least it's at 0% fee But why would you use that over this: mine.yuyi.tw:9332 a far superior pool in Taiwan with 1/10th the hashrate. This one runs 0% fee too, so that's not it is there some place i'm missing where these sites are being advertised? reddit? asic hardware manufacturer forums? lol. some people want to use p2pool for whatever reason, but don't want to spend money on hosting for their own node (I'll assume they live in a crap rural area like myself w/ shit for bandwidth). but why always choose the wrong pools? then you get all the bullshit misinformation about how p2pool pays out less than <insert x pool>. yeah, probably cause you were on one of these low efficiency pools or running a local node that was getting 15% orphans and 5% DOA.. though if it weren't for those people, I guess the rest wouldn't be picking up the bonus but, seriously, who is mining on one of those 3 pools right now and why? is there anyone that reads this thread that does? if not, where are they coming from?
|
|
|
|
jedimstr
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 05:04:09 AM |
|
OK, so I'm guessing people probably use 204.10.105.113:9332/static because of the domain p2pool.org... even though it's horribly set up & has a 2% fee. quite sad really, when one looks at the one month/one year chart. (oh and ofc he never took me up on my offer, no mails from that guy) now, second question, why do people use elizium.name?... or is it just all local traffic? though I'd be shocked if 95% or more of it wasn't just from random people using a remote p2pool. 400 shares I think is enough to get a trend & 55 orphans is bad. I can see there's 11 outgoing connections, but I guess I'll assume that those are just random outgoing connections? It looks like my node @ 198.12.127.2 used one of its random outgoing connections to hook up w/ it, but not connected to me at the other two places. normally i'd add it to --p2pool-node since it seems to be on a fast enough computer & good connection, but i've just been observing the sub 100% efficiency for the last few days & curiosity killed the cat. Is it all just because of that interface? The most important part is busted (the share explorer). I also don't understand why so many people use 183.136.216.39:9332/static/graphs.html?Year when it's absolutely horrid. 10 outgoing connections, that are either totally random or not good choices. For location (China), he's not connecting to some critical western US & Russian nodes that he should be on. I *think* it's also on an old version of bitcoind. at least it's at 0% fee But why would you use that over this: mine.yuyi.tw:9332 a far superior pool in Taiwan with 1/10th the hashrate. This one runs 0% fee too, so that's not it is there some place i'm missing where these sites are being advertised? reddit? asic hardware manufacturer forums? lol. some people want to use p2pool for whatever reason, but don't want to spend money on hosting for their own node (I'll assume they live in a crap rural area like myself w/ shit for bandwidth). but why always choose the wrong pools? then you get all the bullshit misinformation about how p2pool pays out less than <insert x pool>. yeah, probably cause you were on one of these low efficiency pools or running a local node that was getting 15% orphans and 5% DOA.. though if it weren't for those people, I guess the rest wouldn't be picking up the bonus but, seriously, who is mining on one of those 3 pools right now and why? is there anyone that reads this thread that does? if not, where are they coming from? I use Elizium for one of my backup failovers so I can keep on p2pool when my local node is updated and needs to restart. Secondary Backup on BTCGuild. Elizium's current efficiency of 105% isn't bad and they have decent uptime and ping from my location. Of course I only need them for the minute or so when I'm restarting the node after a git pull or the few minutes I need to do a full reboot and system maintenance.
