Search content
Sort by

Showing 20 of 29 results by Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance
by
Bitmong
on 05/09/2013, 19:45:17 UTC
Comparing GFlops is meaningless here. FLOPS is FLoating-point Operations Per Second, and Primecoin uses integer arithmetic. So, even if the Phi is so much faster than X86 in floating point maths, it means nothing for Primecoin performance.
Post
Topic
Board Pools (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][Profit-switching][0%fee] multipool.us:Always mine the most profitable coin
by
Bitmong
on 08/08/2013, 19:59:16 UTC
Well, actually one fan on the 7950 is broken, that is why I run it at lower clock than usually, so that it won't get too much heat.

My results with higher TC have been worse, 8192 gives the best results for me.. I don't know why that is so.

- Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Pools (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][Profit-switching][0%fee] multipool.us:Always mine the most profitable coin
by
Bitmong
on 08/08/2013, 19:43:07 UTC
I found a bug in the Add worker feature on the site.

I was trying to add a worker with name 6870_777 (for my rig that has 6870 & 7770 cards in it). The Add worker button complained that I should try a different name.

I was able to add that worker when I removed the _ character from the name. However, after that I was able to rename the worker to use the name 6870_777 with the Update worker button.

So, either both of those features should allow underscores or neither one..

- Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Pools (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][Profit-switching][0%fee] multipool.us:Always mine the most profitable coin
by
Bitmong
on 08/08/2013, 19:36:14 UTC
Look at your hardware errors - compare # of submitted shares to the # of shares shown inside the pool stats - they will much, but you must fix your HW errors before you can expect your hash rate to match to your hashrate at the pool's stats.

Edit: what GPUs are you using, please consider increasing thread-concurrency to a higher #

I fixed the HW errors on GPU1 by decreasing intensity from 18 to 13.

GPU0 is a 7870xt with 15232 thread concurrency, GPU1 is a 7950 with 8192 thread concurrency. These are the optimum values that I have found by trying several different values.

- Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Pools (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][Profit-switching][0%fee] multipool.us:Always mine the most profitable coin
by
Bitmong
on 08/08/2013, 18:25:02 UTC
PhenixCoin at that point, but I think it happened also with Feathercoin.

I'll keep monitoring for this issue and report on what coins it happens with.

- Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Pools (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][Profit-switching][0%fee] multipool.us:Always mine the most profitable coin
by
Bitmong
on 08/08/2013, 17:58:08 UTC
I just started mining on the pool1.eu.multipool.us (I am in Finland), and my hashrate shown on the website is 50-70% of the hashrate CGMiner shows me.

I also get lots of rejects:

 GPU 0:  81.0C 3383RPM | 386.7K/378.3Kh/s | A:114 R:89 HW: 6 U:2.55/m I:18
 GPU 1:  73.0C 3624RPM | 319.6K/303.1Kh/s | A: 79 R:63 HW:32 U:1.77/m I:18

Rejects show this message:

[2013-08-08 20:57:43] Rejected a615ddd1 Diff 9.86K/64 GPU 0 pool 0 (DBInterface instance has no

Is that some error on the pool software? Unfortunately I cannot see the complete error message from my CGMiner output.

- Bitmong
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: [XPM] Primecoin High Performance Linux Compilation Guide
by
Bitmong
on 23/07/2013, 00:52:19 UTC
Run:

apt-get update

This will update the package lists, and after that the packages should be installable.
Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance
by
Bitmong
on 22/07/2013, 23:34:38 UTC
The patch won't apply directly, because Sunny's client uses CBigNum and mikaelh's uses the GMP library. So, one has to convert the code to use GMP.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: P2Pool Server List
by
Bitmong
on 22/07/2013, 02:59:54 UTC
One more node in Europe:

Germany, http://5.9.147.141:9332/ , 0% fee
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: [XPM] Finding the best sievesize for mining
by
Bitmong
on 20/07/2013, 22:09:07 UTC
Well, testnet has much lower difficulty, so that could play a part there.
Post
Topic
Board Mining (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][YAC] Yacminer GPU miner for Yacoin
by
Bitmong
on 08/07/2013, 21:42:56 UTC
I did a brief test on my 7870, 7870xt and 7950.. The formula failed on all those.

