Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Linux mining question  (Read 824 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pinwc4

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Linux mining question
« on: December 25, 2013, 09:27:23 PM »

Last week I was mining this coin with no problem, well outside of the Linux crashes.  This week the daemon no longer crashed but I do not seem to be getting any coins at all. 

When looking through the logs the only thing that stands out is an entry like this:
Code: [Select]
ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

I do not know if that is related to my problem but it looks like a bad thing.

My friend is experiencing the same behavior.  Between us we have 55 systems running, mostly HP or similar servers.  Based on the calculator we should be seeing a block of coins approximately every few hours.  However we have gotten only 2 and they only showed up after some restarts.  Running this for a long time never adds to the balance of the wallet.dat that is shared across the servers.

We are running ubuntu 13.10, though I guess we could rebuild if necessary, I think he pxe boots his servers so it would be quick for him not as quick for me. 

I compiled the source using the following steps:
Code: [Select]
sudo su
apt-get install -y build-essential m4 libssl-dev libdb++-dev libboost-all-dev libminiupnpc-dev git
cd
rm -rf gmp-5.1.3.tar.bz2 gmp-5.1.3
wget http://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/gmp/gmp-5.1.3.tar.bz2
tar xjvf gmp-5.1.3.tar.bz2
cd gmp-5.1.3
./configure --enable-cxx
make -j8
make install
cd
git clone https://github.com/memorycoin/memorycoin
cd memorycoin/src
cp makefile.unix makefile.my
sed -i -e 's/$(OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH))/$(OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH) \/usr\/local\/include)/' makefile.my
sed -i -e 's/$(OPENSSL_LIB_PATH))/$(OPENSSL_LIB_PATH) \/usr\/local\/lib)/' makefile.my
sed -i -e 's/$(LDHARDENING) $(LDFLAGS)/$(LDHARDENING) -Wl,-rpath,\/usr\/local\/lib $(LDFLAGS)/' makefile.my
make -f makefile.my -j8
strip bitcoind
mv bitcoind ~/memorycoind
cd
mkdir -p .memorycoin
cd .memorycoin

I then put in a copy of a basic memorycoin.conf file:

Code: [Select]
rpcuser=pinwc4
rpcpassword=x
rpcport=1925
rpcallow=*
server=1
genproclimit=-1
gen=1
addnode=81.17.19.139

Then finally I place a copy of all the other .memorycoin folder files in the directory.  This includes everything so I do not have to resync, and also so I am sharing a wallet.dat file across the machines. 

This process worked fine last week however this week it has not been resulting in any mining.  The CPU usage is high, memory usage is high, I see a HPM figure that looks good on each system, but no coins are found. 

If anyone has any insight I would appreciate it.  This has baffled me for a bit.  With the holidays I have not been able to spend time troubleshooting it but I figure I must be doing something stupid.

Offline pinwc4

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Linux mining question
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2013, 09:40:32 PM »
OK, I dug further into more logs on other servers and am seeing more entries of:

ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

I think this may be related to my problem, any ideas why it would be generating the incorrect proof of work?

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: Linux mining question
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2013, 11:52:27 PM »
I think the incorrect proof of work is likely related to the fork - the other fork trying to send it's blocks to the main chain. I'd need to see the surrounding statements to be sure, but it looks fine to me.

It might be related to using the same wallet on all the servers - I think it should be okay to do that, but I'm not 100% sure. It is possible they are replicating the same work if they are trying to build blocks with the same wallet address. That would explain a lower number of blocks.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline pinwc4

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Linux mining question
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2013, 02:05:29 AM »
I thought sharing the wallet could be related so I took half the systems and generated new wallets on them.  That did not help any, 1 of them eventually did get a block but that was still way under where it should have been. 

Good to know those statements could be fine, I am just struggling to find a cause.  I did something stupid though, in haste to get this working I deleted most my logs.  I thought I would try starting clean and wiped everything from all the .memorycoin directories and just put the conf and wallet back but did not back them up.  However I did find a couple examples in the remaining ones I did not blitz and they looked very similar, like this:

Code: [Select]
Start Search
found solution - 9905 / 1968 / 2330372084
found solution - 7415 / 1968 / 2023804840
received block 000022da74817478639edc8b106e04cf4c629c85845a90f4c7487c22655c64fc
Difficulty Retarget - Kimoto Gravity Well
PastRateAdjustmentRatio = 0.804799
Before: 1e77a0cc 000077a0cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After: 1f081de4 00081de44f5f0f11b95b4ce37454da5a299e0ccb2e8c398bd874b5f17cacd76c
ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
Misbehaving: 218.56.106.162:55521 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
disconnecting node 218.56.106.162:55521
testHash 086e439cb9a534969183ade3698efa688ba7009456cb305819b10231b29314a4, 2
Start Search
found solution - 13541 / 1968 / 651414689
found solution - 8976 / 1968 / 4069443579
found solution - 8541 / 1968 / 2212683033

Offline FreeTrade

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Re: Linux mining question
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2013, 02:35:14 AM »
Yes, that's fine - looks like another node sent you a dodgy block, and correctly your node disconnected it.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

 

Google+