Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (Long Poll, BFI_INT, and never fail async networking)

@DiabloD3: I'm currently writing my own pool software and i was wondering if DiabloMiner conforms with the longpoll protocol description at https://deepbit.net/longpolling.php ? because currently my code works perfectly with Phoenix but Diablominer screws up:

Code:

[09-07-11 04:08:06] Started
[09-07-11 04:08:06] Connecting to: http://localhost:8000/
[09-07-11 04:08:06] Using AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP
-SDK-v2.4 (650.9)
[09-07-11 04:08:08] Added ATI RV770 (#2) (10 CU, local work size of 256)
[09-07-11 04:08:15] DEBUG: Enabling long poll support
[09-07-11 04:08:16] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:17] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:23] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:24] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:25] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:26] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:27] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:28] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:29] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:30] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:30] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:32] DEBUG: Long poll returned
[09-07-11 04:08:33] DEBUG: Long poll returned
mhash: 51,1/47,0 | a/r/hwe: 0/0/0 | ghash: 1,2 | fps: 29,8

I guess you're using the protocol differently because i never actually recieves any GET request from diablominer...
Could you prehaps give me the specifications you go by?

I follow the URL RFC and the LP specification. What URL are you giving it in the LP header?

Code:

response.AppendHeader("X-Long-Polling","");

AKA same URL but i guess it probably would be a good idea to add /LP just to avoid confusing miners

But none the less i'm never getting a GET request which i technically should :p

Okay so i changed my code around a bit to use the incomming RawUrl as the determining factor for wether or not it's the LP request wich works fine for both phoenix and diablominer BUT diablominer starts spamming getwork requests after ~57 seconds @ 60-70 mhash/s
Any idea what that could be?

"" makes no sense, because then it would use the existing URL with no modifications. How would the pool server be able to tell the difference? My miner immediately starts a new LP attempt once the existing one completes. So, yes, it starts spamming because LP is not supposed to return immediately.

"foo" adds /foo to the end of the existing URL's path. "/foo" replaces the entire path, and then it also accepts a fully qualified URL. Other miners seem to only accept "foo" in violation of any sane interpretation of the URL RFC.