1,886.06THs?  It's likely only for a couple of hours. Someone's gambling with 2PH from here on solo pool. |
|
|
|
Well, someone's dumping a busload of hashrate here for a bit it seems.  |
|
|
|
AMU ? It doesnt seem to be detecting the U3 properly. It should be saying AU3. Are you using cgminer 4.9.0 with out any settings to test. Bitmain continues to distribute its own binaries ignoring any development I put into mainline cgminer so their driver still uses a different driver name, trashes other icarus drivers, needs lots of weird command line options to get working etc. So people using their binary get devices as AMU. |
|
|
|
Lack of best share is not the pool's fault, it's the driver's. It doesn't calculate the share difficulty if it's coincidentally a power of 2 value at the pool.
That's interesting. I wonder why my S3 displays a best share while mining on slush but never displays one (i.e shows 0) when mining on ghash. It is the same S3, and I assume using the same driver .... or does cgminer change the driver change according to the pool you point it to? EDIT: Or is it that the difficulty at ghash is always a power of 2 value (not sure what that means ....) and at slush is never that? That's exactly what I said. Ghash only uses power of 2 difficulties - there is nothing wrong with choosing these, they just set off the (harmless, cosmetic) bug in the S3 driver by doing so which does not calculate the best share when it happens. |
|
|
|
How can p2pool ever be written in C ? Someone should take the job and donation address should be changed so it goes to developers, but is it enough to get started? Its too difficult to even change the donation btc address now, if something like the ckproxy that works with pool gets done I would like to support that, but cant do that because cant change the code.. Donation could be a tool in p2pool to get things better (--donation btcaddress reason) No one donates anything anymore, and development has stopped  P2pool could be running just fine on 4 cores atom if it was written in C.. I could easily rewrite it in c given enough time, and have been asked many times over about this. However it doesn't fix the fatal design flaw in p2pool's design, and no one has a meaningful workaround for it, so I would never embark on a futile task like that. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to 1JUurq3mTA29oQZGqoniDnp74UQy1qcRbM! Though 177TH is hardly small time hashrate  20 blocks and counting. |
|
|
|
|
Lack of best share is not the pool's fault, it's the driver's. It doesn't calculate the share difficulty if it's coincidentally a power of 2 value at the pool.
|
|
|
|
Ok thanks, good to know. You suggest setting queue to 1 instead of 0? I keep seeing people say queue 0 for p2pool, but if you say 1 is best that's what I'll set.
I don't mean to turn this thread into an S4 thread, but while you're here.. I noticed you compiled cgminer 4.9 for S5, any chance you'll do the same for the S4?
There's almost no real difference between 0 and 1 though some have claimed lower rejects with zero, there is a possibility of slightly lower hashrates on underpowered devices, of which all the bitmain gear is. The 4.9 I compiled for S5 is based on bitmain's branch with a handful of my fixes, so it's not a real, official 4.9 and there's no advantage to updating the S4 binary. With time there will be a real driver for these in the master cgminer branch, and that's when more binaries would have anything to offer. |
|
|
|
just add this line at the end of /config/cgminer.conf: "queue" : "1"
and if You want to set queue from shell use: /usr/bin/cgminer-api "setconfig|queue,1" (You can also let ssh do it remotely)
I did not find any difference between queue 0 and 1 in results and I do not use --lowmem
I'm guessing adding it to cgminer.conf would make the setting persistent across reboots? Definitely going to do that if so. Files changed in /config are permanent across reboots. In the S5 there is a file /config/user_setting which has just I'm not sure if the S4 is the same but if it is, that's all you need to modify, to say queue 1 |
|
|
|
For the sake of discussion, would a 1GH or 2GH miner even be able to find a block on ckpool against all the few hundred GH and TH there?
