mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 10:53:48 AM |
|
Expire was added in cgminer 2.4.4
Expire=10 was a bug in much pool software. It did not make sense at all to have that value for anything but p2pool so the scantime is used if it is longer than expire (expire should be more like 120 seconds). This can't be creating duplicates though.
p2pool has a recent bug where duplicate work items are sent out regardless of the mining software. Anyone on p2pool?
Lots going on folks.... There is always more than meets the eye.
That explains the dupes. I'm getting them a plenty! ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) I'm trying p2pool (again) for a week. So far the results have been dismal, and I'm having a hard time convincing myself to continue through the week. ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4228
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 11:04:36 AM |
|
cgminer has stale x2 greater than DiabloMiner on deepbit (0.24%) Prop. (0.21%) Prop. (0.19%) Prop. (0.23%) Prop. (0.11%) Prop. - DiabloMiner (0.20%) Prop. (0.20%) Prop. (0.23%) Prop. (0.22%) Prop. (0.24%) Prop. (0.37%) Prop. (0.22%) Prop.
Try dropping intensity by 1 or number of gpu threads by 1. Perhaps you're just over the efficiency/time to search peak.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
tucenaber
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 11:16:18 AM |
|
...
They are different: [2012-07-09 18:10:45] Icarus 8 sent: b586fa1de5c...c6d325e1c207d00...003194091 ae002fb4f58386ba3 [2012-07-09 18:10:45] DBG: sending http://hack:9332 submit RPC call: {...9803830ca439defe9a1cea36b38584ffb02 bc1a09943186654dc20000008... [2012-07-09 18:10:45] Icarus 5 sent: b586fa1de5c...c6d325e1c207d00...003194091 adf02fb4f58386ba3 [2012-07-09 18:10:45] DBG: sending http://hack:9332 submit RPC call: {...9803830ca439defe9a1cea36b38584ffb02 981a099431a3ee925c0000008... If you look at the proof of the second one it will be different of course also When time is rolled, the data is only very slightly different of course ... i.e. they are not duplicate shares in the above example Oh man, I'm very seldom not uncareful ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Thanks.
|
|
|
|
tucenaber
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 11:47:59 AM |
|
Expire was added in cgminer 2.4.4
Expire=10 was a bug in much pool software. It did not make sense at all to have that value for anything but p2pool so the scantime is used if it is longer than expire (expire should be more like 120 seconds). This can't be creating duplicates though.
p2pool has a recent bug where duplicate work items are sent out regardless of the mining software. Anyone on p2pool?
Lots going on folks.... There is always more than meets the eye.
Well yeah, I'm on p2pool. So, if expire doesn't make any sense what headers should be used by p2pool? Should I set --scan-time to 10 perhaps? Neither the p2pool software nor cgminer logs the getwork reply, so I'm adding that and sees what happens.
|
|
|
|
-ck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4228
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 11:50:14 AM |
|
Expire was added in cgminer 2.4.4
Expire=10 was a bug in much pool software. It did not make sense at all to have that value for anything but p2pool so the scantime is used if it is longer than expire (expire should be more like 120 seconds). This can't be creating duplicates though.
p2pool has a recent bug where duplicate work items are sent out regardless of the mining software. Anyone on p2pool?
Lots going on folks.... There is always more than meets the eye.
