The Greek scare is definitely not over... Japanese and US markets opened way off. DOW was down over 150. BTC is around $275. Bitmain just jacked UP the price of an S5 (totally irrelevant, but thought I'd throw that little tidbit in here  ). |
|
|
|
Yes, the antminer stats page on the web GUI still shows 4.6.1-1. I noticed that was incorrect as well... but it's always been incorrect if you're using anything other than Bitmain's cgminer. Rely upon what the running cgminer on the machine says... not some web GUI that Bitmain probably just hardcoded with version info . Glad you got it sorted. |
|
|
|
Was going to ping you about the updates from forrestv... but looks like you have already updated the nodes . This should stabilize things - at least it has on my node so far. |
|
|
|
Please try the latest commit. It doesn't allow connections to v13 nodes.
Thanks forrestv. That appears to have fixed the issue for me as well. I was noticing a ton of disconnects and my miners failing over to backup pools. So far with the update, my miners seem to be sticking on my node, and I'm not seeing the constant share traffic in the logs. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sure marco and bitcoin_boy would be overjoyed to learn that you're trying to game their campaign. /sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know what is going on with P2P today with the high latency? It is causing my bitcoind to drop connectivity and my SP's to drop as well (the S5 seems to drop as well looking at my node). It has been up/down for the last six hours. I looked at other pools and some seem to have the same problem as well. I am running the current 13.4-83-gb07b1e3 P2P version and 0.10.1 core.
That's your problem right there. Try joining us on version 14.0... you're mining invalid work. |
|
|
|
Dang....followed the directions to install the rewrite for cgminer (s3) but it says I'm still using 4.6.1-1. This can't be right & I see no difference in web interface. Knew this was gonna give me trouble....What did I do wrong?? I am not any good /w Linux...need some help plz. Thank You
What says you're still on 4.6.1-1? This is the step-by-step set of instructions that will get it upgraded with kano's stuff: ssh root@IP_OF_S3
enter password (default is root)
cd /
wget http://kano.is/AntS3/cgminer-ants3-4.9.2-94e04f6.tgz
tar -xvzf cgminer-ants3-4.9.2-94e04f6.tgz
rm cgminer-ants3-4.9.2-94e04f6.tgz
cgset
reboot
All you have to do is cut and paste. Once it's done, you can check what version of cgminer you're running: root@S3:~# cgminer-api version
Reply was 'STATUS=S,When=1436134854,Code=22,Msg=CGMiner versions,Description=cgminer 4.9.2|VERSION,CGMiner=4.9.2,API=3.6|'
[STATUS] =>
(
[STATUS] => S
[When] => 1436134854
[Code] => 22
[Msg] => CGMiner versions
[Description] => cgminer 4.9.2
)
[VERSION] =>
(
[0] => VERSION
[CGMiner] => 4.9.2
[API] => 3.6
)
[/code] You can also tell in the web page... the status page is changed around to include other things (I circled a few of them):  |
|
|
|
Hi JB,
Did you also try running the pre-compiled binary by any chance?
OK... did some more digging into this. I'm pretty sure the problem is that the latest code is requiring GLIBCXX_3.4.21. Typically, that would be included in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6. However, when looking at the contents, I didn't see 3.4.21 listed - it only went up to 3.4.20. How to get this resolved? Here's what I did: add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-toolchain-r/test
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade
Doing that, and then examining the library again, lo and behold the GLIBCXX_3.4.21 is there. Now, I did: Got the same warnings during the compilation... but this time the code actually executes without throwing a segfault: miner@devildog:~/RelayNode/c++$ ./relaynetworkclient 127.0.0.1 8333
Server 0 (public.us-east.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 2031 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 1 (public.us-west.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 1429 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 2 (public.eu.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 1591 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 3 (public.sgp.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 5107 ms to respond 20 times.
