Z9 Manual has been posted: https://service.bitmain.com/support/download?product=Antminer%20Z9The Z9 Mini is 3 hash boards, 36 ASICs total, 10K Sol/s spec'd. The Z9 is 3 hash boards, 48 ASICs total, 42K Sol/s spec'd. So, different ASICs on the Z9s than the mini's if the manual is to be believed. Hmmm... I bought the Z9s hoping/planning on similar OC to the mini's. "Uh Oh." It's interesting that the Z9 Mini has 36 ASIC's total - the Miner Status screen shows only 12... 4 per board. I always thought that was the actual physical number of ASIC's/FPGA's on each board. Something doesn't add up. I'm an idiot is what is up. I've got 12 Z9 minis running and awesomeminer was showing me the summary of 36.. 3 hash boards per-unit. .... Take #2 1 Z9 Mini has 12 ASICs, 10KSol/12 = 0.83KSol/ASIC 1 Z9 has 48 ASICs, 42KSol/48 = 0.88KSol/ASIC So yeah.. probably the same chip, and maybe binned on the production line. |
|
|
|
Z9 Manual has been posted: https://service.bitmain.com/support/download?product=Antminer%20Z9The Z9 Mini is 3 hash boards, 36 ASICs total, 10K Sol/s spec'd. The Z9 is 3 hash boards, 48 ASICs total, 42K Sol/s spec'd. So, different ASICs on the Z9s than the mini's if the manual is to be believed. Hmmm... I bought the Z9s hoping/planning on similar OC to the mini's. "Uh Oh." I believe it’s probably the same chips, just the better ones that can be clocked at a higher frequency. Would make sense from a production perspective. Math doesn't add up that way unless I'm seriously missing something. at https://service.bitmain.com/support/download?product=Antminer%20Z9 there is firmware for the Z9 that talks about changing the factory 500 to 550 at your own risk. 10(Ksol)/36(chips) = 0.277 42(Ksol)/48(chips) = 0.875 So each chip is producing a different hash rate between the Z9 and mini -- and the factory frequency is the same 500 for the 42k quoted in the manual. .... otherwise, your logic is what I was betting on until I found/read the manual. *EDIT*: ^^ ignore this non-sense I wrote -- Z9's have 12 chips per, 3 boards per (and awesomeminer reports board count as asic count, so 12 Z9 minis it reports as 36 which I blindly accepted). -j |
|
|
|
Z9 Manual has been posted: https://service.bitmain.com/support/download?product=Antminer%20Z9The Z9 Mini is 3 hash boards, 36 ASICs total, 10K Sol/s spec'd. The Z9 is 3 hash boards, 48 ASICs total, 42K Sol/s spec'd. So, different ASICs on the Z9s than the mini's if the manual is to be believed. Hmmm... I bought the Z9s hoping/planning on similar OC to the mini's. "Uh Oh." *EDIT*: I'm an idiot and was looking at what awesomeminer presents for "ASIC count" across 12 Z9s -- 36. I'd blame alcohol, but I've not gotten very far through this scotch yet. |
|
|
|
|
This "product" looks to be more glow than reality and has from the beginning. If they did indeed shut it off remotely, that is enough for me never buy from them; i refuse to give a company taht power over product I pay for.
|
|
|
|
The most I can get out of my two Batch 2 machines is 687 (although 681 produces a higher hashrate) and 625. Anything over that and the third hashboard on both machines goes to 0 hashrate.
i just recived my 2nd batch. mine too. 3rd chain die at 681 or up.  What hash rate are you getting at 681 or close. Do you get hw errors on any chains or does it just hash at 0 when you go at or over 681 same here... what about flashing the may 2018 firmware on to it?.... my batch 1 runs fine at 750..17 sols batch 2 one board dies above 675 freq.. 14 sols... I'm wondering if bitmain hasn't cherry picked hashboards for the Z9s over the minis in this batch? In theory I'll have a Z9 next week to see how (if?) it overclocks. I wouldn't imagine their yield suddenly going down across the board on OC stability. |
|
|
|
Fuck. Between that and the Trump tax, it makes me regret rolling the dice on batch 2. My batch 1 Z9 mini's have ROI'ed, but I'm not sure about batch 2....
