Here's some lsusb that seem to be relevant: 0408:0907 Quanta Computer, Inc.
0409:0050 NEC Corp.
041e:3051 Creative Technology, Ltd (compound)
0424:2507 Standard Microsystems Corp.
0451:1446 Texas Instruments, Inc. TUSB2040/2070 Hub
0451:2077 Texas Instruments, Inc. TUSB2077 Hub
04cc:1521 Philips Semiconductors USB 2.0 Hub (no PPPS)
050d:0237 Belkin Components
050d:0307 Belkin Components (no PPPS)
1a40:0201 TERMINUS TECHNOLOGY INC. (no PPPS)
1a40:0201 Terminus Technology Inc. FE 2.1 7-port Hub (no PPPS)
2001:f103 D-Link Corp. [hex]
2001:f103 D-Link Corp. DUB-H7 7-port USB 2.0 hub
2001:f103 D-Link Corp. DUB-H7 7-port USB 2.0 hub |
|
|
|
Many (most?) 7-port USB hubs on the market seem to be made up of two 4-port controller chips internally (with the 4th port on the 1st controller connected to the upstream port on the 2nd). Since USB has a 5-hub chain limit, this adds up fast. I'm looking for a 7-port USB hub that is built on a true 7-port USB controller chip. Unfortunately, I haven't managed to find out which those are. As far as I know, the only controller chips that support true 7 ports downstream are: - SMSC USB2507
- SMSC USB2517
- TI TUSB2077A
- REA uPD720113
I presume such a USB hub will also appear to the computer (lsusb on Linux, at least) as a single USB hub, and dual-4-ports as two USB hubs. Information is welcome (eg, models that are true 7-port hubs), as well as offers to sell such a hub. Bonus for something I can use for charging, and/or working per-port power switching (this lets your computer turn each port on/off). Thanks, Luke |
|
|
|
Does BFGMiner include Stratum now?
No. If the beta Stratum branch gets enough testing it might make 2.9.0. |
|
|
|
My Radeon GPUs can be locked down nicely inside KVM.  And you've audited the KVM firmware? That would be the more appropriate analogy. |
|
|
|
Alas the ztex code is in complete bitrot. The only code maintainer for it (nelisky) has long since disappeared and made no attempt to come back and maintain or bugfix it. So you're screwed.
I am maintaining the Ztex driver in BFGMiner. |
|
|
|
So the number of bitcoins under the stats column "Extra Credit" are also owed bitcoins?
No. |
|
|
|
Which means DOUBLE THE PROFITABILITY!
This is simply not true. This would only be true if your MMQ used up 33% of its earnings in power usage, and the Single used up 66% of its earnings in power usage. In reality, these numbers are only 4.5%, and 9%. That is still technically half the operating costs, but it's not twice the profit. I think he meant when difficulty catches up; ie, miners are back to operating at barely a profit. |
|
|
|
Sorry but this protocol seems full of big holes and I really don't see the advantage: I'm not even sure what the "needlessly strict pool boundaries" are. Would you advocate a system where there is no pool at all and everyone should look for individual partners with a local "reciprocity daemon" finding/maintaining partners and checking that everything is going on nicely? That would be a mess: with p2pool we have ~200 users (and it's arguably high variance), should I contact them all to setup the thing? What about small miners, who would bother contact them (they don't help your variance much, so why bother)? Eliel's goal seems to be a system that automatically negotiates forming ad-hoc pools between peers. This is as opposed to the current system where miners choose to cooperate with an existing pool setup by someone else (eg, p2pool is setup and maintained by forrestv). I agree with you that this is unnecessary considering that there are already multiple options in the decentralized pool category (BitPenny, p2pool, Eligius, EclipseMC, BitArena, etc), but it is still interesting in theory and might very well be the future of pooled mining. |
|
|
|
Kislam's 1PMHA7hyqqbcCbjMfwvKT4xEZ81EYasJze doesn't appear to have ever mined on Eligius?  There's no reason to think someone would be mining with their forum donation address... |
|
|
|
|
It's very difficult to be inactive in SMPPS EC mode, since the EC keeps paying you.
Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding time to finish CPPSRB - anyone else want to take a stab at it?
I'm on IRC most of the day and can at least help with the design issues.
|
|
|
|
in the original irc conversation it's weird how BlueMatt doesn't appear to have ops but then does all of a sudden as he threatens to kick people.
