yep, ouch. single rails provide much cleaner power and are able to supply the extra amperage during the spikes in hashrate... and two 1500watt supplies on a 20 amp circuit is not so good either...(20 amps x 110v = 2200 watt max per 20 amp circuit, (or in EU...220v x 10amp = 2200watt)and you are saying there is more than two jupiters on that circuit?....I really think it's your power situation now for sure...
I think these 'spikes in hashrate' you see is just variance. The chips run at a constant speed. Variance does not cause your miner to draw more or less current. Okay spikes are variance....? yes... and what causes that variance?...who knows...have you used a kil-o-watt to see that what you are saying is correct? Yours stay rock-solid on a single wattage reading? Mine don't. The reading on mine at the wall goes up & down in direct correlation with the variance... and when I had them on a "Shared circuit" it was terribly obvious the other things going on were effecting it when the kil-o-watt dropped when other things were used in the house, like microwave oven, coffee pot, toaster, aircon, etc.... That's just my observations here, which is why I say that. You can even watch bertmod to verify what I'm saying.... the vrm output goes up & down with hashrate as well My VRM's are outputting a FULL 12v, @ 50amps now btw... and if I said how...Edgar would complain.... but it has to do with temps and clean, unwavering, unlimited power.... Variance is caused by luck. Spikes (both up and down) in your apparent hashrate can (and do) happen based on sheer luck. Your miner could, say, generate 10 diff 256 shares in 10 hashes, and it will look to the pool like your hashrate is much higher than it really is, briefly. The converse is also true. One thing that could possibly explain your observation though is the enabling and disabling of cores - that would affect both your hashrate and the current draw, I imagine, but it seems like the difference would be pretty small unless a number of cores get enabled/disabled at once. Each core is only 1/192 of one modules hashpower and probably an even smaller fraction of it's current requirements. |
|
|
|
yep, ouch. single rails provide much cleaner power and are able to supply the extra amperage during the spikes in hashrate... and two 1500watt supplies on a 20 amp circuit is not so good either...(20 amps x 110v = 2200 watt max per 20 amp circuit, (or in EU...220v x 10amp = 2200watt)and you are saying there is more than two jupiters on that circuit?....I really think it's your power situation now for sure...
I think these 'spikes in hashrate' you see is just variance. The chips run at a constant speed. Variance does not cause your miner to draw more or less current. |
|
|
|
OK now I am getting tricky with the cmd: line C:\Program Files\bfgminer-3.6.0-win32>bfgminer.exe --http-port 8000 -o stratum+t
cp.nl1.ghash.io:3334 -u xxxxxxx.worker1 -p 123 returns [2013-11-25 08:29:26] Most likely you have input the wrong URL, forgotten to ad a port, or have not set up workers [2013-11-25 08:29:26] Pool: 0 URL: http://stratum+tcp.nl1.ghash.io:3334 User: richg21.worker1 Password: 123 [2013-11-25 08:29:26] Press any key to exit, or BFGMiner will try again in 15s. [2013-11-25 08:29:42] Pool 0 slow/down or URL or credentials invalid [2013-11-25 08:29:43] No servers were found that could be used to get work from [2013-11-25 08:29:43] Please check the details from the list below of the serve s you have input [2013-11-25 08:29:43] Most likely you have input the wrong URL, forgotten to ad a port, or have not set up workers [2013-11-25 08:29:43] Pool: 0 URL: http://stratum+tcp.nl1.ghash.io:3334 User: richg21.worker1 Password: 123 [2013-11-25 08:29:43] Press any key to exit, or BFGMiner will try again in 15s. Well I got bfg miner working for a while but it did not recognize my Blade. Now I can't get it running because it keeps popping up saying bfgminer.exe is not a valid WIN32 program. I need to check my syntax. SO close and yet so far away. You need to add a '://' after 'stratum+tcp', not a dot. |
|
|
|
Mine doesn't have a fuse. it is a V2
They all have fuses. The old ones have automotive style fuses, and the new ones have an SMT fuse in a socket. |
|
|
|
After running the blades for 2-3 weeks, they both started to slow down to like 1-4 GHS. I don't know how or why. I tried resetting the PSU but it didn't help. The blades heatsinks are pretty cool not like before. So I decided to factory reset one of them and see if it will fix it. I shorted 2 and 3 with a screwdriver and then the green LED start to blink. Then I tried to go to the config page http://192.168.1.254:8000 but it didn't work. Then I realized that the blade is not turning on anymore. I tried turning off the PSU and switching different calbe, it didn't help. Please help me out here. PS. I have the other one running, but it's still slow. Is the fuse blown? How can I check? You will need a multimeter to check it. You can take it out of the socket and measure resistance across it - if it's open, it's blown. Or alternatively you could leave it in circuit and powered, and measure the voltage on both ends of the fuse. You should see the same voltage on both ends. If you don't see any voltage on one end, it's blown. I checked it and it's blown. I need to replace it, do you know store like radioshack or walmart sell fuses that I need to replace it? I doubt RS or Walmart will have surface mount fuses. Places like Digikey and Mouser carry them. Someone posted this a couple of pages back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205369.msg3665520#msg3665520 |