|
|
|
|
revilo
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 09:40:21 AM |
|
Hi guys, I'm new to Mining BTC with P2Pool as I have always been an LTC miner! I've setup my pool pool.play4.co.uk:9332 And I'm hashing at approx 10GH/s Estimated time to share is about 1 day! Is there anyway to lower this share target or do I just need more miners on here to speed things up? P.S Anybody that wants to join in with my pool please feel free it's 0% fee ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 12:57:50 PM |
|
OK, so I'm guessing people probably use 204.10.105.113:9332/static because of the domain p2pool.org... even though it's horribly set up & has a 2% fee. quite sad really, when one looks at the one month/one year chart. (oh and ofc he never took me up on my offer, no mails from that guy) now, second question, why do people use elizium.name?... or is it just all local traffic? though I'd be shocked if 95% or more of it wasn't just from random people using a remote p2pool. 400 shares I think is enough to get a trend & 55 orphans is bad. I can see there's 11 outgoing connections, but I guess I'll assume that those are just random outgoing connections? It looks like my node @ 198.12.127.2 used one of its random outgoing connections to hook up w/ it, but not connected to me at the other two places. normally i'd add it to --p2pool-node since it seems to be on a fast enough computer & good connection, but i've just been observing the sub 100% efficiency for the last few days & curiosity killed the cat. Is it all just because of that interface? The most important part is busted (the share explorer). I also don't understand why so many people use 183.136.216.39:9332/static/graphs.html?Year when it's absolutely horrid. 10 outgoing connections, that are either totally random or not good choices. For location (China), he's not connecting to some critical western US & Russian nodes that he should be on. I *think* it's also on an old version of bitcoind. at least it's at 0% fee But why would you use that over this: mine.yuyi.tw:9332 a far superior pool in Taiwan with 1/10th the hashrate. This one runs 0% fee too, so that's not it is there some place i'm missing where these sites are being advertised? reddit? asic hardware manufacturer forums? lol. some people want to use p2pool for whatever reason, but don't want to spend money on hosting for their own node (I'll assume they live in a crap rural area like myself w/ shit for bandwidth). but why always choose the wrong pools? then you get all the bullshit misinformation about how p2pool pays out less than <insert x pool>. yeah, probably cause you were on one of these low efficiency pools or running a local node that was getting 15% orphans and 5% DOA.. though if it weren't for those people, I guess the rest wouldn't be picking up the bonus but, seriously, who is mining on one of those 3 pools right now and why? is there anyone that reads this thread that does? if not, where are they coming from? I use Elizium for one of my backup failovers so I can keep on p2pool when my local node is updated and needs to restart. Secondary Backup on BTCGuild. Elizium's current efficiency of 105% isn't bad and they have decent uptime and ping from my location. Of course I only need them for the minute or so when I'm restarting the node after a git pull or the few minutes I need to do a full reboot and system maintenance. That wouldn't be causing it to get the 4thash then... ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Uh, I think all these bizarre miners on my node are just someone loading me up with TCP sockets that never close. The daily chart at the moment has quite a few: http://www.nogleg.com:9332/static/graphs.html?DayThis Kyle Rubenok fellow in particular doesn't really seem like a bitcoin miner to me. I've tried to contact a few of those ppl, anyway Here's an example from dstat: ------sockets------ --net/eth0- -dsk/total- ---load-avg--- ----interrupts--- tot tcp udp raw frg| recv send| read writ| 1m 5m 15m | 44 54 55 981 940 3 0 0| 108k 603k| 0 0 |0.09 0.21 0.22| 0 0 1403 982 940 3 0 0| 243k 1255k| 0 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 0 0 3291 982 940 3 0 0| 79k 622k| 0 24k|0.16 0.22 0.23| 7 0 1092 984 942 3 0 0| 168k 991k| 112k 80k|0.16 0.22 0.23| 18 0 2319 987 945 3 0 0| 289k 911k| 52k 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 4 0 1473 987 945 3 0 0| 313k 992k| 0 0 |0.16 0.22 0.23| 0 0 1633 987 945 3 0 0| 284k 881k| 0 0 |0.15 0.22 0.23| 0 0 844 987 945 3 0 0| 181k 1163k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 2430 987 945 3 0 0| 45k 625k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 786 989 947 3 0 0| 30k 353k| 0 0 |0.27 0.25 0.23| 0 0 473 992 950 3 0 0| 130k 786k| 0 16k|0.27 0.25 0.23| 4 0 1593 992 950 3 0 0| 56k 418k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 1 0 715 992 950 3 0 0| 190k 1110k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 0 0 2562 992 949 3 0 0| 72k 2964k| 0 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1437 992 949 3 0 0| 146k 3193k| 0 24k|0.25 