2011-09-20 New features: 1. Two new columns in statistics: number of shares and difficulty at the time when block has been solved 2. For NMC, IXC, I0C, SC added links to multichain block explorer http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/3. Links to multichain block explorer from user payouts list. 4. Pool's performance improvements - miners idle warnings almost eliminated! Is there an ETA on the JSON API? |
|
|
|
WHAT WORKS Motherboard Brand: Biostar Motherboard Model & PCIe Slots: A870U3; two x16, two x1 PSU Brand & Model: Thermaltake Toughpower XT 775w Number & Model GPUs: 4x Sapphire 5850 (3 are Extreme model, one not) Extender Cables: 3 1x --> 16x; 1 16x --> 16x (No Molex. Cables purchased from www.9mart.com) Running linuxcoin 0.2b (old version). The only issue I had was that the cards in the x1 slots wouldn't mine initially, but rebooting solved this. All four cards are undervolted to 0.95 VDC using Atitweak. Currently getting about 300 Mhps from each card and pulling 450 watts from the wall. I haven't tuned the cards yet, and I'm sure I can get more out of them at the current voltage setting (I'm undervolting for efficiency). I have 12 A870 and A870U3 board. Two of them cannot handle 4 GPUs. One can handle only two and the other can handle 3. I will be RMA'ing those and replacing them. Of the 10 that can handle 4 GPUs, all are very solid. My config is (2) x8->x16 in the x16 slots and (2) x1->x16 in the x1 slots. GPUs vary but are mainly 5850's and 5830s. PSU is 1000W Coolmax. Running Ubuntu 11.04 |
|
|
|
As long as one of your systems is up you could use it to trigger the contacts for another one. The simplest way would be to wire a small solid state relay to the parallel port header (on board) on one and then the contacts to the power pins on the other system. If one system goes down you can trigger a power up from the other. There are lots of utils around for setting pins on parallel ports so you would just script together calling such a util from a web page trigger. Another way to handle this would be to have the systems watch each other. So if you use a parallel port to control a relay then the same port could use an input to monitor the 5V line on the other system. If you poll that parallel port every minute then when it sees the 5V line low it could fire the relay for 1 second to restart the system. Repeating that on each system in a daisy chain (loop) would ensure that as long as one system is up then all the others would soon start up too. The only thing you need for this is some wires and solid state relay with input suitable for parallel port outputs. I could draw up a simple wiring diagram for N number of systems if that would help. Edit: An opto-isolator like a 4N25 would be a better way than a relay and easier to wire up too... about 0.25$ each.
Parallel
Port
R1 1 ----------- 5
D(x) ----1k------| Opto- |-----+ to power switch + pin
| Isolator |
GND -------------| |-+
2 ----------- 4|
CNY 17 or | R2
4N25 | 1K
+--\/\/\/\/--- - to power switch GND pin
This is a very clever idea. I like the fact that I could control the power via a script. The limitation seems to be that it would be from one computer to another, or several computers via daisy chain. I think I would like to keep this idea in my back pocket for special situations. Regardless, I'll send a small donation you way! The solution that I am most keen on right now is to disable ATX soft power. Soft power is described here: http://www.jeae.dk/computere/atx_-_psu.htm. Basically, when an ATX PSU is connected to a motherboard it is always providing a small amount of power to be able to sense the power on signal. If you ground the POWER ON (green) wire you will be telling the PSU to give the motherboard power without using the switch. People often short POWER ON and a ground wire to run an ATX power supply without a motherboard. What I am thinking that I will do is to quick splice the POWER ON wire with a ground wire as shown below.  Accomplished by using one of these, which run about $0.50:  By doing this, whenever the PSU has power (and PSU's power switch is in the on position) the motherboard will turn on/stay on. To control the on/off state of the computer, I will use my switched power distribution unit. With the PDU, via a web interface, I can turn an outlet on or off, which will turn the computer on or off since soft power will be disabled. UPDATE: Several of my boards did not like this configuration. GPU, CPU, etc. would power on, but it would not wake the motherboard itself. Thus, YMMV |
|
|
|
Thank you for pointing me to those ideas. What I have right now is an IP controlled power distribution unit like this:  It works perfectly at turning the outlet on and off. It's just that the BIOS setting in my motherboards to power on after power loss are crap and work only half the time. Aside from replacing all of my motherboards, I literally need a way to short the power pins on the motherboard and start up a stopped machine. The relay link you sent is interesting, but for that price I could just pay someone to go there and push a button each time it happens. hmmmmm...... |
|
|
|
I have several Biostar A870 motherboards. It's quite stable, but sometimes I overclock it too far and the system and it hangs. Recently I put them in a data center where I can turn on and off the power outlet that feeds the PC to make it reboot. In the computer's BIOS settings I have it set to power on if there is a loss of power. Strangely, that setting often gets lost. If I've done a power cycle at the outlet, the result is that the computer just stays off instead of coming back on again. That means having someone at the DC (or me) physically go and turn it on. Has anyone seen a solution to this? Power switches these days are the intermittent type, so it doesn't seem like you could just put a jumper over the two power pins on the motherboard. Bounty of 2 btc for a workable solution  |
|
|
|
Selling my beloved Thinkpad X200, which I have kept in very good condition. Warranty until 2012 62 btc + shipping (~2 btc in US, ~5 btc overseas, free in LA area) Specs: - Model 7459-DW1
- Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26 GHz CPU
- 4GB RAM
- 320GB Hard Drive
- Bluetooth
- Intel 5100AGN 802.11a/b/g/n WiFi
- Vista Business SP1 - 32-bit and recovery DVDs (Can provide Windows 7 Pro x64)
- 9-cell battery, US power adapter
Pics:  |
|
|
|
|
The 7900 series won't be coming out until Q1 2012, but sometime in the next couple of months the 7800 series will be out. Does anyone recommend a supplier who can take a pre-order for 7870's?
