I have not seen this before and would like to know if anybody knows what this is. I did a search in this blog for any info but did not find any. I am running the Relay but did not see any association.  2015-01-07 06:43:15.305684 Sending 415 shares to 198.167.143.123:49545 |
|
|
|
Works now thanks, the update didn't fix my issue ..
Wondering what they fix... No information at all. Some people have reported a need to restart the unit after less than a day of running due to a blade freezing up and not hashing. That was was one issue. |
|
|
|
Has anybody seen this before? I know P2P is kicking this connection out but I have been getting hit tonight from the same node 14.111.192.xxx but with a different last octet and port though. This is just one example. 2015-01-06 21:40:27.138214 Incoming connection to peer 14.111.192.252:63478 established. p2pool version: 1300 'e9b4018' Then it gets kicked out: 2015-01-06 21:40:42.139539 > in handle_share_hashes:
2015-01-06 21:40:42.139653 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2015-01-06 21:40:42.139700 > Failure: twisted.internet.defer.TimeoutError: in GenericDeferrer
2015-01-06 21:40:42.140333 Lost peer 14.111.192.252:63478 - Connection was aborted locally, using. I could just go block it I guess but as it is not connected longer than ~30sec not sure if I should bother. Has this happened to anybody here before and I have just been privileged? EDIT: It looks like they gave up as of this morning. |
|
|
|
Hooked this one up tonight and having about half hash as well.
I'll do everything you said above.
2.5.64
Uptime:470 | FPGA ver:100 | BIST in 164
-----BOARD-0-----
PSU[UNKNOWN]: 0->(258w/258w)[258 258 258] (->258w[258 258 258]) (lim=1350) 0c 407GH cooling:0/0x8
-----BOARD-1-----
PSU[UNKNOWN]: 0->(276w/276w)[276 275 276] (->276w[276 275 276]) (lim=1350) 0c 424GH cooling:0/0x8
-----BOARD-2-----
PSU[UNKNOWN]: 0->(5w/5w)[5 5 5] (->5w[5 5 5]) (lim=1350) 0c 0GH cooling:0/0x8
-----BOARD-3-----
PSU[UNKNOWN]: 0->(5w/5w)[5 5 5] (->5w[5 5 5]) (lim=1350) 0c 0GH cooling:0/0x8
LOOP[0] ON TO:0 (w:29)
0: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:722 vlt2:727(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 100W 137A 66c] ASIC:[ 85c (125c) 1020hz(BL:1020) 15 (E:193) F:0 L:0]
1: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:724 vlt2:727(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 109W 149A 85c] ASIC:[100c (125c) 1090hz(BL:1090) 14 (E:193) F:0 L:0]
LOOP[1] ON TO:0 (w:37)
2: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:724 vlt2:727(DCl:794 Tl:794 Ul:727) 114W 156A 99c] ASIC:[120c (125c) 1110hz(BL:1110) 14 (E:193) F:0 L:0]
3: DC2DC/1/:[vlt1:718 vlt2:722(DCl:794 Tl:722 Ul:727) 109W 152A 105c] ASIC:[120c (125c) 1090hz(BL:1090) 23 (E:193) F:0 L:0]
LOOP[2] OFF TO:0 (test serial failed or something)
4: disabled (i2c BAD, btw!)
5: disabled (i2c BAD, btw!)
LOOP[3] OFF TO:0 (test serial failed or something)
6: disabled (i2c BAD, btw!)
7: disabled (i2c BAD, btw!)
[H:HW:831Gh (500),W:432,L:0,A:4,MMtmp:0 TMP:(29/29)=>=>=>(78/78 , 0/0)]
Pushed 10 jobs , in HW queue 4 jobs (sw:3, hw:3)!