I had to 3rd party my Z9 mini first batches, so i'm only about 50% through ROI on the first 12... they were spread out over about 20 days in receiving them.. that said, I fully expect them to completely ROI and ultimately profit. I calculated out to 4.4GSol/s as a "worst case", aka 1year ROI... still headroom in my book. That said, I took most of that first 50% and put it back into Z9 large and i'm not looking forward to the "buy 3 pay for 4" deal these tariffs are going to cause. bitmain told me earlier it was too late to change shipping from UPS to DHL with a comment of "on the bright side, it will be shipping soon". Here's to the gamble... -j |
|
|
|
Has it been confirmed with anyone that DHL charges this batch or just UPS?
response #1636 in this thread suggests dhl got hit... seems random-ish at the moment. |
|
|
|
So are we great again now?
Except this isn't a trump thing... that classification grouping pre-dates trump... and the rate is specified as 2.6%. -j Weird. Out of somewhere close to 20 orders made over the years I have only ever been assessed a brokerage fee for two of them and one of them I actually got them to reverse. The only one I ever paid and didn't protest was the one on my batch 1 Z9-mini. The one that arrived today had no fee. All shipped through UPS I should add. The ruling on "antminers" classification was June 8th -- but that's just standard processes, I think... somehow or another it came to their attention to look at in more detail. The quote and apparent calculations of 25% is def. wrong as best I can tell with the current information. Mine are Z9s so I'm expecting to deal with this next week, hopefully by not having to deal with it at all. I just know at 3 Z9s * 25%, I'll fight any way I can to validate the classification -- 2.6% I'd rather not pay, but it is tolerable at least. The new tariffs went into effect at the beginning of August. It was 2.6% in June, it's 25% now: https://twitter.com/USTradeRep/status/1026936085434327040https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/august/ustr-finalizes-second-tranchehttps://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Final%20Second%20Tranche.pdfWhat's really awesome about this is it isn't in the official / latest revisions available here: http://hts.usitc.gov/current and last published in August of 2018 (this month)... So... Definitely, we are great. Found this on USTR.gov: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2018-13248.pdfThat does show 8543.70.9960 at 25% :/. Meh. *EDIT*: Finally found it in the full August 2018 ruling -- in the chart for 8543.70.9960, it says 2.6% and "1/" -- the 1/ is a reference to the bottom of the page which tells you to look at 9903.88.02 and 9903.88.02 is a 25% duty. so .... reclassification is the only option. Meh. |
|
|
|
So are we great again now?
Except this isn't a trump thing... that classification grouping pre-dates trump... and the rate is specified as 2.6%. -j Weird. Out of somewhere close to 20 orders made over the years I have only ever been assessed a brokerage fee for two of them and one of them I actually got them to reverse. The only one I ever paid and didn't protest was the one on my batch 1 Z9-mini. The one that arrived today had no fee. All shipped through UPS I should add. The ruling on "antminers" classification was June 8th -- but that's just standard processes, I think... somehow or another it came to their attention to look at in more detail. The quote and apparent calculations of 25% is def. wrong as best I can tell with the current information. Mine are Z9s so I'm expecting to deal with this next week, hopefully by not having to deal with it at all. I just know at 3 Z9s * 25%, I'll fight any way I can to validate the classification -- 2.6% I'd rather not pay, but it is tolerable at least. |
|
|
|
So are we great again now?
Except this isn't a trump thing... that classification grouping pre-dates trump... and the rate is specified as 2.6%. -j |
|
|
|
Hmmm. 8543.70.9960 appears to be under the 1/General 2.6% though... *confused* *EDIT*: In reading the actual ruling, it should be 2.6%: By application of GRI 1, and Chapter 84 Note 5 (A) and (E), the applicable subheading for the Antminer S9 and DragonMint Miner will be 8543.70.9960, HTSUS, which provides for “Electrical machines and apparatus…: Other machines and apparatus: Other: Other: Other: Other”. The rate of duty will be 2.6 percent ad valorem. And here is the most recent chapter85: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter%2085?release=2018HTSARevision10Search in that document for 8543.70.99 and look for sub-heading 60 in the table -- rolls up to 8543.70 which is 2.6%. Something fishy here. |
|
|
|
I just got a text message from UPS about import duties. I am in Texas, USA.
The are charging me 367.87 !!!!
This is the breakdown:
IMPORT CHARGES
NOTE: the total value used for calculation of all Duty-based fees is 0.00.
