smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 12:00:40 AM |
|
EDIT: I guess my point is p2pool isn't for everyone. True supporters of the p2pool concept acknowledge that. The rest treat p2pool as a religion, as from their perspective, anyone who has a problem must not have their settings right or not understand the system.
On a related subject variance importance is often blown out of proportions and people willingly choose pools that pay between 3 and 5% less monthly because p2pool pays less nearly one day out of two. This behavior is not limited to pool choice: many forfeit long term gains for short term gains in most domains. I agree, a mining friend of mine told me I should give P2Pool a chance for 30 days or so to see the overall gain over using a fee based pool. So far I have to say at I am happy to be at least hashing, the fee based pool I have been using lately hasn't had any blocks to be hashed so my miners have been spinning their wheels.
|
|
|
|
smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 12:01:23 AM |
|
How do I get the p2pool pages for /users/ /local_stats/ etc looking pleasing instead of lines of word wrapped text?
Also I have the latest version installed and /graphs/ doesn't work telling me "no such resource" is this normal?
Thanks
https://github.com/hardcpp/P2PoolExtendedFrontEndSorry when it says put these files in your web-static folder, does it just mean the files or do I need to download the folders too? (just wondering so I am not doing something tiwce) $ cd p2pool $ mv web-static web-static.orig $ unzip P2PoolExtendedFrontEnd.zip $ mv P2PoolExtendedFrontEnd web-static from browser hit you 9332 port, you should see improved UI. -alan To edit some of the links on the page that's all in the index I suppose?
|
|
|
|
gyverlb
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:03:33 AM |
|
I've never seen anyone say good things about QoS. In fact, I've seen lots of people say turn it off, it hoses things, and I've seen it here in this thread.
I really don't care about what people say but about what is doable. I've configured QoS on my Linux server, it works, end of story. If people use QoS on their Linux server and it doesn't work for them I can provide tips. Who doesn't use the bandwidth for anything else? You misunderstood. QoS allows bandwidth for other traffic but for it to work you must have some headroom, if you need all of your available bandwidth for other traffics you can't use p2pool, if you only need what's above 256-512kbps in both directions then you can fit p2pool and bitcoind in with various levels of efficiency. See my prior post. What's your 12 day comparison? I realize it's probably too short, but I'd like to see. We can compare again in 18 days.
You don't have to ask here, the information is already public. Go to p2pool.info and you'll have data for a theoretical 100% efficient p2pool node. Given that you mentioned a cube I suppose you have an ASICMiner cube. Unless they have a different miner implementation than the blades you are probably out of luck on p2pool. IIRC the blade miner could only do getwork and poorly: it didn't work well on several pools including p2pool because of their implementation. If this didn't change you are probably better off letting the beast mine on whatever pools you could find that worked fine with it.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:29:34 AM |
|
I've never seen anyone say good things about QoS. In fact, I've seen lots of people say turn it off, it hoses things, and I've seen it here in this thread.
I really don't care about what people say but about what is doable. I've configured QoS on my Linux server, it works, end of story. If people use QoS on their Linux server and it doesn't work for them I can provide tips. That might be the difference. The average person isn't going to use QoS on a Linux server. The average person is going to have a cheap router that touts QoS, but the reality is it doesn't work well. Who doesn't use the bandwidth for anything else?
You misunderstood. QoS allows bandwidth for other traffic but for it to work you must have some headroom, if you need all of your available bandwidth for other traffics you can't use p2pool, if you only need what's above 256-512kbps in both directions then you can fit p2pool and bitcoind in with various levels of efficiency. I know what QoS is. I have theoretical 768k up. If I need p2pool and bitcoin to use 2/3's of that, I'm in trouble. You don't have to ask here, the information is already public. Go to p2pool.info and you'll have data for a theoretical 100% efficient p2pool node.
I don't care what theoretical is. I want to know what people are really getting! Given that you mentioned a cube I suppose you have an ASICMiner cube. Unless they have a different miner implementation than the blades you are probably out of luck on p2pool. IIRC the blade miner could only do getwork and poorly: it didn't work well on several pools including p2pool because of their implementation. If this didn't change you are probably better off letting the beast mine on whatever pools you could find that worked fine with it.