I have tried differed TCs a bit, and currently I get 78 kH/s with 4096 TC on 7870xt, and 72 kH/s with 4096 TX on 7870. Both are clocked at 1150/1000 (GPU/Mem). These are the highest / best performing settings. Intensity is 11 on both. With higher intensity I get better hash rate, but there are more HW errors.

On my 7950 I now get 67 kH/s, I haven't been able to get better performance out of it. TC is at 7936, intensity 11.

BTW. I think it would be useful to add a percentage of HW errors of all processed blocks. That way one could see the effective hash rate when taking HW errors into account.

Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: FireCoin - Scrypt - Just Launched!
by
Bitmong
on 09/06/2013, 13:42:42 UTC
The source file executable install itself under C:\Users\\GUCUE directory. This directory looks empty if the malware process is running and hiding the files. However, the contents listed earlier are still in that directory.

Actually the files are only marked as system / hidden, not hidden with any rootkit. It also installs a file C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\notepad.exe , which tries to run a .Net framework installer that is trying to install something to the system.

The file owner needs to be changed before that file can be deleted.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: FireCoin - Scrypt - Just Launched!
by
Bitmong
on 09/06/2013, 11:46:24 UTC
The source file executable install itself under C:\Users\\GUCUE directory. This directory looks empty if the malware process is running and hiding the files. However, the contents listed earlier are still in that directory.
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: FireCoin - Scrypt - Just Launched!
by
Bitmong
on 09/06/2013, 11:04:47 UTC
The source file is not an .ZIP, it is a self-extracting RAR file that installs a rootkit that hides the actual files contained in the self-extracting RAR file.

You don't definitely want to run this thing.

Virustotal doesn't detect this as any known virus yet.
Post
Topic
Board Mining support
Re: Calculating 95% confidence interval of block find time
by
Bitmong
on 01/06/2013, 16:22:50 UTC
Anyone?
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [700GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
Bitmong
on 30/05/2013, 07:48:50 UTC
I don't know the exact reason why getblocktemplate affected efficiency and even if it's still the case today as forrestv might have changed something that removes this problem. It was still the case very recently (like less than 2 months ago) when getblocktemplate took more than 0.2s. I don't check often how it affects p2pool but I'm doing it right now (in fact I'm studying how the block size and fee limits affect getblocktemplate in the current situation, checking the efficiency is just a bonus). If the behavior of p2pool changed I'll know it in the following days and will be able to update my guide. For now I still recommend to keep it under 0.2s to be safe.

Some recent findings on P2Pool efficiency on my node.

My node is directly connected to the Internet with Ethernet, 100 Mbit/s downstream and 10 Mbit/s upstream. The node is a Phenom four-core processor, with SSD disk. I have 7 mining rigs connected to the node via LAN.

All numbers below are with current (April 2013) P2Pool from Github.

When my configuration was incorrect and Bitcoind could only make outgoing connections, my efficiency was between 95% and 99%.

After fixing the configuration problem, efficiency rose to 110-115% level. I have now 30-40 connections to the Bitcoin network.

When the getblocktemplate latency started to appear, my efficiency was still between 110-115%. My getblocktemplate latency was about 30 seconds at that time.

I have now upgraded to the 0.8.2rc3 version, and the getblocktemplate latency decreased to about 0.1 seconds, but it has increased to 0.9 seconds since the upgrade (in four hours).

Current efficiency after two hours from the upgrade is 102.4%. Well, I think one cannot deduce anything from that yet, maybe the stopping and restarting of bitcoind caused some orphans.

I'll report the efficiency back to this thread after 24 hours have passed with this new bitcoind version.

So, now the pool has run for over 24 hours with the new bitcoind version and:

Code:
# default is 500000, 1000000 is the maximum allowed and will fit more transactions (more fees)
blockmaxsize=1000000
#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.00001
# Same but for relaying the tx to our peers
minrelaytxfee=0.00001

settings.

I have found 70 shares now, 7 orphan and 5 dead, for stale rate of 17.1% (10-28% interval). Pool stale rate is 20.4% now, so efficiency is 104% (90-113% interval).