Freenode recommends ops "hide" without the +o flag until they need to use it. |
|
|
|
Just updated to 2.8.3. I have to say I really don't like the new precision on numeric output: GPU 0: 73.0C 2900RPM | 604.2M/661.2Mh/s | A:3 R:0 HW:0 U: 7.03/m I: 9
GPU 1: 74.0C 2912RPM | 595.1M/659.3Mh/s | A:5 R:0 HW:0 U:11.72/m I: 9
GPU 2: 74.0C 2922RPM | 611.8M/658 Mh/s | A:10 R:0 HW:0 U:23.44/m I: 9 Could you put a .0 on there instead of all that blank space? It's a minor thing, but I like it better that way. You might prefer BFGMiner's format: BFL 0: 68.3C | 877.2/868.3/865.6Mh/s | A:14233 R:164 HW: 28 U:12.09/m
BFL 1: 68.3C | 1.477/1.468/1.465Gh/s | A:28533 R:164 HW: 28 U:24.18/m Cgminer now displays the actual share difficulty target it hit as well as the current pool difficulty like so: [2012-10-12 21:00:31] Accepted 2687d42a Diff 6/3 GPU 1 pool 2
[2012-10-12 21:00:41] Accepted 00f98044 Diff 262/3 GPU 3 pool 2
[2012-10-12 21:00:45] Accepted 3840818b Diff 4/3 GPU 2 pool 2
[2012-10-12 21:00:55] Accepted 35777786 Diff 4/3 GPU 1 pool 2
I'm not understanding this. Aren't these difficulty numbers multipliers of current difficulty? How/why would a miner be working on a higher difficulty than the pool is requesting? Miners are trying to find hashes that meet a minimum of the current difficulty. So if your hash only hit difficulty 1, it is not good enough for a difficulty 3 pool. If your hash hits the Bitcoin difficulty, you found a block. |
|
|
|
possible bug to report:
I am seeing 2.8.2 crash on multiple linux machines about once every 24 hours
by crash I mean it just closes itself one min you see shares being accepted the next min you see $ command prompt - no error msg given
dont know if its a segmentation fault or what but it happens once a day This doesn't help identify or fix the problem at all. Please get some information and open an Issue. I suggest building with CFLAGS="-ggdb -O0" (add this onto the ./autogen.sh line) and running with "ulimit -c unlimited; valgrind bfgminer <your options> --debuglog 2>debug.log" No, most of such issues tend to come from cgminer-originated changes. Also, cablepair is presumably using ModMiner devices, which cgminer doesn't work with at all (because they stopped merging updates to the driver before the production devices existed). |
|
|
|
how's the security of a router stand up to that of running cgminer in linux? All the routers in question here are Linux. And if someone can break into your router, they can bypass it entirely. So the security of the network depends on the security of the router itself. Your point being what? What specifically do you want to interject with your comment? Which router? My comments were specifically toward the hardware that is controlling that is running the miner program. If you use a piece of hardware (router) to run a miner, it is just as vulnerable as any PC on your network, unless you take steps to harden it. DD-WRT does a good job of hardening their setups. I was agreeing with you, and trying to explain to cypherdoc why it was obviously just as secure. Your original comment shows your intended objective of mis-information. As per your your statement, It can be generalized in this context, if you use DD-WRT to run cgminer, someone can break into your router. Um, no u? Don't know how you completely misread what I said. |
|
|
|
how's the security of a router stand up to that of running cgminer in linux? All the routers in question here are Linux. And if someone can break into your router, they can bypass it entirely. So the security of the network depends on the security of the router itself. Your point being what? What specifically do you want to interject with your comment? Which router? My comments were specifically toward the hardware that is controlling that is running the miner program. If you use a piece of hardware (router) to run a miner, it is just as vulnerable as any PC on your network, unless you take steps to harden it. DD-WRT does a good job of hardening their setups. I was agreeing with you, and trying to explain to cypherdoc why it was obviously just as secure. |
|
|
|
how's the security of a router stand up to that of running cgminer in linux? All the routers in question here are Linux. And if someone can break into your router, they can bypass it entirely. So the security of the network depends on the security of the router itself. |
|
|
|
I was checking with you when you will be including the x6500 in bfgminer. I've been busy with everything a lot over the past few months, but I have the code partially done. As nelisky mentioned, it is a lot of code/work compared to other FPGAs. As soon as I have something usable for mining, I will post a beta. I expect this should be within the next 2 weeks, and will definitely make it a priority to get it done before ASICs. |
|
|
|
Did something change with the pool around 8am EST? BFGMiner suddenly stopped working and I have had to switch to cgminer. I get no error, it just causes the app to lock up and become unkillable. It is listed as defunct in the ps listing after trying to kill or press ctrl+c. Could you make a debug log of this? bfgminer <your options here> --debuglog 2>debug.log |
|
|
|
Can it be that since yesterday, the mining is no longer possible on port 80? Could be - been fighting some iptables issues since a forced reboot a few days ago. Haven't found a good solution yet  |
|
|
|
It would tear the currency to oblivion and small sects. You seem to be trying to do that already, so what are you worried about? FWIW, I don't have a dog. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