Using server public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com
public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com Disconnect: failed to read message header (Connection reset by peer)
Connected to bitcoind with version 70002
Finished connect handshake with bitcoind
Sent transaction of size 189 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 487 to relay server
public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com Disconnect: failed to read message header (Broken pipe)
public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com Disconnect: failed to read message header (Connection reset by peer)
Sent transaction of size 335 to relay server
public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com Disconnect: failed to read message header (Connection reset by peer)
Connected to relay node with protocol version the blocksize
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 371 from relay server
Received transaction of size 517 from relay server
Received transaction of size 669 from relay server
Received transaction of size 334 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 374 from relay server
Received transaction of size 373 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 668 from relay server
Received transaction of size 963 from relay server
Received transaction of size 996 from relay server
Received transaction of size 338 from relay server
Received transaction of size 335 from relay server
Received transaction of size 226 from relay server
Received transaction of size 2106 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 844 from relay server
Received transaction of size 519 from relay server
Received transaction of size 335 from relay server
Received transaction of size 335 from relay server
Received transaction of size 339 from relay server
Received transaction of size 191 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 374 from relay server
Received transaction of size 226 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 424 from relay server
Received transaction of size 373 from relay server
Received transaction of size 618 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 192 from relay server
Received transaction of size 2142 from relay server
Received transaction of size 334 from relay server
Received transaction of size 370 from relay server
Received transaction of size 634 from relay server
Received transaction of size 225 from relay server
Received transaction of size 191 from relay server
Received transaction of size 258 from relay server
Received transaction of size 3294 from relay server
Received transaction of size 334 from relay server
Received transaction of size 191 from relay server
Received transaction of size 373 from relay server
Received transaction of size 226 from relay server
Received transaction of size 223 from relay server
Received transaction of size 373 from relay server
Received transaction of size 336 from relay server
Sent transaction of size 225 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 371 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 517 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 669 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 334 to relay server
Sent transaction of size 225 to relay server
|
|
|
|
I see what you're meaning... I thought you were stating you got errors on the compilation, which was my confusion. I grabbed the latest from git and compiled. Saw the same warnings, but the client built. When I tried to run the client, it would go through the new picking process (since I didn't specify a server), but then segfaults. Picking a server manually causes it to segfault right out of the gate. Matt, I'm not sure how much help this will provide, but here's the output from gdb when trying to run the latest pull from git. I'm on Ubuntu 14.04 x64 miner@devildog:~/RelayNode/c++$ gdb --args ./relaynetworkclient 127.0.0.1 8333
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.7.1-0ubuntu5~14.04.2) 7.7.1
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu".
Type "show configuration" for configuration details.
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>.
For help, type "help".
Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"...
Reading symbols from ./relaynetworkclient...done.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/miner/RelayNode/c++/relaynetworkclient 127.0.0.1 8333
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6.0.19-gdb.py", line 63, in <module>
from libstdcxx.v6.printers import register_libstdcxx_printers
ImportError: No module named 'libstdcxx'
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
[New Thread 0x7ffff6dbb700 (LWP 24308)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff65ba700 (LWP 24309)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff5db9700 (LWP 24310)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff53ac700 (LWP 24311)]
[New Thread 0x7ffff49a5700 (LWP 24312)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe7fff700 (LWP 24313)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe77fe700 (LWP 24314)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe6ffd700 (LWP 24315)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe67fc700 (LWP 24316)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe5ffb700 (LWP 24317)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe57fa700 (LWP 24318)]
[New Thread 0x7fffe4ff9700 (LWP 24319)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc7fff700 (LWP 24320)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc77fe700 (LWP 24321)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc6ffd700 (LWP 24322)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc67fc700 (LWP 24323)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc5ffb700 (LWP 24324)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc57fa700 (LWP 24325)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc4ff9700 (LWP 24326)]
[New Thread 0x7fffaffff700 (LWP 24327)]
[New Thread 0x7fffaf7fe700 (LWP 24328)]
[Thread 0x7fffe77fe700 (LWP 24314) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe4ff9700 (LWP 24319) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe5ffb700 (LWP 24317) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe57fa700 (LWP 24318) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffaf7fe700 (LWP 24328) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe67fc700 (LWP 24316) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc6ffd700 (LWP 24322) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe7fff700 (LWP 24313) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc77fe700 (LWP 24321) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc5ffb700 (LWP 24324) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc4ff9700 (LWP 24326) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc67fc700 (LWP 24323) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc57fa700 (LWP 24325) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffe6ffd700 (LWP 24315) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc7fff700 (LWP 24320) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffaffff700 (LWP 24327) exited]
[Thread 0x7ffff5db9700 (LWP 24310) exited]
[Thread 0x7ffff53ac700 (LWP 24311) exited]
[Thread 0x7ffff65ba700 (LWP 24309) exited]
[Thread 0x7ffff49a5700 (LWP 24312) exited]
Server 0 (public.us-east.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 2028 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 1 (public.us-west.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 1444 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 2 (public.eu.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 1589 ms to respond 20 times.
Server 3 (public.sgp.relay.mattcorallo.com) took 5057 ms to respond 20 times.
Using server public.01.relay.mattcorallo.com
[New Thread 0x7fffaf7fe700 (LWP 24348)]
[New Thread 0x7fffaffff700 (LWP 24349)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc4ff9700 (LWP 24350)]
[New Thread 0x7fffc57fa700 (LWP 24351)]
[Thread 0x7fffaf7fe700 (LWP 24348) exited]
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0x7fffc4ff9700 (LWP 24350)]
0x0000000000409b07 in OutboundPersistentConnection::OutboundConnection::net_process(std::function<void (char const*)> const&) [clone .local.256] (this=<optimized out>, disconnect=...) at connection.h:90
90 static void do_setup_and_read(Connection* me);
(gdb) q
A debugging session is active.
Inferior 1 [process 24304] will be killed.
Quit anyway? (y or n) y
|
|
|
|
|
As long as people keep pointing hash to this pool, there is no incentive for a change. Since they've still got over 70PH/s, it doesn't seem too many people are doing much complaining about their practices.
|
|
|
|
|
Great points sidehack. The BE300 did indeed beat the BM1384 and show that there's still plenty of wiggle room with the 28nm tech to get some nice efficiency gains. Do I think Bitmain's going to throw all of their cards on the table with this next S6/S7 generation and offer up the best they can get from their chips? Honestly, no. Even though they could very easily put out an S7 running 1.8TH/s at under 600W, I just don't see the incentive for them to do so. This will likely be a "hey it's good enough" generation while they transition to a smaller process node to compete with KnC's 16nm tech (which promises some absurdly low power draw).