Government Charges: 356.87
Brokerage Charges: 11.00
Freight Charges: 0.00
356.87 / 1400 (2 Z9 minis at $600 each + shipping fees) = about 25%
Looks like US folks are getting hit with the new Trump tariffs on Chinese goods.
Ugh. Is anyone facing the same issue?
Same in NJ. That's fucked. Does it say anything on the UPS tracking page? UPS doesn't have my info to text me about it but the tracking says I should receive mine today. The batch 1 miner had something like a $60 fee but it mentioned a fee being due on the UPS tracking page, although not the amount. This one does not mention a fee on the tracking page so I am hoping I dodged it. Did you order one or multiple? Maybe 1 is below the threshold where the customs fee is applied? I ordered 2 with DHL and I had no import fees. Weird that just using a different company gets you out of paying those fees. Well to be sure it has always been basically random as to whether or not UPS charges a brokerage fee. Sometimes they assess one and sometimes they don't and who can say why? I ordered mine under a Corporation, with a IRS corporate EIN given. I wonder if that makes a difference, or whether it is just because of UPS. Also, UPS has always charged me import duties of around 2.5% in the past. I was never able to avoid that. After seeing all of this, I'm going to attempt to move my UPS shipment to DHL w/ bitmain. 25% on Z9s doesn't sound fun to me. |
|
|
|
I called UPS and also double checked my invoice for my import code. UPS is useless. They say that it's the government that assessed it, so I need to talk to customs in order to challenge the assessment. They have no information other than that the government assessed the fee, and they (UPS) need to collect said fee before delivery. Checking my invoice from Bitmain, the specified HS/HTS code is 8471.50.0150. I can't find this code in the two links you provided (@efudd). So I'm not sure how my item is assessed such high duties. That is 8471.50.0150. 8471.50.01* is "free" for category 1.... which I don't understand yet, and 35% for category 2. Still searching, and I'll edit this post as I can figure out more. I have 2 Z9s coming via UPS and 1 Z9 via DHL "soon" -- so I'm vested in understanding how to avoid this, if possible. Ok, this document describes column 1 general&special, and column 2: https://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/archive/9100/910gn1.pdfSpecifically, column2 is defined by countries listed in 3b, otherwise, with nothing specified, the lowest rate applies, which in this case, appears to be "free". I'm basing this on https://hts.usitc.gov/?query=8471 which lead me to chapter 84 (link 'Download chapter' on that page), and https://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/archive/9100/910gn1.pdfI'm unsure if the USITC document is the most recent. As of ~5:30-5:45PM Eastern, both US International trade Commission and US Customs and Border Patrol offices are closed -- tried to call both for more clarity. Please share more as you can learn -- I'm unsure how to 'attack' this, but my ignorant searches suggest tax on this classification should be 1/general/free based on the parent classification code of 8471 and china not being listed in "3b". |
|
|
|
Just got bitmain's ship notice email for my 2 Z9 mini's ordered June 30th.
Along with everyone else, looks like Bitmain is shipping on time per usual.
But Minis, not full Z9s. I believe the Z9s were supposed to ship in August so it looks like they're about to be late. 9/1-9/10 for 1st batch Z9s. |
|
|
|
When Z9 shipping? Anyone get notified yet?
ordered z9s 7/26 - nothing yet. |
|
|
|
snip.. If a pool is indicated as "Dead", it's considered Dead by the ASIC miner. Awesome Miner is simply displaying the pool connection status as reported by the Antminer, and Awesome Miner isn't related to this connection. However, I do agree that it sounds strange that it's reported as dead until you switch to it. From what I can see in the log, Awesome Miner do send the commands to set pool priority to the Antminer as part of the profit switching: 7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.973 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Execute command: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.982 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Executing API command: PoolPriority 1,2,0
Can you test if the same operation works if you try it manually? On the Pools tab, click on the right side of the "Prioritize" button and select the menu item "Define Priority and Quota". Please give this feature a try as a troubleshooting step, as it also are sending the "PoolPriority" commands to the Antminers. You can look for "Executing API command: PoolPriority" in the log files when performing this operation. The display of "Claymore" on the View Details tab is just a UI bug, and it will be corrected. The "dead" thing is kind of interesting... long story short, I typo'd the "stratum+tcp://" part as "stratum+tcp//" (at least, i assume I did it...), so the 2nd and 3rd pool was showing as 'stratum+tcp://stratum+tcp//pool.name:port' in antminer. I didn't see this because of whatever bug causes the status page to stop working after I manually "change" a pool. Oddly enough, these same definitions worked fine if I changed to a pool (which doesn't make sense either since the typo was there as well...). net-net, looks like profit switching may be working now, the one I enabled has jumped to another coin as I was writing this up. ... and yeah, "prioritize" now works. Is it possible to "prioritize" an entire group or selection? Perhaps on the miner->rightclick menu, could you add a "Prioritize" option? -j |
|
|
|
Didn't read the whole thread, but can someone answer me the following:
Is it possible to setup Asics with some kind of pool switching by profit?