If I was to attempt it I'd run it through a stratum proxy, as I'm doing now. But as I've implied a few times, there's no way I'm pointing 38gh/s at 1m share difficulty. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:51:55 AM |
|
I've never seen anyone say good things about QoS. In fact, I've seen lots of people say turn it off, it hoses things, and I've seen it here in this thread.
I really don't care about what people say but about what is doable. I've configured QoS on my Linux server, it works, end of story. If people use QoS on their Linux server and it doesn't work for them I can provide tips. That might be the difference. The average person isn't going to use QoS on a Linux server. The average person is going to have a cheap router that touts QoS, but the reality is it doesn't work well. Who doesn't use the bandwidth for anything else?
You misunderstood. QoS allows bandwidth for other traffic but for it to work you must have some headroom, if you need all of your available bandwidth for other traffics you can't use p2pool, if you only need what's above 256-512kbps in both directions then you can fit p2pool and bitcoind in with various levels of efficiency. I know what QoS is. I have theoretical 768k up. If I need p2pool and bitcoin to use 2/3's of that, I'm in trouble. You don't have to ask here, the information is already public. Go to p2pool.info and you'll have data for a theoretical 100% efficient p2pool node.
I don't care what theoretical is. I want to know what people are really getting! Given that you mentioned a cube I suppose you have an ASICMiner cube. Unless they have a different miner implementation than the blades you are probably out of luck on p2pool. IIRC the blade miner could only do getwork and poorly: it didn't work well on several pools including p2pool because of their implementation. If this didn't change you are probably better off letting the beast mine on whatever pools you could find that worked fine with it.
If I was to attempt it I'd run it through a stratum proxy, as I'm doing now. But as I've implied a few times, there's no way I'm pointing 38gh/s at 1m share difficulty. M I would have to say if you have a good switch and aren't using a mickey mouse home one you should be good to go. Home managed switches have very low forwarding rates thus they can't move higher volumes of traffic over them compared to the enterprise class managed switches. So if you a good switch and are using good cabling, I would certainly enable jumbo frames before messing with the QOS. My firewall, Dell PowerConnect 6224 and my openSUSE (p2pool server) have jumbo frames enabled.
|
|
|
|
smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:57:51 AM |
|
is there a users page add-on for p2pool other than the front-end add-on?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
gyverlb
|
|
January 19, 2014, 02:29:32 AM |
|
You don't have to ask here, the information is already public. Go to p2pool.info and you'll have data for a theoretical 100% efficient p2pool node.
I don't care what theoretical is. I want to know what people are really getting! They are getting what the blocks found by p2pool pay them. These blocks aren't theoretical only a 100% efficient node is. If your node is averaging around 103% efficiency like mine for example you will get 103% of what p2pool.info reports. That's pure math.
|
|
|
|
bkminer
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Don't let the nam-shub in your operating system.
|
|
January 19, 2014, 04:19:04 AM |
|
I'm running a node for testing right now in a 2.6 Ghz Core i7 16GB RAM PCI-e SSD...and Ubuntu Server 12.04
My question is, I'm getting periodic spikes in both the getblocktemploate latency (upwards of 30s for a spike) and DOAs reported up from 4% to almost 30% then it calms down and I get a share. I have 17 shares 1 orphan 117% Efficiency. I've got about 1.4TH/s on the node. When this happens the p2pool app pegs CPU and then slowly calms down. I've tuned bitcoind for max block size etc. from the tuning guide as well. I have 6 out and 8 in p2pool connections.
I've also noticed my bitcoind has 98 connections and some of them have huge Recv-Q and Send-Q numbers... I'm on a 50 down 5 up cable modem so the connection shouldn't be the problem. I'm thinking those "dead" connections to bitcoind aren't doing me any good.
My payouts are going up for each share found, but the Spikes in DOA don't seem right. Any ideas what could be happening?
|
|
|
|
smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 04:27:59 AM |
|
I'm running a node for testing right now in a 2.6 Ghz Core i7 16GB RAM PCI-e SSD...and Ubuntu Server 12.04
My question is, I'm getting periodic spikes in both the getblocktemploate latency (upwards of 30s for a spike) and DOAs reported up from 4% to almost 30% then it calms down and I get a share. I have 17 shares 1 orphan 117% Efficiency. I've got about 1.4TH/s on the node. When this happens the p2pool app pegs CPU and then slowly calms down. I've tuned bitcoind for max block size etc. from the tuning guide as well. I have 6 out and 8 in p2pool connections.