Well yeah, I'm on p2pool. So, if expire doesn't make any sense what headers should be used by p2pool? Should I set --scan-time to 10 perhaps? Neither the p2pool software nor cgminer logs the getwork reply, so I'm adding that and sees what happens. Yes I guess you should set scantime to 10 seconds for now. In a future version I'll actually honour what otherwise appears to be a bogus roll expire time if the pool really wants that.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
tucenaber
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 10, 2012, 10:17:27 PM |
|
Here is an example of duplicates I get. Is there a simple explanation for this? (I might add that my miner doesn't handle the excessive logging very well becase of the puny USB-drive it is running from) from cgminer debug log: [2012-07-10 21:46:42] PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!) [2012-07-10 21:46:42] ICA0 | (5s):117.8 (avg):215.1 Mh/s | A:39 R:10 HW:0 U:3.3/m [2012-07-10 21:46:41] HTTP hdr(Content-Length): 58 [2012-07-10 21:46:41] Proof: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b Target: 00000000ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff TrgVal? YES (hash < target) [2012-07-10 21:46:42] Pushing submit work to work thread p2pool debug log: 2012-07-10 21:46:42.614994 > "Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 submitted work: u'000000018e45fff93abc335ff6468d63036f5f368732cd938f253ede000008b500000000adc302d ba93ec61b888909f957f8b07bc7c5e265504899d9b44ccfbe14d0d9d94ffc86ac1a099431d35d63 bd00000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000'" 2012-07-10 21:46:42.615215 > "Submitted header: {'nonce': 3546112957, 'timestamp': 1341949612, 'merkle_root': 9415264709392722949772953808229952210827103327730856756643112439749055546075L, 'version': 1, 'previous_block': 13995169685392530026568800876350891503467619823386489753305081L, 'bits': FloatingInteger(bits=0x1a099431, target=0x994310000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000L)}" 2012-07-10 21:46:42.615439 > 'header hash: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b' a few seconds later from cgminer log (it says nothing about submitting stale work) [2012-07-10 21:46:47] PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!) [2012-07-10 21:46:47] ICA7 | (5s):199.8 (avg):212.7 Mh/s | A:44 R:5 HW:0 U:3.7/m [2012-07-10 21:46:46] HTTP hdr(Content-Length): 58 [2012-07-10 21:46:46] Proof: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b Target: 00000000ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff TrgVal? YES (hash < target) [2012-07-10 21:46:47] Pushing submit work to work thread and p2pool responds 2012-07-10 21:46:47.873337 > "Miner digger @ 192.168.1.102 submitted work: u'000000018e45fff93abc335ff6468d63036f5f368732cd938f253ede000008b500000000adc302d ba93ec61b888909f957f8b07bc7c5e265504899d9b44ccfbe14d0d9d94ffc86ac1a099431d35d63 bd00000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000'" 2012-07-10 21:46:47.873639 > "Submitted header: {'nonce': 3546112957, 'timestamp': 1341949612, 'merkle_root': 9415264709392722949772953808229952210827103327730856756643112439749055546075L, 'version': 1, 'previous_block': 13995169685392530026568800876350891503467619823386489753305081L, 'bits': FloatingInteger(bits=0x1a099431, target=0x994310000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000L)}" 2012-07-10 21:46:47.873877 > 'header hash: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b' 2012-07-10 21:46:47.998484 > Worker digger @ 192.168.1.102 submitted share 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b more than once!
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 04:55:24 AM |
|
What you are looking for is the work that produced the 2 shares and where it came from.
If p2pool sent the same work twice then that would be explanation #1 If cgminer rolled the work and produced 2 pieces of work the same that would be explanation #2 If the work sent to both of the Icarus was different but the results ended up the same that would be explanation #3
1) would be caused by something in p2pool 2) would be a problem with the rolling code 3) would probably be caused by some sort of static variable in the Icarus code overwriting another icarus device data
I certainly have no idea which it is, but you should be able to work that out, either from the current full cgminer logs, or with adding an extra debug somewhere in cgminer to show the incoming work (if it doesn't already show that)
Once you have a log showing all 3 pieces of information (getwork, work sent to Icarus, results) for a duplicate pair of shares, we can then determine where the problem is and fix it (or pass it on to p2pool to fix)
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 10:40:06 AM |
|
What you are looking for is the work that produced the 2 shares and where it came from.
If p2pool sent the same work twice then that would be explanation #1 If cgminer rolled the work and produced 2 pieces of work the same that would be explanation #2 If the work sent to both of the Icarus was different but the results ended up the same that would be explanation #3
1) would be caused by something in p2pool 2) would be a problem with the rolling code 3) would probably be caused by some sort of static variable in the Icarus code overwriting another icarus device data
I certainly have no idea which it is, but you should be able to work that out, either from the current full cgminer logs, or with adding an extra debug somewhere in cgminer to show the incoming work (if it doesn't already show that)
Once you have a log showing all 3 pieces of information (getwork, work sent to Icarus, results) for a duplicate pair of shares, we can then determine where the problem is and fix it (or pass it on to p2pool to fix)
As I've said in the p2pool thread, I've seen this dupe message with phoenix as well. I seem to get it more on cgminer, but I definitely see it with phoenix. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
tucenaber
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 11:00:22 AM |
|
I think I know what's going on now. P2pool assumes that the miner will not roll ntime more than 10 seconds into the future (because it sets X-Roll-NTime to "expire=10"). At every work request it increments ntime by 12 and returns that. cgminer doesn't respect the short expire, and rolls more than that. The two programs rolls independently and every so often they clash. This is a short version of the p2pool log: long poll returns new work: ntime: 1341949597, id: 157 result from miner: ntime: 1341949618, nonce: 2503472672 ntime: 1341949602, nonce: 3756563217 work request: ntime: 1341949609 (1341949597+12), id: 157 result from miner: ntime: 1341949604, nonce: 0474846110 ntime: 1341949597, nonce: 1088064670 ntime: 1341949598, nonce: 0826850881 ntime: 1341949612, nonce: 3546112957, hash: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b ntime: 1341949600, nonce: 2986584650 ntime: 1341949614, nonce: 4073111605 work request: ntime: 1341949621 (1341949597+24), id: 157 result from miner: ntime: 1341949618, nonce: 2503472672 ntime: 1341949610, nonce: 2498371303 ntime: 1341949612, nonce: 3546112957, hash: 00000000a89439acea9673042010653694b76b6bcae528ec034bd94144fe476b
|
|
|
|
-ck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4228
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 11:51:24 AM |
|
I think I know what's going on now. P2pool assumes that the miner will not roll ntime more than 10 seconds into the future (because it sets X-Roll-NTime to "expire=10"). At every work request it increments ntime by 12 and returns that.