0.24 0.23| 6 0 2251 994 951 3 0 0| 94k 3100k|2048k 0 |0.25 0.24 0.23| 5 0 1342 998 955 3 0 0| 73k 3181k| 0 0 |0.23 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1295 998 955 3 0 0| 106k 3168k|2048k 0 |0.23 0.24 0.23| 5 0 1383 998 955 3 0 0| 46k 2527k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 993 997 954 3 0 0| 122k 1866k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1815 997 954 3 0 0| 43k 2023k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 981 998 955 3 0 0| 48k 2575k| 0 568k|0.22 0.24 0.23| 8 0 1047 998 955 3 0 0| 92k 4088k| 0 0 |0.22 0.24 0.23| 0 0 1328 998 955 3 0 0| 104k 3917k| 0 0 |0.28 0.25 0.23| 0 0 1279 998 955 3 0 0| 96k 4044k| 0 0 |0.28 0.25 0.23| 0 0 1315 the 1st and 2nd numbers being of interest (it was 900 to 1000 in a minute or so) this also caused a stratum disconnect & some lost shares, though I'm not sure if that's even related to this, since Hetzner itself is getting 600ms ping times and hardcore packetloss as well... Some ping stats around the same time: Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.82: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=46
Ping statistics for 5.9.24.82: Packets: Sent = 5596, Received = 5491, Lost = 105 (1% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 179ms, Maximum = 286ms, Average = 186ms
Pinging google.com [74.125.227.238] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 74.125.227.238: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=56 Reply from 74.125.227.238: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 74.125.227.238: Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 46ms
Pinging 5.9.24.81 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=605ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=47 Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47 Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=47 Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47 Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=603ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47 Reply from 5.9.24.81: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47 Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 5.9.24.81: Packets: Sent = 22, Received = 11, Lost = 11 (50% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 594ms, Maximum = 605ms, Average = 600ms
Pinging hetzner.de [213.133.107.227] with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=598ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=593ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=593ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=589ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=594ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=589ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=574ms TTL=47 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=493ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=498ms TTL=47 Reply from 213.133.107.227: bytes=32 time=457ms TTL=47 I don't see why so many people would mine w/ invalid addresses to a p2pool node, honestly. I mean, I've had a big warning written up there for several weeks now. A couple of the "real" addresses have zero total transactions, but a few are active.... So, are all these locked sockets just being caused by Hetzner's network getting messed up, is there really a dozen or two people not using a valid bitcoin address mining to me over the last week? Does anyone else get hundreds of dead sockets to 9332?
|
|
|
|
jedimstr
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 01:17:19 PM |
|
...snip... That wouldn't be causing it to get the 4thash then... ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) ....snip... I wish... ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 01:20:41 PM Last edit: November 17, 2013, 01:48:39 PM by zvs |
|
ed: fixed name As far as the bgahl@bawcsa.org (awfully similar to the person mining under " bgahl@bawcsa.org_batman" on pool), I did notice this: nm, that info was too old. there are a few reports of email spam coming from bgahl@bawcsa.org, but i doubt that really has any relevance maybe the non-clearing sockets are just a side effect of hetzner having some rather serious issues atm? that would be a bug within python I guess? heh, Type: Fault report Categories: Network Start: November 17, 2013 1:30:00 PM CET End: Unknown Description: We have unfortunately just experienced a large incoming attack on a server in RZ19. We have resolved the issue and are currently dropping the udp traffic for 144.76.36.0/27. It appears the Attack switches targets, we'll may need to put additional IP or Subnet on this filter rules. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. Thank you for your understanding. ... my point about the sockets not closing still stands tho... I was having that problem *before* this was announced =p .. and it isn't resolved, still get about 60% ploss to hetzner.de... 144.76.36, some bitcoin pool there? heh
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 01:55:25 PM |
|
it looks like their plan so far has been rotating null routing? wtf..