I've also noticed my bitcoind has 98 connections and some of them have huge Recv-Q and Send-Q numbers... I'm on a 50 down 5 up cable modem so the connection shouldn't be the problem. I'm thinking those "dead" connections to bitcoind aren't doing me any good.
My payouts are going up for each share found, but the Spikes in DOA don't seem right. Any ideas what could be happening?
How long have you been running for? I haven't been running for very long, a about 6 hours. But my DOA is 3% at 276GH/s my I have only have 2 shares but efficiency is 129%. I have been hitting 30s a couple of times but it doesn't seem to affect me much. I am using a Xi3 Z3RO Pro computer (4GB Ram, 120GB mSATA, dual core 1.65GHz AMD) running openSUSE not Ubuntu. The only other thing I have differently on my network is my CISCO firewall, managed switch, and P2Pool server have Jumbo Frames enabled. I use jumbo frames on other pieces of hardware in my network, such as my SAN and ESXi server so I figured I would give a try on the Z3RO Pro.
|
|
|
|
ikolubr
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
|
|
January 19, 2014, 05:11:57 AM |
|
Share check failed: 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148653 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148709 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148784 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148835 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148890 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-18 21:03:38.148946 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149002 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149056 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149113 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149163 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149217 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149271 > share.check(self) 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149326 > File "/home/breeba/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149380 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-18 21:03:38.149436 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid I'm getting this error on p2pool and my cpu goes 100%. The error is continuos. I've tried to delete the data folder, then it works nice for few hours and baam the error starts again! Another doubt: I've set up the pool to collect 2%, why may pout amount is always 0 and I just see payments eery 4 or 5 days? Any ideas?! Thank you, Igor my node: bitcoin.breeba.com:3330
|
|
|
|
bkminer
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Don't let the nam-shub in your operating system.
|
|
January 19, 2014, 05:27:13 AM |
|
Igor,
I get the same error and the same spikes in getblocktemplate latency you're getting. And it seems getting a share isn't related to it as I originally thought.
-Rick
|
|
|
|
nreal
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 932
Merit: 100
arcs-chain.com
|
|
January 19, 2014, 06:55:20 AM |
|
I'm running a node for testing right now in a 2.6 Ghz Core i7 16GB RAM PCI-e SSD...and Ubuntu Server 12.04
My question is, I'm getting periodic spikes in both the getblocktemploate latency (upwards of 30s for a spike) and DOAs reported up from 4% to almost 30% then it calms down and I get a share. I have 17 shares 1 orphan 117% Efficiency. I've got about 1.4TH/s on the node. When this happens the p2pool app pegs CPU and then slowly calms down. I've tuned bitcoind for max block size etc. from the tuning guide as well. I have 6 out and 8 in p2pool connections.
I've also noticed my bitcoind has 98 connections and some of them have huge Recv-Q and Send-Q numbers... I'm on a 50 down 5 up cable modem so the connection shouldn't be the problem. I'm thinking those "dead" connections to bitcoind aren't doing me any good.
My payouts are going up for each share found, but the Spikes in DOA don't seem right. Any ideas what could be happening?
I think that with your 5mbit upload the most you can handle is 10-15 bitcoind connections, more if you choose them carefully. Those random connections eats your upload bandwith - because theres allways someone downloading blockchain..
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 19, 2014, 10:18:03 AM |
|
You don't have to ask here, the information is already public. Go to p2pool.info and you'll have data for a theoretical 100% efficient p2pool node.