One thing I remembered was that I have downclocked my CPU to 1.2 GHz from the default clock rate of 2.5 GHz or so to save a little CPU. That might affect things a bit. I might check that at some point.

bitcoind getblocklatency is 0.93 seconds now, so it is much better than the 30 seconds earlier. I think the CPU frequency affects this latency the most, and was likely the reason my latency was 30s with the old bitcoind version.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [700GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
Bitmong
on 29/05/2013, 03:09:00 UTC
When I browsed through my P2Pool log, I noticed that the P2Pool stale rate varied between 17% and 20%+ in the last couple of days. Therefore the efficiency figure fluctuates even if your own stale / DOA rate doesn't change at all. That is why I think one should watch one's own stale rate more than the efficiency figure.

Both are interesting: your own stale rate varying shows that something changed on your node and help you pinpoint local problems. But you don't want your efficiency to fall too much. Depending on your use of merged-mining (Namecoin essentially), if you fall below the 90-95% range, a centralized pool begins to makes sense if you can't lower your stale rate and wants to maximize your income.

Well, I am merge-mining Namecoin, Devcoin and Ixcoin, so there is some extra there.

And actually my efficiency is over 100% now that the incoming bitcoind connection issue was solved. Now I'm only interested to see how the 0.8.2rc3 update and increased maxblocksize affected the efficiency. We shall see about that this week.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [700GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
Bitmong
on 29/05/2013, 02:21:11 UTC
I just noticed that my own efficiency started to get down the last 24h (the first 24h with my settings where between 110 and 115% and now I'm at ~105%).
This may be because most P2Pool nodes are upgrading bitcoind and lowering their own getblocktemplate latency in the process. I'll have to test again to see if lowering my getblocktemplate latency helps my efficiency.
My current 0.25s might not be low enough now. One possibility is that this value actually influences efficiency when there's a noticeable difference between its value on a node and the average on all P2Pool nodes. Back to testing different bitcoin.conf values. Too bad: in its current configuration my node was including enough fees to make a 26.5BTC block! Fortunately with 0.8.2 I won't have to make much sacrifices in fees to reach very low latencies.

When I browsed through my P2Pool log, I noticed that the P2Pool stale rate varied between 17% and 20%+ in the last couple of days. Therefore the efficiency figure fluctuates even if your own stale / DOA rate doesn't change at all. That is why I think one should watch one's own stale rate more than the efficiency figure.

One problem with reaching conclusions on the data is that one needs quite a high hashrate in order to get a narrow confidence interval on the stale rate in a timeframe of a day or so.

For example, my mining rate is about 4.5 GH/s, and the stale rate interval reported by P2Pool is -+5% of the real stale rate after mining with the pool for three days or so.
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [700GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
Bitmong
on 29/05/2013, 02:07:40 UTC
When the getblocktemplate latency started to appear, my efficiency was still between 110-115%. My getblocktemplate latency was about 30 seconds at that time.

This is the worst latency I've seen reported so far (by nearly 3x, the worst I can rember was ~12s). With <0.8.2rc3 getblocktemplate depends heavily on you CPU speed and number of transactions in your memory pool. As you seem to have an adequate CPU, it probably doesn't explain the difference. Do you use non-default values in your bitcoin.conf?

I didn't change any block size / tx fee settings in bitcoin.conf, only rpc settings and server settings.

Actually the latency was around 30 seconds when I used the bitcoind on that computer or when I set P2Pool to use the bitcoin-qt on my Windows computer with Core i7-3820 processor. So, the latency was definitely not caused by the CPU.

Quote from: gyverlb
You have relatively high bandwidth, but what is your link latency? If you use traceroute/mtr or similar tools, what is the time-to-hop for your ISP main routers and addresses in North America/Europe/China (where most nodes and probably miners are according to http://blockchain.info/fr/nodes-globe).

I live in Finland btw.

MTR shows these results for some nodes:

First ISP router 2ms
Last ISP router 4ms
US (Sayreville) 111ms
Japan 294ms
Australia 430ms
Hong Kong 340ms
Netherlands 33ms
China 330ms
Switzerland 44ms
Ukraine 57ms
Post
Topic
Board Pools
Re: [700GH/s] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
by
Bitmong
on 29/05/2013, 00:49:14 UTC
One more thing I noticed.. After the bitcoind upgrade, my DOA has doubled from ~ 4% to 8%.

EDIT: After closer inspection of the log file, I see that the DOA has varied between ~0% to 8% anyway before this.