Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [400GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
kano
on 14/11/2012, 06:47:56 UTC
BACK to the topic of this thread.....  P2Pool...

I have more questions...

If i set my refresh rate to 100ms, at my low has rate (150mh/s) won't I never find a share because my GPU's don't have enough time on the current block to find any shares?
Doesn't the refresh rate REQUIRE a minimum hash rate to find any share or block?
What would increasing my refresh rate to say 1000ms do?
Give me potential dead/orphan shares? (local dead on arrival)
...
P2Pool has an average share LP of 10 seconds.

I've no idea what refresh rate is in your miner, however:

A ) if that affects how often the GPU returns success/fail results, then the lower it is the better, with an obvious exception:
as it goes lower, then the CPU will be doing more work for the same amount of GPU work (and the GPU will be more idle)

However, from a statistical view, it doesn't matter if you only hash 1,000th of a nonce range or all of it.
You will still find shares as often.

B ) What you will do however, if you are processing without break for 1000ms, is you will on average lose 500ms per share LP
i.e. when a share LP hits you will on average be half way through your 1000ms of work and thus have wasted 500ms of work (assuming of course the miner aborts current work on the share LP)
When an LP hits, any work in progress is throw away (unless it's a network block - and then only if the miner program is smart enough to send it - which hopefully it is for your miner)

Thus on average with that figure I just mentioned, 5% of your processing time is wasted on average and one in 20 1-difficulty shares will appear after they are no longer valid - thus 1 in 20 of the longer term share chain shares of much higher difficulty (that you will only find a very few each day at a low shash rate) will be discarded also.

If you are processing without break for only 100ms, then on average each LP will represent 50ms of lost work or 0.5% - so much better.

It's obviously a balance between the two A ) and B ) however.