Yes any submitted hash at current diff can odds are low but possible  Does the difficulty of work that ckpool sends depend on my miners hash rate or does the pool not discriminate? That is, do I get the same shot at high (or current) diff shares with a 2GH miner as a high hash rate miner? Will the pool even send useful work to a 2GH miner? Difficulty is just an arbitrary way of describing the work you're doing. It doesn't make your mining hardware work any harder, less hard, more efficient, less efficient or anything like that. With solo mining it's purely used for your own feedback purposes to know your hardware is hashing and regardless of what diff you end up seeing, your chances of solving a block and finding a high diff share are once again proportional to your overall hashrate. Solo ckpool chooses a diff over time that gives you a reasonably accurate hashrate estimate and nothing else. Everyone starts at the same diff and then the pool adjusts accordingly. |
|
|
|
weird recent block #337952 ... it's found by antpool ? is that part of the p2pool network ? no pay from this block yet.
after the block was found, my pool went a little cuckoo, started to get some weird msg's (didnt copy sorry) after couple of minutes it went back to normal but my rejected hashrate spiked up !
antpool provides their own "opensource version" of p2pool, which differs from the original mainly with the fact it is not paying transaction fees to the miners. It also does not use the p2pool share chain and is completely borked. Don't touch it. But but but they advertised they were supporting decentralisation! (not) |
|
|
|
The fan on the front of the S5 is NOT a 38mm fan. It's a 38mm form factor with more 25mm blades and a smaller static set of vanes on the inside to direct airflow. That means it has extra noise compared to an equivalent 38mm fan and does not generate the higher static air pressure that a 38mm fan would - presumably it was chosen for higher CFM compared to the 38mm version they used to include on the S3. So I ripped the fan off the back of the S3 and stuck it on the front of the S5. Noise levels are now significantly lower and the cooling is only marginally less effective.
40 Degree day here today and the S5 was fine with this fan arrangement, running at default 350 speed. The temps got to ~64 but it kept on hashing fine. |
|
|
|
tldr, its not a 'cheaper' or 'noisier' design, its a requirement to reach that performance threshold.
Irrespective of what you say, it's noisier, unbearably so. The pitch is higher along with the absolute sound pressure level. I don't recall implying it was cheaper. |
|
|
|
Have you tried closing in the top so the front fan air flow is kept within the frame and exhausted out the rear? Also, how about reducing the airflow above the heat sinks (reducing the upper front fan opening) so as to improve cooling efficiency (greater air flow through the internal heat sinks)?
Beyond that, how about an S3 fan both on front (push) and rear (pull)?
None of these seemed to make any significant difference. The loudness and temperature seems almost entirely dependent on the one fan on the front. |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Avalon/Canaan creative
|
|
|
|
the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s
And that's bullshit on cex's part. PPLNS is a pooled mining reward system which you cannot possibly have a negative balance. You have a negative balance for buying a rip off cloud mining service which gets its "income" from a pooled mining reward. |
|
|
|
|
So I've done a ton of experimenting and investigating on the S5 noise problem and found something very interesting.
The fan on the front of the S5 is NOT a 38mm fan. It's a 38mm form factor with more 25mm blades and a smaller static set of vanes on the inside to direct airflow. That means it has extra noise compared to an equivalent 38mm fan and does not generate the higher static air pressure that a 38mm fan would - presumably it was chosen for higher CFM compared to the 38mm version they used to include on the S3. So I ripped the fan off the back of the S3 and stuck it on the front of the S5. Noise levels are now significantly lower and the cooling is only marginally less effective.
|
|
|
|
replacing the stock fan with a single Noctua ($24.5 on Amazon) makes it much less loud and changes the metallic banging sound of the stock fan to whooosh, although temperatures rise to ~60C and you have to hash at 325 mhz(1075 GH). I am waiting for a second fan to add pull and go back to 350mhz or even higher. http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-NF-F12-iPPC-3000-PWM/dp/B00KFCRATCThanks for the suggestion, but It's now summer here and mine would fry with that weak a fan (it was 41 degrees C here a couple of days ago). I happen to have quite a few noctua fans in use for other hardware and some spares. While you can design better fans there is still a certain amount of airflow and air pressure you need to generate and this fan wouldn't cut it. |
|
|
|
|
If only I could find a meaningful way to make the hardware shut the fuck up though. I thought we got over noisy hardware... I have to turn this off overnight again. I added a fan to the back in a push pull configuration like the S3 and it only dropped the fanspeed one notch, hardly worth the effort. The lowest speed I can stably run this at is 275 and still the fan's too noisy for my liking. The driver code doesn't really do anything to fanspeeds which all seem to be controlled within the device's FPGA itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