I mean, setting up a pool group and AwesomeMiner chooses always the most profitable one for mining?
Any way to do this and if yes, how exactly?
Yes, its easy for Antminers. Here you go: http://awesomeminer.com/help/profitswitching.aspxHas anyone been able to get the Z9 mini working with profit switching? @Patrike - I have 1 antminer with "profit switching profile" checked with "default", API access is enabled. In coins, I have 3 coins defined, ZEN, ZCL, ZEC and revenue/profit data is filled in and regularly updated when I look at the coins tab, and I have 3 pools in 'default pools' that correspond to each of those three coins. I can manually switch between these using RightClick->Switch Pool. I have the coin associated with each of those pools and get proper profit information in the "miners" summary tab. When i look at the external miner and go to the "pools" tab, the first pool shows enabled, the other 2 pools show as "dead". I think "dead" is a bug there - if I manually change to the pool, the pool works fine. If I right click on the miner, "view details", and look at the "Profit switching" tab, the status updates there show "Claymore's dual ethereum miner 11.9" and not the user defined "bitmain cgminer API" that is "CgMiner compatible" managed software i defined. Any suggestions on getting this to work or pointers on how to provide more detail for troubleshooting? Thanks, -j 7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [018] [S][ExternalMiner#6 - z9-5] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [022] [S][ExternalMiner#11 - z9-10] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [024] [S][ExternalMiner#10 - z9-9] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [012] [S][ExternalMiner#2 - z9-2] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [023] [S][ExternalMiner#12 - z9-11] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.224 [026] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.225 [021] [S][ExternalMiner#9 - z9-8] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.225 [020] [S][ExternalMiner#8 - z9-7] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.225 [017] [S][ExternalMiner#3 - z9-3] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.225 [011] [S][ExternalMiner#1 - z9-1] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.225 [019] [S][ExternalMiner#7 - z9-6] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.226 [016] [S][ExternalMiner#5 - z9-4] Interface connected
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.399 [055] [E]Failed to get data from Zergpool
Newtonsoft.Json.JsonReaderException: Error reading JObject from JsonReader. Path '', line 0, position 0.
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.399 [055] [E]Content received:
7/31/2018 5:18:32 PM.955 [050] [S]Sending new cloud configuration data
7/31/2018 5:18:33 PM.038 [051] [S]Current Version: 5.3.3
7/31/2018 5:18:33 PM.038 [051] [S]New Version: 5.3.3.0
7/31/2018 5:18:33 PM.038 [051] [S]Requires Version: 0.1.4.0
7/31/2018 5:18:33 PM.038 [051] [S]Check for updates, dev: False
7/31/2018 5:18:37 PM.930 [045] [S]CoinStore, Built in coin dictionary updated
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.935 [047] [S]External Profit Switching processing miner: z9-12
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.949 [047] [S]Profitability information:
MPH - ZEN [Zencash (ZEN)], Url: stratum+tcp//us-east.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20594, Profit: 0.00321579583010933, Priority: 0
MPH - ZClassic (ZCL) [Zclassic (ZCL)], Url: stratum+tcp//us-east.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575, Profit: 0.00310521480617048, Priority: 1
flypool - ZEC [Zcash (ZEC)], Url: stratum+tcp://us1-zcash.flypool.org:3333, Profit: 0.0026614778346412, Priority: 2
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.960 [047] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Run Miner Command: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.973 [047] [S]Command request: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.973 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Execute command: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:18:42 PM.982 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Executing API command: PoolPriority 1,2,0
7/31/2018 5:18:57 PM.800 [001] [S]Applying Theme: Blue
7/31/2018 5:18:58 PM.155 [010] [E]Failed to download string from: http://api.multipool.us/api.php
System.Net.WebException: Unable to connect to the remote server
7/31/2018 5:19:07 PM.253 [046] [S]Updating Online Services, configUpdate: False
7/31/2018 5:20:32 PM.783 [046] [S]Updating Online Services, configUpdate: False
7/31/2018 5:20:35 PM.293 [054] [E]Failed to get data from Zergpool
Newtonsoft.Json.JsonReaderException: Error reading JObject from JsonReader. Path '', line 0, position 0.
