c00w (OP)
|
|
July 12, 2011, 07:57:45 PM |
|
Huh. I was actually going to add btcmine as the second backup pool but I can't register on it since registration is closed.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
|
|
July 12, 2011, 09:08:25 PM |
|
As stats/website would most likely require a database that's why I suggested google app engine! Just use a no-sql backend if possible please to make porting more easy later on.
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
July 12, 2011, 09:21:52 PM |
|
Stats are in the work. Short term efficiency stats are next on the list. I'm probably going to run with sqlite or mongodb at first if a database is required. However I think I can get away without one for a bit.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
|
|
July 12, 2011, 09:29:39 PM Last edit: July 12, 2011, 09:44:06 PM by Sukrim |
|
http://mining.mainframe.nl/ claims they use a hopper-proof algorithm. Might not be so useful to hop there. Pool Hashrate: 1.55 GH/s Pool Workers: 9 The above might be a reason why noone hopped there so far! I think just deleting the respective line from "selectsharesResponse(response, args):" should be enough, right? [Edit: it is, but throws errors (and continues) - I also commented the section in the "servers" dictionary] Thanks for considering the database backend!
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
July 12, 2011, 09:31:08 PM Last edit: July 12, 2011, 11:01:05 PM by organofcorti |
|
don't bother adding btcmine. They have AntiHopperTechnology added. With multipool the efficiency for 90000 shares with btcmine was 0.785.
Bitpit are golden so far, I'd add them.
|
|
|
|
bigbeerjr
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
|
|
July 12, 2011, 10:06:20 PM |
|
What is the deal with commit 22535ca0778280861f9ba5616194aa8cf2ded4b3?
|
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
|
|
July 12, 2011, 10:09:46 PM |
|
Namecoin should by the way also be possible... There are however just a few considerations: You can estimate the "worth" of 1 NMC as the ratio between BTC difficulty and NMC difficulty. However this is not an exact measure, only what would be expected, and Namecoins are currently "undersold" on the Namecoin exchange. A better estimate would be an average value, for example from http://www.nmcwatch.com/ (would be a simple regex). This would lead to increased queries though. @bigbeer: seems to me he/she disabled the wrong pool, hm?!
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
July 12, 2011, 10:23:42 PM |
|
Fixed disabling of the wrong pool. Also I think I fixed the RPC cycling bugs. Found a new bug in the client side long polling of certain miners which are unable to handle a LP call returning an error JSON RPC call.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
paraipan
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
|
|
July 12, 2011, 11:03:42 PM |
|
keep up the good work man, bitcoins coming your way (when I get them)
|
BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
July 13, 2011, 02:30:26 AM |
|
And I reordered the code again to try and stop tripping eligius's DDOS settings. To whoever sent me some bitcoins: Thank you very much.
I hope I'll do some stats soon but I'm spending too much time tracking down bugs. Its on the list. I swear.
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
July 13, 2011, 03:04:43 AM |
|
@ c00w: Does entering an invalid or empty username/password combo cause problems?
The reason I ask is that atm if a user doesn't like a pool or the pool starts withholding rewards, giving too many stales, or starts using an antihopping algo users have to go into going to pool.py in starts commenting out lines It might be easier for users to simply delete the username and password to turn a pool 'off'.
An advantage for you (c00w) is that you wouldn't have to worry about finding out which pools are good or not, adding them or deleting them. You could just add the top (say) 15 pools, don't worry about whether they use antihopping or not and let everyone take their pick. The only extra work for you would be figuring out the pool's api.
Then, if the stats show a pool is crapping out, the user can just delete the relevant username and password. Or maybe comment them out.
tl;dr 1. c00w adds top 15 pools and their api. 2. Users enter the username/passwords/api (if necessary) only of pools they actually want to use. 3. Username/passwords/api can be added or deleted later on.
