Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 12:28:36 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 [412] 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 ... 830 »
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.9.2  (Read 4819423 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
juhakall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 422



View Profile
November 26, 2012, 09:09:56 PM
 #8221

The share rejection problem I have on EMC (described a few posts ago) isn't connected to stratum. I'm using http://us2.eclipsemc.com:8337 as the URL and miner.php says it's not using stratum. I'm not sure if it's using GBT, though. How do I check that?
1481027316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027316
Reply with quote  #2

1481027316
Report to moderator
1481027316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481027316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481027316
Reply with quote  #2

1481027316
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 09:11:01 PM
 #8222

So the issue with stales on stratum EMC...
Are they actually stale, or is it submitting shares which are below the expected target or something?

I'm getting 1% stale on EMC, and 0.1 on Ozcoin.
This is the issue I've been discussing at length on this thread with Inaba. Yes it's just submitting shares below target after diff rises.
That wouldn't make them stale... and EMC accepts shares at the lower target for work issued before it changed...

I'm miss-labelling here, sorry. I didn't mean stale, I meant rejected (for whatever reason).
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 09:25:39 PM
 #8223

So the issue with stales on stratum EMC...
Are they actually stale, or is it submitting shares which are below the expected target or something?

I'm getting 1% stale on EMC, and 0.1 on Ozcoin.
This is the issue I've been discussing at length on this thread with Inaba. Yes it's just submitting shares below target after diff rises.
That wouldn't make them stale... and EMC accepts shares at the lower target for work issued before it changed...

I'm miss-labelling here, sorry. I didn't mean stale, I meant rejected (for whatever reason).
Yes we all understood that ... except one 'person' Tongue

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
 #8224

My EMC rejects are 1.2% with stratum. I understand the post LP dump and I appreciate the chance at a paid share. The intermediate Rejected [Blah blah blah] (Unknown-Work). Usually this is in the middle of 2 other results found in a work unit or at least the 2nd submission at a time. Sometimes its first, sometimes last I guess.

It doesn't seem like unknown work. Things before it get accepted, after it also accepted. If the work was actually unknown wouldn't I expect more then a single reject in a batch of submissions? I suppose I could be piling up a result every so often that isn't accepted and on resubmit it is rejected. Expiry is likely a little high at 120s but my lower results are running the same.

Setup 1 BFL Single and CGMiner 2.9.5.

Before junior pipes up about GBT. I ran .2% rejects on GW, .8% on GBT, 1.2% on stratum on eclipse. All results on eclipse. The reduction of network traffic is far nicer then the slight reduction in rate.

Also on Stratum I am seeing a 856.X overall hashrate, Last week I managed 852.X with GBT and more network load. This could be new difficulty related or luck as it has only been on for 26K shares.

I appreciate donations at ( 1NwkQdmomQPLtdes5KuZhB1D22p7ZGRy4p )
If I am helping in the CGMiner thread give it to Con or Kano. They do the work there.
If you want to sign up for a coinbase account I would appreciate it if you use my referral link. US people now wire, 1% fee give or take a little for sending to your bank account. https://coinbase.com/?r=515bf6145682db9d11000028&utm_campaign=user-referral&src=
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 09:54:03 PM
 #8225

There's something else about stratum on EMC, and that appears to be lots of disconnects? That's another limitation of stratum, that once you disconnect the shares cannot be submitted on reconnect. Slush is going to have to add a reconnect option to it, or any disconnect of the socket will always be associated with shares lost if you're actively mining on it. Certainly it appears to be a combination of things and not just the frequent retargetting, although that is easy to see - the reject will say something like "share above target". "Unknown work" after longpoll is a true stale, work from the previous block. Not sure what's going on with GBT on EMC, but yes the rejects appear higher there too. For the time being you can still mine on getwork with --fix-protocol, but I'd rather see the pool issues sorted out.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 10:58:15 PM
 #8226

Okay I see the problem here on EMC stratum.

Based on a commit luke-jr did to bfgminer, it seems he thinks that new work notification by stratum mandates that all work be thrown out in favour of the new work, because he FORCES the clean flag. However no other pool actually expects this, only forcing a clean when they actually send the work clean message. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem lies with the implementation of stratum on EMC, as coded up by luke-jr.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:11:36 PM
 #8227

Okay I see the problem here on EMC stratum.

Based on a commit luke-jr did to bfgminer, it seems he thinks that new work notification by stratum mandates that all work be thrown out in favour of the new work, because he FORCES the clean flag. However no other pool actually expects this, only forcing a clean when they actually send the work clean message. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem lies with the implementation of stratum on EMC, as coded up by luke-jr.
No, I think new work notification should be used as soon as possible without throwing out the previous jobs, just like it is for getwork and GBT (which have an equivalent submitold indicator). This is implied by the current Stratum documentation:
Quote
clean_jobs - When true, server indicates that submitting shares from previous jobs don't have a sense and such shares will be rejected. When this flag is set, miner should also drop all previous jobs, so job_ids can be eventually rotated.
Admittedly, there is room for improvement in stratum here, since it could support 3 states:
  • Previous jobs are invalid, don't send shares (getwork/GBT submitold=false; impossible with cgminer now)
  • Previous jobs are valid, but please start using this immediately (getwork/GBT submitold=true; how cgminer interprets clean_jobs=false now)
  • Previous jobs are valid; use this for new work at your convenience (how cgminer is interpreting clean_jobs=true now; no getwork/GBT equivalent)

Perhaps slush could clarify the current meaning, but it would be disappointing to learn stratum discards another fix for a problem we had already solved with getwork/GBT. Regardless of the current meaning, I intend to suggest the tristate when stratum's BIP process begins.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:17:33 PM
 #8228

Okay I see the problem here on EMC stratum.