7/31/2018 5:20:35 PM.293 [054] [E]Content received:
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.029 [047] [S]External Profit Switching processing miner: z9-12
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.029 [047] [S]Profitability information:
MPH - ZEN [Zencash (ZEN)], Url: stratum+tcp//us-east.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20594, Profit: 0.00321579583010933, Priority: 0
MPH - ZClassic (ZCL) [Zclassic (ZCL)], Url: stratum+tcp//us-east.equihash-hub.miningpoolhub.com:20575, Profit: 0.00310521480617048, Priority: 1
flypool - ZEC [Zcash (ZEC)], Url: stratum+tcp://us1-zcash.flypool.org:3333, Profit: 0.0026614778346412, Priority: 2
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.035 [047] [S]Start processing MinerCommand
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.262 [047] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Run Miner Command: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.262 [047] [S]Command request: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.262 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Execute command: PoolCommand
7/31/2018 5:20:43 PM.262 [005] [S][ExternalMiner#15 - z9-12] Executing API command: PoolPriority 1,2,0
7/31/2018 5:21:03 PM.380 [052] [E]Failed to download string from: http://api.multipool.us/api.php
System.Net.WebException: Unable to connect to the remote server |
|
|
|
...snip...
Awesome Miner uses the JSON format for all commands sent to miners. When you use the feaure "Prioritize" on a pool, the command can look like this (when you prioritize the first pool in the list):
{"command":"switchpool","parameter":"0"}
When you use the feature "Change Pool" or "Add Pool" in Awesome Miner:
{"command":"addpool","parameter":"stratum+tcp://hub.miningpoolhub.com:17001,yourusername.1,x"}
Please note that "switchpool" is the command for prioritizing a pool and "addpool" is related to when you either do "Change Pool" or "Add Pool" in Awesome Miner (Change Pool will also send "removepool" commands).
You can view the commands that Awesome Miner is sending to the miner if you go to the Options dialog, Advanced section, and set the log level to Detailed. You can then perform a pool operation and for example search for "switchpool" in the Awesome Miner log file to see the exact request being sent.
Ok - thank you for this clarity. I was making the assumption that the right click dialog option "Change Pool" is what you are describing as "Prioritize" and was using that to "move miners to another pre-configured-in-the-miner pool". Which functionality in the UI equates to changing the "Priority", aka "switchpool"? Once I get some time, I'll look and see what's changing in the miner when I use "change pool" that is causing the normal web interface to break; since "Configure API Access" fixes it, I would guess that something odd is happening with the API access rule. One other piece, if I use AM to reboot a Z9, it comes back up with the stock clock frequencies, although the Z9's UI says it is overclocked its clear that it is not by the hash rate. The actual overclocked frequencies doesn't work until I "Configure frequency" and apply it back to the Z9. -j |
|
|
|
|
patrike,
Z9 bug/interaction that I've not troubleshot yet, but want to report in case you have other hits.
The Z9 (like all antminers) has a /cgi-bin/minerStatus.cgi that shows a current summary of mining/temps/etc.
If in AM I add my Z9s, configure API access, configure pools, everything works as expected... I can go to /cgi-bin/minerStatus.cgi as usual... however, if I use AM to "switch pool", once the pool switch occurs, /cgi-bin/minerStatus.cgi is empty except for the headers of all of the fields.
It isn't populated again until I "Configure API Access" again (which also resets the default pool, etc...).
If I, as before, send "switchpool|X" to the miner itself out of band, this doesn't happen... How does AwesomeMiner tell the antminer to switch pool? Is it doing something other than "switchpool|[0-2]"?
I realize this report is lacking in detail, as I get time to track it down more I'll update.
Thank you,
-j
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