min:44 wins:66[this/last min:11/5] bist-fail:97, hw-err:0
leading-zeroes:42 idle promils[s/m]:0/0, rate:349gh/s asic-count:36 (wins:11+0)
Fan:90, conseq:200
AC2DC BAD: 0 0
R/NR: 449/0
RTF asics: 0
FET: 0:5 1:255
0 restarted 0 reset 0 reset2 0 fake_wins
0 stuck_bist 0 low_power 0 stuck_pll 0 runtime_dsble
0 purge_queue 0 read_timeouts 0 dc2dc_i2c 0 read_tmout2 0 read_crptn
0 purge_queue3 0 bad_idle
0 err_murata
You should also change your MAX PSU to 288 or less, then try again. What power supply are you using? |
|
|
|
what You have is more then good, no need to make any change, imho
 Thanks for the link. Weird that you're getting 60ms, pinging Brooklyn gets me 25ms. Added a second dashboard just now, will have to figure out which is best to use and how to customize it to my liking. http://69.157.250.149:9332/static/p2pool-node-status/round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 97.756/101.354/107.775/3.277 ms from Southern California. |
|
|
|
S5 firmware is being tested tonight, estimated to be online tomorrow or the following day.
Janet, As PatMan as requested as well, can we please get the cgminer fix that ckolivas has already provided the community? |
|
|
|
Do you guys know if I could use a usb WiFi adapter to connect to the internet instead of an ethernet cable for the miners? Thanks.
There was talk about WiFi to ethernet adapters before https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.msg9775877#msg9775877. Reading this it sounds like the hardware will not recognize a USB WiFi adapter at this time. |
|
|
|
Bottom line though, it does not matter as I do not see any difference in operation form my units, just curious now that I see you do not have any either.
I'm under the impression he was being sarcastic.... Oh no, I know he was and I am by no means knocking my SP20 units. I am really curious now what are the differences between the type of errors. I dug around before but could not find any information about the main page errors. |
|
|
|
I need to lodge an informal complaint with the SP20. Both of my units have been up for over one day now. Both running about 1.6T. Intake air varying from 19-25c and out put air in the high 70s. I think the GUI must be messed up because I have yet to see an error reported on it. Sure I've seen discarded shares, but no hardware errors. That sounds like an error to me.   I would like to know if the errors on the main page are the same as those reported on the ASIC Stats page. I too do not have any errors on the main page but do have some on the ASIC Stats page but they are not reported on the main page. Here is an example taken from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.msg9785717#msg9785717: [statistics, wins:total shares, last minute shares, hw errors (wrong hash)] min:49 wins:3350[this/last min:21/27] bist-fail:410, hw-err:1 Bottom line though, it does not matter as I do not see any difference in operation form my units, just curious now that I see you do not have any either. |
|
|
|
The Bitmain direct sales on Amazon were about a week ago. If you look back through this thread you will see the announcement. There was a link from the Bitmain site on batch 2 for about two days. They were about $485 delivered in the US. Great way to sell dollars and buy BTC, even if the b/e will be a bit higher depending on electricity. Yes, especially if you have an Amazon credit account with free financing for 12 mo I have one coming from this buy, interesting point of origin is CONIFER, CO, US but the pickup location was Kansas City, MO. Well maybe they did make a bulk shipment to the US for this distribution. |
|
|
|
Thought my pair of S5's would ship on 08 Jan. but got notice they shipped yesterday (via BitMain on Amazon).
Are those B3 ones direct from Bitmain? if so that's weird they would ship before B2. The Amazon sale was linked to B2, which was scheduled to ship on Jan 4th if I recall. Amazon used different dates such a early February as the latest delivery date but they now have tracking information indicating that the shipping label has been made but they have not left the factory yet. UPS indicates a delivery of Jan 7th for the US west coast. |
|
|
|
I thought I'd read you could set your pseudo share difficulty to just about any value? My nodes seem to be limited to 1,000,000.