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh... it's that window-licking kinda special.
I've never seen an S3 fan spooled up to 10k rpm before. The hash rate is closer to what I'd expect if your clock speed was set to 206.25 than it being set at the default 218.75. Your display isn't showing any "x" or "-" so it would appear that all of the chips are functioning. I'd say go into your config and kick the clock down a notch to 212.5, save and apply then reboot the thing. When it comes back up, check on it after a while... it should get hashing ~427GH/s at that clock speed.
And this discussion really should be moved into the s3 support thread instead of cluttering up ck's solo pool thread. So... to try and bring it back on track...
Now that hotwired007 found a block with his S1s... it's time for me to find a block with my U2s! Unfortunately, they've yet to find a share better than 410,090 since the last block... and 3.75M since I last updated cgminer and rebooted on 6/23.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe I forgot Slush... especially after I mentioned his pool being basically the first mining pool in another recent post. Thanks for the reminder eleuthria... and thanks for the stats organofcorti.
|
|
|
|
Using a certain pool is meter of trust. Do not count on pool stats or that blockchain will show you all blocks mined by pool. If in doubt just CHANGE POOL. Thanks - yes get your drift - Blockchain is definitely missing blocks that Antpool report - and it seems Blockchain is reporting blocks that Antpool stats misses - cheers The problem, though, is that if AntPool isn't reporting finding a block, then you as a miner aren't getting paid for it. The info on who mined a block by blockchain.info is based on a few things like the BTC address of the generation transaction, the coinbase signature, etc. It's not always accurate, and it certainly misses sometimes. A pool's own stats? They should be 100% accurate, otherwise they're not properly tracking payouts and you, the miner, are getting the shaft because of it. |
|
|
|
If you're mining BTC, stop. You're just burning your Mac's GPU for no reason because you won't see any returns. If this really is a "just for fun" exercise, pick up an Antminer U2 and plug it into a USB port on your Mac. It'll give you a much higher hash rate than your GPU and won't turn your Mac into a very expensive paperweight. The U2 won't earn you much of anything... But it will spare your Mac's life |
|
|
|
|
I see some warnings but don't see any errors there. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, too, that in Phil's story, he started from scratch. No building, no hardware, no nothing. Less than 6 months in he's made 300k. That's how the farms make their coin. Places with cheaper building costs and cheaper electricity make even more of a profit.
Even if Phil, "mines to the bitter end" as he stated, he's still got the space, which has now completely paid for itself, a bunch of hardware that he could sell (all profit since it's paid for itself), etc.
There's definitely money to be made in this game.
|
|
|
|
How do you figure that's a "bad" S3? Is it because your reported hash rate in your monitoring tool is 412GH/s when it should read 440GH/s based on your clock speed? |
|
|
|
selling the s-7 rather then mining with it is not really a good idea.
the new pattern for asic builders is replace your older gear slowly with the newer gear. all the while slowly selling the older gear at the highest price the market will allow.
Both avalon and bitmaintech slowly sell the avalon 4.1 at high price and the s-5 at high price while mining it,
they then replace the 4.1 or the s-5 with more efficient gear. they have no need to rush.
the new avalon mini does .4 watts vs .53 watts. the new s-7 does > watts vs .52 watts.
the trick is to allow over-clocked gear die in the field see my sp20 stat thread.
what does all of this do. it lowers the builders risk it ends the gear-up wars and allows for safer profit for the building-self mining company.
SO when the s-7 comes out look for a .35 to .4 watt item priced to break even in about 180-210 days if your power cost is 8 cents.
You and I are on pretty much exactly the same page regarding the S7's performance, Phil. Earlier in the thread I stated that the S7 should likely get around 1.5TH/s for the same 590W the S5 demands. Your numbers put the range between 1.475TH/s and 1.685TH/s. Hopefully they will make the thing a bit quieter. My S3s are virtually silent compared to the noise the SP20 and S5 make. |
|
|
|
You count merged mining payout?
No, only Bitcoin payout ... it would be additional work to exchange merge-mined altcoins to Bitcoins and the value would be most probably negligible. The reason that question was asked was because they claim those merge mined coins given to you will make up for the fees they charge you. I'm in full agreement with you, though. The hassle of dealing with all of those alt coins and trading them on the exchanges, then paying any potential fees on the exchanges for the trades and moving BTC is just not worth the meager returns you might get from them. EDIT: full disclosure, I run my own p2pool node and I used to merge mine every coin I could. Now the only alt coin daemon still running on my node is NMC. I've only ever found a couple blocks, and when I did, I donated the BTC I made back to p2pool miners. That NMC daemon is probably not going to be running on my node very much longer. At 25 NMC per block and current exchange rates, finding a block will net me about 0.07 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