I think this would reduce duplication of effort for both you and users.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
enmaku
|
|
July 13, 2011, 03:43:42 AM Last edit: July 13, 2011, 03:54:46 AM by enmaku |
|
Getting the following a lot: Unhandled error in Deferred: Unhandled Error Traceback (most recent call last): File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 361, in c allback self._startRunCallbacks(result) File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 455, in _ startRunCallbacks self._runCallbacks() File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 542, in _ runCallbacks current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw) File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1076, in gotResult _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred) --- <exception caught here> --- File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py", line 1020, in _inlineCallbacks result = g.send(result) File "D:\bitHopper\work.py", line 140, in jsonrpc_getwork request.finish() File "D:\Python27\lib\site-packages\twisted\web\http.py", line 866, in finish "Request.finish called on a request after its connection was lost; " exceptions.RuntimeError: Request.finish called on a request after its connection was lost; use Request.notifyFinish to keep track of this. Doesn't seem to crash or anything, it recovers quickly, just thought I'd notify you Edit: Scratch that, it is now happening so often that I'm getting more errors than actual traffic and an unreasonable amount of hashing power is falling to my backup pool, I've switched back to a previous build that still seems to work just fine, but whatever this is, it's BAD.
|
|
|
|
zapeta
|
|
July 13, 2011, 04:08:42 AM |
|
Just FYI, Mineco.in has implemented a Pay Per Last N Shares reward scheme. I'm guessing their change in payment scheme would require some adjustment of the pool hopper.
|
|
|
|
c00w (OP)
|
|
July 13, 2011, 04:18:14 AM Last edit: July 13, 2011, 06:01:34 AM by c00w |
|
1)Minecoin? They are already out of the rotation.
2) Crashes on that line? Removed it. Not needed. I'm unsure why it was sucking so much work though... I did up the timer for the stalls to half a second a piece. It looks like your miner is timing out too quickly. I got these sorts of stalls with poclbm. Phoenix stalls less although it will try and double submit shares.
EDIT: Actually I think it is a server side LP issue. Which I think I just fixed. I accidentally had error'd LP calls call the lp handler
3) Invalid username/password taking out a pool? Yeah it already does this assuming the pool won't accept the work. Sometimes it does. its a little dicey. I'm going to try and add an option for going --skip Name1, Name2, etc... as well as a --list to help tell people which servers are installed.
EDIT: Enabled and in the repository. Note the format for disable should have no spaces. Oh and I used --disable not --skip
|
1HEmzeuVEKxBQkEenysV1yM8oAddQ4o2TX
|
|
|
zapeta
|
|
July 13, 2011, 04:46:33 AM |
|
1)Minecoin? They are already out of the rotation.
Sorry, I misread Mineco as minecoin in the password file! My apologies.
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
July 13, 2011, 05:57:57 AM |
|
print "You just disabled the backup pool. I hope you know what you are doing" *That* made me grin. The snarkier the better!
|
|
|
|
enmaku
|
|
July 13, 2011, 06:06:38 AM |
|
2) Crashes on that line? Removed it. Not needed. I'm unsure why it was sucking so much work though... I did up the timer for the stalls to half a second a piece. It looks like your miner is timing out too quickly. I got these sorts of stalls with poclbm. Phoenix stalls less although it will try and double submit shares.
EDIT: Actually I think it is a server side LP issue. Which I think I just fixed. I accidentally had error'd LP calls call the lp handler
Updated, it appears to be running and I haven't seen another error yet. I'm keeping my eyes open and fingers crossed though Thanks! (damn you work fast)
|
|
|
|
nob
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
July 13, 2011, 06:07:12 AM |
|
First things first, Thanks for BitHopper!
Second: Thought about ArsBitcoin as second Backup Pool? Like Eligius thery are using SMPPS. I mined on Ars when Eligius had problems, and had 0 Downtimes.
|
|
|
|
enmaku
|
|
July 13, 2011, 07:10:43 AM |
|
Yet another wall of errors and half my hashrate is going to my backup pool (running at -f60 priority in case the proxy fails) Request.finish called on a request after its connection was lost; use Request.no tifyFinish to keep track of this. [00:09:22] RPC request [] submitted to bitclockers.com caught, Final response/writing Request.finish called on a request after its connection was lost; use Request.no tifyFinish to keep track of this. Caught, jsonrpc_call insides TCP connection timed out: 10060: A connection attempt failed because the connect ed party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connect ion failed because connected host has failed to respond..
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
July 13, 2011, 07:21:10 AM |
|
As far as fail over goes, try using the new poclbm. It haa built in failover to whatever your back up pool its at whatever -f you have for your main pool. Even if poclbm isn't as fast for you as whatever you're using, it might be worthwhile until bitHopper is working properly for you.
|
|
|
|
|