M
Did u try? Any eg? Thx @patman We on a roll keep the blocks rolling in another question of the day : if i do this : Appending "/1000" to a miner's username, i see this on the console : (which is also the diff shown under Current Share Difficulty) New work for worker! Difficulty: 999.984741 Share difficulty: 13464960.940531 Total block value: 25.016444 BTC including 115 transactions if i DO NOT append the /1000 to the miner's username (which is a BTC add), i see this on the console : (the value is different & much higher than the Current Share Difficulty) New work for worker! Difficulty: 999.984741 Share difficulty: 25433607.461485 Total block value: 25.016424 BTC including 119 transactions so which is which ? should or should not ? confused here  yes, looked thru the web & all but a finer explanation will be greatly appreciated as being pointed to the right direction with better understanding. if my miner has a capability of 1th/s & it's getting shares @ the Current Diff (/1000), that means to me it has better chance of getting a share faster but if it's the other way round (without /1000) same 1th/s but with higher difficulty means it has a lower chance or a longer time to get a share. This may help with your question https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg9643415#msg9643415. The one just below from JB also gives some insight. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, seems like BITMAIN just used the controller and two hashing boards from the S4 ? and made the S5 out of it. no the chips are different. the s-5 is very efficient for power much better then the s-4. I did a review for the s-5 and it is very close to the sp20. 2 s-5's are 900 shipped to my door in the USA and 2 sp20's are 1000 shipped to my door in the USA. You can do a lot of comparisons of the two. For me in my home using about 10 pieces I give the sp20 a very small edge. For others the s-5 will be better. Just looked - an SP20 is $659, holiday special. How do you get $500 each? It was a GB https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=903286.0 |
|
|
|
Yes it does. Thanks I've tried the FR and that didn't change the FW. I found the tech blog and how to create a recovery sd. Except after doing it, noticed it was a micro SD slot.  Had to head home, so was hoping I could just load a correct firmware version from file since I can do that remotely. Haven't been able to locate their firmware files on their website or github yet. I looked for you as well but could not find them available. I am sure SP will provide support but they are in the middle of the New Year right now. Looks like the micro SD route is your best bet though. |
|
|
|
|
It didn't show up on my node as well but did hit may wallet.
|
|
|
|
No problem just after updating sometimes my units require a hard power cycle. I am a distance away from my miners so I just won't do it remotely from now on.
I had the same issue with one of my 5 SP20s. I ended up having to drive 40 miles to the colo and power cycle it last night. I think it might have an issue as it will not hash over about 1570Ghs and it took a couple of power cycles to get it to come back up (the yellow light kept flashing on the front). Should I have support look at the logs on it? The one I got from the first batch thinking I would be cool won't go past 1512, 1535 if I push the voltage. I have direct cooling into the racks at 22c the units says 24 to 25c intake. The other SP20'S push 1600 plus in the same rack. Everything checks out ok on the lemon. It may have been banged up from shipping or just slower Asics compared to what's shipping now. Sucks as it cost a **** load. And this one needed a hard power cycle a few times when I dabbled with pool settings. 40 miles sucks. At least gas is cheaper these days. I'm about 30 mins no traffic. For the led check if you have the led flash option in the gui. Have you thought about using a Raspberry pi or Arduino to remote control your power supplies? I don't have the same issue as you but have read where others remote control their power supplies. I have a friend who controlled his power supply for his Technobit units last year with an Arduino. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
SP Tech, so what is new in FW 2.5.61 other than the changes with the setup features that were introduced in a previous version? I have been running the current version for the last six hours and it seems to be working better than 2.5.58 or 2.5.59 which I see were taken off. As it is rather painless to upgrade, and these are my first SP units, I have been pushing the upgrades as they came in. The 2.5.58 did cause the miner to cycle cgminer on its own, something 2.5.59 did not do I am happy to say. I will continue to run with 2.5.61 and report back if there are an anomalies.
I am happy to report that FW 2.5.61 has been running perfect for two days now and is very consistent between the units. Another happy customer. |
|
|
|
|
SP Tech, so what is new in FW 2.5.61 other than the changes with the setup features that were introduced in a previous version? I have been running the current version for the last six hours and it seems to be working better than 2.5.58 or 2.5.59 which I see were taken off. As it is rather painless to upgrade, and these are my first SP units, I have been pushing the upgrades as they came in. The 2.5.58 did cause the miner to cycle cgminer on its own, something 2.5.59 did not do I am happy to say. I will continue to run with 2.5.61 and report back if there are an anomalies.
|
|
|
|
From BitmainWarranty: "C1 uses a similar looking PCB to S3 or S3+ hashing PCB, but it is little different, so Please DO NOT mix them as the connector even facing differently."
So the C1 boards are NOT S3 boards just a bit clocked up correct? Just for clarification please.
In terms of hashing power they are. Wow now I do see what others are saying is true. When I first started reading your review threads over a year ago I really got behind what you were providing to the community, they were both very helpful to most, and an enjoyment to read. I am not sure what happened but maybe you have spread yourself a little thin. Your justification for the inaccurate answer you provided to the original question is childish at best I am sad to say. Please try to get back on point Doge. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
