IYFTech
|
|
October 05, 2014, 06:53:38 PM |
|
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already..... It's getting hard to find hardware that will work properly with p2pool nowadays, even 2nd hand gear, especially now that Bitmain are holding back on their next S3 batch release in an effort to sell more of their S4 train wrecks - I just hope they get the firmware fixed soon, but it ain't looking promising. In a perfect world, someone will come along with a complete re-write of p2pool soon.........
|
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1024
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
October 05, 2014, 08:46:20 PM |
|
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already..... It's getting hard to find hardware that will work properly with p2pool nowadays, even 2nd hand gear, especially now that Bitmain are holding back on their next S3 batch release in an effort to sell more of their S4 train wrecks - I just hope they get the firmware fixed soon, but it ain't looking promising. In a perfect world, someone will come along with a complete re-write of p2pool soon......... Yeah, the S4 really is a train wreck. PSUs burning out, boards with "x" all over, firmware that doesn't work, firmware updates that break and require you to remove the SD card. As for hardware, Spondoolies gear still plays well with p2pool - every one of their SPx miners. The S3s do just fine. That's really about it at this point.
|
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 09:16:35 PM |
|
I've set up a private pool solution for a reasonably large miner using a combination of p2pool and ckpool technology. You should all see a decent increase in the overall pool size over the next 24-48 hours.
This hasher is now online. His hashrate should be obvious, right at the top of the list. Barring changes in plans, and provided the hardware continues to hash well, it should be remaining on this pool. Now the interesting thing with this is, because I have connected the hardware via ckproxy instead of as 100 connections directly to the p2pool client, p2pool sees it as one client, which means that this miner's share target is more than 10 times larger than that for other miners. By doing this, even though I've dumped a large hashrate onto the pool, it won't substantially increase the target share rate for the smaller miners. This means smaller miners can benefit from the increased p2pool hashrate decreasing their variance without their share target increasing that much which normally increases their variance the same amount. If more larger miners did something similar on p2pool, it might keep the smaller miners. The large miner benefits from his p2pool client scaling where it otherwise couldn't and the smaller miners get to stay and benefit from his presence. While it's not a "fix" for the overall design, it might give p2pool some breathing space, allowing ever larger miners to join. That said, "small" these days is not really that small... Perhaps p2pool will actually end up being nothing but big miners (though that is what most of the network is now), provided their hardware is compatible :p
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
IYFTech
|
|
October 05, 2014, 09:32:00 PM |
|
I've set up a private pool solution for a reasonably large miner using a combination of p2pool and ckpool technology. You should all see a decent increase in the overall pool size over the next 24-48 hours.
This hasher is now online. His hashrate should be obvious, right at the top of the list. Barring changes in plans, and provided the hardware continues to hash well, it should be remaining on this pool. Now the interesting thing with this is, because I have connected the hardware via ckproxy instead of as 100 connections directly to the p2pool client, p2pool sees it as one client, which means that this miner's share target is more than 10 times larger than that for other miners. By doing this, even though I've dumped a large hashrate onto the pool, it won't substantially increase the target share rate for the smaller miners. This means smaller miners can benefit from the increased p2pool hashrate decreasing their variance without their share target increasing that much which normally increases their variance the same amount. If more larger miners did something similar on p2pool, it might keep the smaller miners. The large miner benefits from his p2pool client scaling where it otherwise couldn't and the smaller miners get to stay and benefit from his presence. While it's not a "fix" for the overall design, it might give p2pool some breathing space, allowing ever larger miners to join. That said, "small" these days is not really that small... Perhaps p2pool will actually end up being nothing but big miners (though that is what most of the network is now), provided their hardware is compatible :p Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy? Great work again ck - nice one
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 09:52:53 PM |
|
I've set up a private pool solution for a reasonably large miner using a combination of p2pool and ckpool technology. You should all see a decent increase in the overall pool size over the next 24-48 hours.