cgminer doesn't respect the short expire, and rolls more than that. The two programs rolls independently and every so often they clash. Thanks, see my post in the p2pool thread. This is more about interpretation of the expire= parameter than anything else.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
Aseras
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 06:51:33 PM |
|
2.5 has caused me HUGE problems. Every miner but 1 mines a couple shares and stops. Just sits there. 2.4.4 did something similar. I dropped back to 2.4.3 and everything is peachy.
What changed between them?
|
|
|
|
wind
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 125
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 08:26:19 PM |
|
Can't compile CC cgminer-util.o util.c: In function 'nmsleep': util.c:703:7: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be make[2]: *** [cgminer-util.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/z/cgminer' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/z/cgminer' make: *** [all] Error 2 any suggestion?
|
|
|
|
bronan
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 11, 2012, 11:34:48 PM |
|
I have the same 2.4.4 and 2.5.0 causing massive problems So went back to 2.4.3 which seems the only good version for now
|
|
|
|
Hyphen
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 12:33:42 AM |
|
2.5.0 seems to lock my fan speed at 63% on a 5870 of mine. Automatic fan speed was turned off and I had sapphire set to 85% fan speed. CGMiner wouldn't let me change it back to 85%. Switched back to 2.4.1 and everything went back to normal.
|
|
|
|
dankroxel
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 12:44:16 AM |
|
Why is my AVG picking up a key logger when I download this?
|
|
|
|
ZodiacDragon84
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 12:47:44 AM |
|
Why is my AVG picking up a key logger when I download this?
Because some unscrupulous types have used the software in a malicious manner, and most AVGs have flagged it as malware of one form or another
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 01:01:38 AM |
|
I think I know what's going on now. P2pool assumes that the miner will not roll ntime more than 10 seconds into the future (because it sets X-Roll-NTime to "expire=10"). At every work request it increments ntime by 12 and returns that.
cgminer doesn't respect the short expire, and rolls more than that. The two programs rolls independently and every so often they clash.
Every so often? How much hash power do you have? I'm seeing it all the time. After your hack, it was driving cgminer crazy "pool 2 not providing work fast enough" and diverting work to my backup pools. p2pool was showing 1/2 my normal local hash power. Just to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong with python, I put that line back in, and the dupe messages are back, but I'm back up to my normal local hashing power. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
-ck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4228
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 02:43:37 AM |
|
I have the same 2.4.4 and 2.5.0 causing massive problems So went back to 2.4.3 which seems the only good version for now
Well that's rather non-specific. Information regarding hardware, command line options and debugging output run with "--verbose --debug -T" added might be helpful, as it says in the readme.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
tucenaber
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 07:31:59 AM |
|
Every so often? How much hash power do you have? I'm seeing it all the time.
After your hack, it was driving cgminer crazy "pool 2 not providing work fast enough" and diverting work to my backup pools. p2pool was showing 1/2 my normal local hash power. Just to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong with python, I put that line back in, and the dupe messages are back, but I'm back up to my normal local hashing power.
Ok ,all the time. Every few seconds. I also never said it was the final solution, I said it was a short term fix for myself, and also a way to show if I was correct or not. The long term fix is probably to do it the other way around, but that require more than a one liner.
|
|
|
|
jjiimm_64
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 12, 2012, 05:02:21 PM Last edit: July 12, 2012, 10:27:42 PM by jjiimm_64 |
|
I would just like to chime in about how cgminer sends misc shares to backup pools when not busy enough.. my 4th backup pool is solo (as i think all miners should have solo as final backup to protect network) well cgminer found me this block https://blockchain.info/block-height/188729 a couple of hours ago.. what are the odds? thank you ckolivas
|
1jimbitm6hAKTjKX4qurCNQubbnk2YsFw
|
|
|
|