Based on a commit luke-jr did to bfgminer, it seems he thinks that new work notification by stratum mandates that all work be thrown out in favour of the new work, because he FORCES the clean flag. However no other pool actually expects this, only forcing a clean when they actually send the work clean message. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem lies with the implementation of stratum on EMC, as coded up by luke-jr.
No, I think new work notification should be used as soon as possible without throwing out the previous jobs, just like it is for getwork and GBT (which have an equivalent submitold indicator). This is implied by the current Stratum documentation:
Quote
clean_jobs - When true, server indicates that submitting shares from previous jobs don't have a sense and such shares will be rejected. When this flag is set, miner should also drop all previous jobs, so job_ids can be eventually rotated.
Admittedly, there is room for improvement in stratum here, since it could support 3 states:
  • Previous jobs are invalid, don't send shares (getwork/GBT submitold=false; impossible with cgminer now)
  • Previous jobs are valid, but please start using this immediately (getwork/GBT submitold=true; how cgminer interprets clean_jobs=false now)
  • Previous jobs are valid; use this for new work at your convenience (how cgminer is interpreting clean_jobs=true now; no getwork/GBT equivalent)

Perhaps slush could clarify the current meaning, but it would be disappointing to learn stratum discards another fix for a problem we had already solved with getwork/GBT. Regardless of the current meaning, I intend to suggest the tristate when stratum's BIP process begins.
Ah yes lets just ignore the GBT spec while we're at it and solve that piece of crap and do it properly Smiley

You changed your code and ignored the spec ... good idea that one Tongue

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 11:25:28 PM
 #8229

Throwing out work with every notify message on stratum, which comes on average every 30 seconds, would have the same effect as a longpoll every 30 seconds. That's a lot of work to discard midstream. Why on earth would there even be a clean_work method with stratum if every notify implied we throw out the work?

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:30:33 PM
 #8230

Okay I see the problem here on EMC stratum.

Based on a commit luke-jr did to bfgminer, it seems he thinks that new work notification by stratum mandates that all work be thrown out in favour of the new work, because he FORCES the clean flag. However no other pool actually expects this, only forcing a clean when they actually send the work clean message. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem lies with the implementation of stratum on EMC, as coded up by luke-jr.
No, I think new work notification should be used as soon as possible without throwing out the previous jobs, just like it is for getwork and GBT (which have an equivalent submitold indicator). This is implied by the current Stratum documentation:
Quote
clean_jobs - When true, server indicates that submitting shares from previous jobs don't have a sense and such shares will be rejected. When this flag is set, miner should also drop all previous jobs, so job_ids can be eventually rotated.
Admittedly, there is room for improvement in stratum here, since it could support 3 states:
  • Previous jobs are invalid, don't send shares (getwork/GBT submitold=false; impossible with cgminer now)
  • Previous jobs are valid, but please start using this immediately (getwork/GBT submitold=true; how cgminer interprets clean_jobs=false now)
  • Previous jobs are valid; use this for new work at your convenience (how cgminer is interpreting clean_jobs=true now; no getwork/GBT equivalent)

Perhaps slush could clarify the current meaning, but it would be disappointing to learn stratum discards another fix for a problem we had already solved with getwork/GBT. Regardless of the current meaning, I intend to suggest the tristate when stratum's BIP process begins.

So Junior is saying my reject ~9minutes into the block is because CGMiner didn't change to new work fast enough?
Wow that seems unlikely. Apparenly EMC pays for invalids now for ~9 minutes. Or there is an issue more like Con said.
If I made a bet on this I would guess I had a legitimate share that will now not get paid. No disconect (unless it is hidden on the primary pool) (not debug, verbose or rpc debug). Not hold over stale (expiry isn't that high any more). It shouldn't be working on old work UNLESS I am paid virtually without punishment (Very doubtful).