This hasher is now online. His hashrate should be obvious, right at the top of the list. Barring changes in plans, and provided the hardware continues to hash well, it should be remaining on this pool. Now the interesting thing with this is, because I have connected the hardware via ckproxy instead of as 100 connections directly to the p2pool client, p2pool sees it as one client, which means that this miner's share target is more than 10 times larger than that for other miners. By doing this, even though I've dumped a large hashrate onto the pool, it won't substantially increase the target share rate for the smaller miners. This means smaller miners can benefit from the increased p2pool hashrate decreasing their variance without their share target increasing that much which normally increases their variance the same amount. If more larger miners did something similar on p2pool, it might keep the smaller miners. The large miner benefits from his p2pool client scaling where it otherwise couldn't and the smaller miners get to stay and benefit from his presence. While it's not a "fix" for the overall design, it might give p2pool some breathing space, allowing ever larger miners to join. That said, "small" these days is not really that small... Perhaps p2pool will actually end up being nothing but big miners (though that is what most of the network is now), provided their hardware is compatible :p I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on? Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:06:01 PM |
|
I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on? Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
IYFTech
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:11:20 PM |
|
...python makes me nauseous.
Re-write it in C then!!
|
|
|
|
stevegee58
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 916
Merit: 1003
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:11:29 PM |
|
I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.
Me too until recently but Python is simply too big to ignore. I needed on my resume to stay marketable so I held my nose and dove in.
|
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:16:07 PM |
|
I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on? Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous. Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node. Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known. It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is). The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
IYFTech
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:24:01 PM |
|
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already..... Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see.......
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:31:50 PM |
|
I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on? Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous. Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node. Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known. It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is). The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide. Ah but do you see how your answer means the latter then and not the overall hashrate? This huge miner is contributing only one share every half hour to the entire p2pool chain, which is the same amount of shares a miner 1/10th the size contributes.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:37:15 PM |
|
I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on? Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous. Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node. Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known. It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is). The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide. Ah but do you see how your answer means the latter then and not the overall hashrate? This huge miner is contributing only one share every half hour to the entire p2pool chain, which is the same amount of shares a miner 1/10th the size contributes. So you mean the share difficulty for the worker is 10x alt chain difficulty, ie, right now about 86million instead of 8.6 million? If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:39:42 PM |
|
Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy? Great work again ck - nice one In terms of keeping your local p2pool client running as low overhead as possible, combining miners through the proxy helps. In terms of (possibly, assuming my interpretation is right) helping minimise p2pool's variance for small miners to keep them on board, it would only come into effect if your hashrate is > 5% of the overall pool hashrate.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:41:08 PM |
|
So you mean the share difficulty for the worker is 10x alt chain difficulty, ie, right now about 86million instead of 8.6 million?
If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty.
Yes. 2014-10-05 18:40:00.095528 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 136297626.452028 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
In fact I've seen it go as high as 240million.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:48:01 PM |
|
...python makes me nauseous.
Re-write it in C then!! You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right? M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
IYFTech
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:50:23 PM |
|
...python makes me nauseous.
Re-write it in C then!! You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right? M Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it.........
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:50:34 PM |
|
Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy? Great work again ck - nice one In terms of keeping your local p2pool client running as low overhead as possible, combining miners through the proxy helps. In terms of (possibly, assuming my interpretation is right) helping minimise p2pool's variance for small miners to keep them on board, it would only come into effect if your hashrate is > 5% of the overall pool hashrate. I do that when mining remotely, p2pool or not. Locally I don't like using a proxy because it hides my workers. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:52:22 PM |
|
...python makes me nauseous.
Re-write it in C then!! You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right? M Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it......... It doesn't need to be faster. It's the 30 second restart that Antminers have a problem with. (All of them, although the S2 is by far the worst.) I've watched the work flow through my proxy (that I created), and I can see the rejects come after the work restart, and the Ants are still using old jobids. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:52:41 PM |
|
...python makes me nauseous.
Re-write it in C then!! You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right? That's correct. As I said last time this same request came up, there are 2 scaling issues. One is the client itself, which rewriting it in c will help, and the other is the scaling of the overall pool size, which will not be helped. No point spending 1000 hours coding on the former unless you have a solution for the latter (yes that's how long it would take me to rewrite p2pool in c).
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
October 05, 2014, 11:18:02 PM |
|
This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already..... Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see....... How's it working out - did they do it yet?
|
|
|
|
|