I don't care what theoretical is. I want to know what people are really getting! They are getting what the blocks found by p2pool pay them. These blocks aren't theoretical only a 100% efficient node is. If your node is averaging around 103% efficiency like mine for example you will get 103% of what p2pool.info reports. That's pure math. Yes, I understand that. I still want to see some numbers! You keep claiming you do better in p2pool than a conventional pool. Let's see numbers to prove it! We know theory and reality usually don't meet. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
lenny_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
DARKNETMARKETS.COM
|
|
January 19, 2014, 11:32:36 AM |
|
Today I found my p2pool BTC crashed, it was running fine for couple of days, but today I looked there and stats were not loading, so I logged via ssh to my machine and found this: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.698426 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.698468 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.698510 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.698550 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710423 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710527 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710573 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710623 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710683 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710725 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710770 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710812 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710855 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710892 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710935 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.710976 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.711017 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.711060 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.711100 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.711139 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723094 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723195 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723243 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723289 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723334 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723386 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723427 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723469 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723513 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723550 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723589 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723636 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723677 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723720 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723766 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.723808 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.742410 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.742704 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.742866 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743012 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743167 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743315 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743469 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743625 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743776 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.743925 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744068 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744218 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744400 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744553 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744699 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.744848 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770142 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770299 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770385 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770468 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770549 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770661 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770708 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770755 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770798 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770842 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770885 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770928 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.770972 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.771013 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.771052 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.771095 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782044 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782151 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782199 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782246 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782293 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782333 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782377 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782424 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782466 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782505 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782547 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782589 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782652 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782699 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782743 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.782787 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792553 > Share check failed: 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792661 > Traceback (most recent call last): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792708 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/p2p.py", line 283, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792753 > self.node.handle_shares(result, self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792799 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 48, in handle_shares 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792844 > self.node.set_best_share() 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792888 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 295, in set_best_share 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792934 > best, desired, decorated_heads = self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.792982 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 452, in think 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793024 > if self.attempt_verify(share): 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793063 > --- <exception caught here> --- 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793118 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 431, in attempt_verify 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793163 > share.check(self) 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793207 > File "/home/pioruns1/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 320, in check 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793246 > raise ValueError('share_info invalid') 2014-01-19 11:28:39.793287 > exceptions.ValueError: share_info invalid
Log was completely full of this crap. Litecoin p2pool on same machine is running fine now, so I presume it's not my PC problem. My PC details: Linux 3.11.0-15-generic x86_64 GNU/Linux Description: Ubuntu 13.10 Python 2.7.5+ Current p2pool version: 13.4-4-ge66e6d5
|
|
|
|
smoothrunnings
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:18:43 PM |
|
Have you restarted your Ubuntu to see if bitcoind and the P2Pool server startup again?
|
|
|
|
xgtele
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:22:20 PM |
|
May be its time to do sudo apt-get update and sudo apt-get upgrade for your Ubuntu?
|
|
|
|
clown
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:51:53 PM |
|
Is there a way to calculate (or even approximate) the current expected payout given the amount of pseudo shares accumulated?
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 19, 2014, 01:57:26 PM |
|
Is there a way to calculate (or even approximate) the current expected payout given the amount of pseudo shares accumulated?
I believe it tells you on the p2pool output. You should also be able to divide your number of shares by the number of shares in the chain and multiply that times 25 to get an approximate value. (I think...) M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
clown
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 19, 2014, 02:16:46 PM |
|
I believe it tells you on the p2pool output. You should also be able to divide your number of shares by the number of shares in the chain and multiply that times 25 to get an approximate value. (I think...)
M
I was under the impression that pseudo shares are not included in the share chain, only shares with diff above the p2pool diff are included. Another question. Let's pretend for a moment the p2pool share difficulty is at 10. A miner submits a share with difficulty 20 and the share goes into the share chain. During payout, is the value of the share capped to the share difficulty at the time of submission (10)? I'm trying to build a proxy pool that'd would be able to payout to miners on a pseudo share basis (much less variance for miners at higher risk to pool operator). And perhaps have a vardiff system based on the pseudo shares. Has anything like this been attempted before?
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 19, 2014, 02:38:51 PM |
|
I believe it tells you on the p2pool output. You should also be able to divide your number of shares by the number of shares in the chain and multiply that times 25 to get an approximate value. (I think...)
M
I was under the impression that pseudo shares are not included in the share chain, only shares with diff above the p2pool diff are included. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was referring to the shares above the p2pool diff share, which is what I thought you were asking. Another question. Let's pretend for a moment the p2pool share difficulty is at 10. A miner submits a share with difficulty 20 and the share goes into the share chain. During payout, is the value of the share capped to the share difficulty at the time of submission (10)?
It's capped at 10, like most pools. AFAIK ozcoin is the only one that has an option to go by share value, and it uses a much different payout system. I'm trying to build a proxy pool that'd would be able to payout to miners on a pseudo share basis (much less variance for miners at higher risk to pool operator). And perhaps have a vardiff system based on the pseudo shares. Has anything like this been attempted before?
It has been attempted before. I forget what it was called ... someone put up a server to do just that, complete with merged mining. It was fairly popular until it was hacked. I think you search the forums you can find it, I think the source might be available as well. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
|