I appreciate donations at ( 1NwkQdmomQPLtdes5KuZhB1D22p7ZGRy4p )
If I am helping in the CGMiner thread give it to Con or Kano. They do the work there.
If you want to sign up for a coinbase account I would appreciate it if you use my referral link. US people now wire, 1% fee give or take a little for sending to your bank account. https://coinbase.com/?r=515bf6145682db9d11000028&utm_campaign=user-referral&src=
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 11:32:50 PM
 #8231

Are you sure it's not an issue of share leakage?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:36:42 PM
 #8232

I hate to interrupt all of this stratum discussion, but I am having crashes with GBT.  Running Fedora 15 with SDK 2.1 I think.  2.9.4 would exit with something like error code 11 (or 15 maybe?), and 2.9.5 segfaults.  I don't need GBT, so I should probably try to remember to try --fix-protocol instead of switching back to 2.8.7, but for now, I'm on 2.8.7 again.  I didn't report the issue with 2.9.4, but I suppose I should've.
ETA:  con, note that I wouldn't be against GBT being scrapped/removed from cgminer based on anything I've seen, but from a userbase standpoint, that might not be the option.  I'm only providing this most basic info in case it is helpful in some way.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2012, 11:40:41 PM
 #8233

I hate to interrupt all of this stratum discussion, but I am having crashes with GBT.  Running Fedora 15 with SDK 2.1 I think.  2.9.4 would exit with something like error code 11 (or 15 maybe?), and 2.9.5 segfaults.  I don't need GBT, so I should probably try to remember to try --fix-protocol instead of switching back to 2.8.7, but for now, I'm on 2.8.7 again.  I didn't report the issue with 2.9.4, but I suppose I should've.
ETA:  con, note that I wouldn't be against GBT being scrapped/removed from cgminer based on anything I've seen, but from a userbase standpoint, that might not be the option.  I'm only providing this most basic info in case it is helpful in some way.
Debug build would be helpful. If you're running fedora that suggests you're building it yourself. If that's the case, add "-g" to your CFLAGS, rebuild your cgminer 2.9.5 (without stripping the file), enable coredumps with "ulimit -c unlimited" and then run whatever it is that's crashing. Once you get a "core dumped" message at the end of running it, then run:
gdb cgminer core
bt full

And post the information from that please.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:42:46 PM
 #8234

Are you sure it's not an issue of share leakage?

It's a tad hard to discern. It could be work that got misrouted to us1 pool....  Possibly there is an easy way to tell I haven't noticed in the past?
It happens from time to time. I do agree the other issue with stratum (disconncts lose shares) is a larger loss for me.

I appreciate donations at ( 1NwkQdmomQPLtdes5KuZhB1D22p7ZGRy4p )
If I am helping in the CGMiner thread give it to Con or Kano. They do the work there.
If you want to sign up for a coinbase account I would appreciate it if you use my referral link. US people now wire, 1% fee give or take a little for sending to your bank account. https://coinbase.com/?r=515bf6145682db9d11000028&utm_campaign=user-referral&src=
TheHarbinger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Why is it so damn hot in here?


View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:43:25 PM
 #8235

I have learned quite a bit since starting with BitCoin, I will try to sum it all up for anyone who doesn't want to read every post in these forums.

Luke Jr. is never wrong.
Inaba is never wrong.
RealSolid is never wrong.

I can only wait in eager anticipation for the day when EMC adds SC mining, with SC mining added to BFG miner.  Then we will truly be living in a utopia!

12Um6jfDE7q6crm1s6tSksMvda8s1hZ3Vj
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 26, 2012, 11:51:56 PM
 #8236

Throwing out work with every notify message on stratum, which comes on average every 30 seconds, would have the same effect as a longpoll every 30 seconds. That's a lot of work to discard midstream. Why on earth would there even be a clean_work method with stratum if every notify implied we throw out the work?
You're not supposed to throw out the shares on LPs. Restarting work has no cost except on BFLs (where you have a bug that loses valid shares).

So Junior is saying my reject ~9minutes into the block is because CGMiner didn't change to new work fast enough?
That sounds highly unlikely, and unrelated. What kind of a reject?

The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 12:00:12 AM
 #8237

Debug build would be helpful. If you're running fedora that suggests you're building it yourself. If that's the case, add "-g" to your CFLAGS, rebuild your cgminer 2.9.5 (without stripping the file), enable coredumps with "ulimit -c unlimited" and then run whatever it is that's crashing. Once you get a "core dumped" message at the end of running it, then run:
gdb cgminer core
bt full

And post the information from that please.
I'm getting "No stack."  I assume that makes it obvious I've never done this before...

ETA:
Code:
cat /usr/src/cgminer-2.9.5/Makefile | grep CFLAGS\ =
CFLAGS = -I/usr/src/ati-stream-sdk-v2.1-lnx64/include -g
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2012, 12:01:16 AM
 #8238

Debug build would be helpful. If you're running fedora that suggests you're building it yourself. If that's the case, add "-g" to your CFLAGS, rebuild your cgminer 2.9.5 (without stripping the file), enable coredumps with "ulimit -c unlimited" and then run whatever it is that's crashing. Once you get a "core dumped" message at the end of running it, then run:
gdb cgminer core
bt full

And post the information from that please.
I'm getting "No stack."  I assume that makes it obvious I've never done this before...

That means you have to go to IHOP.
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 12:03:18 AM
 #8239


That mean you have to go to IHOP.
1) I don't like hopping
2) I don't like pancakes
3) Prayer takes so much time
4) I assume I detected your humor, but if I did not, or if IHOP means something else as well, feel free to tell.  Tongue
P_Shep
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
 #8240

Pages: « 1 ... 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 [412] 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 ... 830 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!