|
|
|
|
semaster
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 06:07:03 PM |
|
zvs, thanks that you care so much about p2pool if you have some suggestions about efficiency of http://elizium.name write me please. this node based on an excellent server with a lot of memory, bandwidth, good pings, 99.9% uptime so there is a lot of reasons to use it any ways
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 17, 2013, 08:19:01 PM Last edit: November 17, 2013, 08:34:52 PM by zvs |
|
zvs, thanks that you care so much about p2pool if you have some suggestions about efficiency of http://elizium.name write me please. this node based on an excellent server with a lot of memory, bandwidth, good pings, 99.9% uptime so there is a lot of reasons to use it any ways yeah, i've noticed it's on a really good system (next time i restart it, you're in my p2pool-node list so that should help some anyway) i'm having issues w/ my own right now, at least some of it is probably connected to dropping efficiency rate w/ higher hash rate? but finally someone w/ decent hash rate sat on here for a bit, now i'm getting occasional stratum interrupts on my video card. it resyncs fine, but some other ppl report that it essentially destroys the connection and never fixes itself? i'm trying it now with an expiry time of 60 seconds instead of 120 seconds, then stratum should never time out? i know machine isn't overloaded or anything, so not really sure what the deal is with that/.. but whoever that was is gone now, so i'll have to test some more later i guess, haha i see the getblocktemplate latency went up a lot.. i guess i should put p2pool in tmpfs also, that's strange. i do still have memory leak issues with bitcoind, it was up to 6GB memory, so i reset that i'm also getting those random miners again w/o having a bitcoin address set. this time fr333n3rgy, which looks like another minecraft player, same with ccg121. capitall is too generic a name, tomparis2000, well, i don't know what's up w/ those google results. just a lot of ppl that come over for a minute or two w/o bitcoin addresses. is there someone running a modified pool somewhere where people have user accounts & they have other p2pools as backups? do you get a lot of ppl w/o a bitcoin address as username as well? it's also still having the issue of leaving 9332 sockets open, i have about 200 so far now
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 18, 2013, 11:10:01 PM Last edit: November 19, 2013, 03:31:23 AM by zvs |
|
Well, I just restarted everything w/ the latest git of p2pool. 28 shares, 1 orphan, 5 DOA amongst all four All 5 DOA came from one reporting a 12% DOA & the historical DOA would make around 2-2.5 or so normal. I did notice that all 5 DOA came from the same worker, while the other workers had 0 (the worker with 5 DOA shares had 8 or 9 total.... just extremely unlucky, or it's underreporting some DOA % or what?). I did notice the web values don't always coincide with the values you see in your log Anyway, nothing changed other than the index.html & number of outgoing and incoming connections on this new git. Not sure if it still did/does the stratum connection interrupts or not? btw: I'm assuming this increasing latency from everyone is because of all the free priority transactions that p2pool stores? 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:39 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter 2013-11-18 23:59:40 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : free transaction rejected by rate limiter
i'm assuming it stores them all somewhere, else i'd get a lot more of the log:2013-11-18 17:46:18.884577 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248810 54ae5455 log:2013-11-18 17:46:53.459911 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248925 9d3b9599 log:2013-11-18 17:47:30.062552 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248888 b5e1de16 log:2013-11-18 17:47:41.372764 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248888 b5e1de16 log:2013-11-18 17:47:45.965405 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248823 b174ddb7 log:2013-11-18 17:47:50.254166 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248823 b174ddb7 log:2013-11-18 17:48:17.342628 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248929 b771bc0a log:2013-11-18 17:48:23.296767 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248778 05d4da52 log:2013-11-18 17:48:28.075889 invalid hash for xxx 'remember_tx' 248778 05d4da52 ed: haha, ok, this time I'm seriously done w/ p2pool. too buggy & f*cked up. bogs system down hardcore when 100 people connect to you for 2 seconds. fails to close closets. could be a python problem. plus no response from developer... oh, yeah, gg having like 400 sockets clear after closing p2pool process
|
|
|
|
jedimstr
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 19, 2013, 09:14:44 AM |
|
Zvs: I guess this means we should remove your 3 servers from our Bitcoin addnode and p2pool -n lists?
|
|
|
|
Krak
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 19, 2013, 12:18:16 PM |
|
ed: haha, ok, this time I'm seriously done w/ p2pool. too buggy & f*cked up. bogs system down hardcore when 100 people connect to you for 2 seconds. fails to close closets. could be a python problem. plus no response from developer... oh, yeah, gg having like 400 sockets clear after closing p2pool process
It's almost as if it was never meant to have that many connections. Oh wait...
|
BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
|
|
|
HellDiverUK
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 19, 2013, 02:13:02 PM |
|
Cool, should mean less wall-of-text meaningless ramblings on this thread, too. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
zvs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 19, 2013, 04:14:12 PM Last edit: November 19, 2013, 04:24:54 PM by zvs |
|
Zvs: I guess this means we should remove your 3 servers from our Bitcoin addnode and p2pool -n lists?
Yah. ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) It's almost as if it was never meant to have that many connections. Oh wait... Sure seems that way. I imagine it's why p2pool.org runs so horribly. Doesn't mean that it's a problem that should be ignored. Cool, should mean less wall-of-text meaningless ramblings on this thread, too. Even the poster above you caught the drift, but you just seem to be oblivious on second thought, you're not oblivious, just a jackass. the guy running p2pool.org is oblivious. p2pool.org:9332/static/graphs.html?Day ... upgrade ... bitcoind ... version ...
|
|
|
|
agibby5
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 19, 2013, 04:45:20 PM |
|
Except to the fact that he was able to secure p2pool.org.
|
|
|
|
|