|
|
|
|
|
Looking for a couple more of these boards. Let me know if you have one or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Tried to register today - closed. I would like to give it a try, even if some people seem to have some issues recently.
|
|
|
|
I have several machines set up with the original config (2.4) in the first post. The driver is 11.4 and I want to upgrade to 11.6 or newer so I can over/underclock past BIOS limits. I tried this process, but I get a "No protocol specified" error after the upgrade cd ~
sudo apt-get remove fglrx
wget http://www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/ati-driver-installer-11-6-x86.x86_64.run
sudo sh ati-driver-installer-11-6-x86.x86_64.run --buildpkg Ubuntu/natty
sudo dpkg -i *.deb
sudo apt-get -f install
sudo aticonfig -f --initial --adapter=all
sudo reboot Is there a better way to do the upgrade? Also, can the newest version, 11.8, work with APP SDK 2.4, or would that need to be upgraded too? If so, I'd just stick with 11.6. |
|
|
|
Have a 5870 that you'd like to sell? PM me or leave a message here. That is all. |
|
|
|
same as organofcorti, mine_deepbit is named mine_lp now . you will get more help and support if you join us on #bitHopper channel (Freenode)  @amazingrando try using a stable version hit "Download zip", atm mine_slush it's being reworked Thanks! And I'll "hop" on IRC too |
|
|
|
Am I misreading bitHopper's output or am I stuck on slush? Bitcoin.cz 1,972,886 112.39% mine_c I have the role set to mine_slush, but it shows mine_c. Is that the new system to take into account hash rate and c? Shouldn't bitHopper leave as the shares approach 14.7%?  |
|
|
|
I am hoping to confirm that I have the roles properly set for the pools I am mining. For example, bitcoinpool is now prop50 pool I think. I am assuming I don't mine that one for now. Here are the pools I am mining: | POOL | ROLE | | slush | mine_slush | | ozco | mine | | mtred | mine | | btcworld | mine | | triple | mine | | bitclockers | mine | | deepbit | mine_deepbit | | btcg | mine_deepbit | | itzod | mine | | digbtc | mine | | bclc | mine | | kiwipool | mine | | bloodys | mine | | bithasher | mine | | swepool | mine | | asspenny | mine |
Any mistakes, suggestions? |
|
|
|
New 'how to hop' blog post - How to hop 3: the 50-50 taxThis week I take a break from exponentially scored pools to look at how to hop this new type of scored pool. Then I show you the best way to determine when to hop from one type of pool to another (and it's not always the pool with the least shares). Read it and reap! Has this been implemented in BH? I see that it has made its way into Cherry Picking. |
|
|
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? I think it's been updated v0.2.4.8.zip — Oodles of bugfixes. Getwork Flooding should be gone. Miner Starvation should be reduced. Solidcoins have the correct diff and have a bunch of fixes. Downloaded the v0.2.4.8 zip file. Seems like it switched from solidcoins when it should, but the stats display is a bit confusing: s0DigBTC.net (scc) 2,981 0.17%Should be showing 36.15% if sc difficulty is 8,246. EDIT: I take back my earlier statement about switching working right. For example, I've been stuck on mine4us even though it should have switched (the pool is at about 64% presently, when there are several other pools <43.5%) mine-for.us (scc) 5,289 0.30%EDIT: I'm an idiot. I in user.cfg I used mine, when I should have used mine_scc. grrr  Everything appears to be working correctly |
|
|
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? I think it's been updated v0.2.4.8.zip — Oodles of bugfixes. Getwork Flooding should be gone. Miner Starvation should be reduced. Solidcoins have the correct diff and have a bunch of fixes. I am getting BH from github by cloning or pulling (I'm running Linux if that matters). Is the v0.2.4.8.zip version newer? Where can I download it from? |
|
|
|
According to Coinotron, it looks like solidcoins are 20% more profitable than BTC atm. Thus, I've added a couple of sc pools. Currently sc difficulty is around 8000. In the Bh stats, it shows the percentage for sc pools with respect to BTC bifficulty (1.77MM). Does this mean that Bh will always stay on sc pools? Should it be 43.5% of 8000? |
|
|
|
Certain parts of the government are beating down the price of BC in order to corral people into precious metal derivatives.
please elaborate further because that sounds crazier than anything ive ever read on the internet , and ive been using the internet since 1997 Evidently you haven't visited 4chan.... |
|
|
|
FYI, BTCSERV: I have decided to stop offering Proportional Rewards after the next found block because it does not work parallelly to PPS without affecting it negatively. Even worse, it would cause losses if I would not severely cut one of the reward schemes, and thus offer significantly lower value than other pools, what is not what I want to do. Currently I am calculating the rewards like this: PROP: [user prop shares] / [total prop shares and pps shares] * 50
PPS: [user pps shares] * 0.000028125
Problem with both reward schemes parrallelly running is that the PPS Queue does not even out after a long round and a short round. In short rounds, which have a higher percentage of prop shares, you save only a bit with what you can feed the queue, but in long rounds, which have way higher share of pps shares, the queue is getting quite big very fast. I have tried some different calculations but did not get an acceptable result. I dont know how other pools with PPS and PROP calculate the rewards. Maybe they experience the same flaw, maybe not. If someone has a solution for this I would be glad to hear it. Btw, I have decided to stick to PPS since I am convinced it is the fairest of all reward schemes available. It's not in my interest to lose the hashing boost of pool hoppers, but I want to achieve a steadily increasing hash rate from regular users and not short term 150 GH/s and as soon as a round is near 43% see everyone leave. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