|
|
|
After running the blades for 2-3 weeks, they both started to slow down to like 1-4 GHS. I don't know how or why. I tried resetting the PSU but it didn't help. The blades heatsinks are pretty cool not like before. So I decided to factory reset one of them and see if it will fix it. I shorted 2 and 3 with a screwdriver and then the green LED start to blink. Then I tried to go to the config page http://192.168.1.254:8000 but it didn't work. Then I realized that the blade is not turning on anymore. I tried turning off the PSU and switching different calbe, it didn't help. Please help me out here. PS. I have the other one running, but it's still slow. Is the fuse blown? How can I check? You will need a multimeter to check it. You can take it out of the socket and measure resistance across it - if it's open, it's blown. Or alternatively you could leave it in circuit and powered, and measure the voltage on both ends of the fuse. You should see the same voltage on both ends. If you don't see any voltage on one end, it's blown. |
|
|
|
After running the blades for 2-3 weeks, they both started to slow down to like 1-4 GHS. I don't know how or why. I tried resetting the PSU but it didn't help. The blades heatsinks are pretty cool not like before. So I decided to factory reset one of them and see if it will fix it. I shorted 2 and 3 with a screwdriver and then the green LED start to blink. Then I tried to go to the config page http://192.168.1.254:8000 but it didn't work. Then I realized that the blade is not turning on anymore. I tried turning off the PSU and switching different calbe, it didn't help. Please help me out here. PS. I have the other one running, but it's still slow. Is the fuse blown? |
|
|
|
I got an attack of the network lags after upgrading to 0.99  Downgrading didn't help, powering down, restarting and rebooting didn't help. Even with cgminer not running ping times can take up to 2 seconds. SSH'ing in is excruciatingly slow. One time I couldn't even ssh in until I restarted it again. I just barely got it mining again. I saw others had gremlins that went away, but I can't seem to find any way to repair it. Have you tried doing a hard reset and reconfiguring from scratch? |
|
|
|
So how does Bertmod work? Is there a version that works with 0.99 ?
You just install it like a firmware upgrade. Version 0.3 seems to work ok with 0.99. |
|
|
|
New module in and my Merc is now a Saturn. Interestingly, the new module is running 11°C cooler than the original. Stats look good.
KnC 0: | 287.3G/286.4Gh/s | A:28534 R:11 HW:513 WU:3915.7/m
All cores good.
I must say since I'm use to looking at cgminer with a number of USB BE's, each with its own descriptive line, when I saw only KNC0 I started troubleshooting - until I realized it was hashing at 280 not 140.
FWIW, if you install Bertmod 0.3 it gives you the option of using BFGMiner, and it will show each module as a separate device (KNC0, KNC1, etc.) and even shows exactly which core returns each share. I don't think it will disable cores that are generating h/w errors though. |
|
|
|
Here's my all-in-one Jupiter+2
<Images edited out>
Wow, well done  |
|
|
|
Hi, I have a new blade, and I'm having an issue getting it to work with BFGMiner. When I add the --http-port 8332 bit to my existing command line, BFGMiner won't start, and gives an unrecognised option message. Running on Raspbian for a while with no issues, got some BEs and Blue fury already. When I built 3.5.1 on the Pi, I used the commands below. ./autogen.sh ./configure make Do I need to add anything after the configure command...? Do I need to run a apt-get install for anything beforehand? I'm a bit confused by the read-me file - see link below  Thanks. As long as you have libmicrohttpd-dev installed it should enable the proxy support by default. Maybe you need to install that package. |
|
|
|
As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool. I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.
In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.
If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool. Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.
The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep. I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967And this in Linux: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371Vs, Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools. I agree. That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists. If I have a crack at it will it work ok with my KNC miner? Firmware 0.97 and up worked pretty well the last time I tried it. |
|
|
|
As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool. I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.
In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.
If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool. Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.
The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep. I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967And this in Linux: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371Vs, Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools. I agree. That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists. |
|
|
|
I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout  Going to have to ask KnC  All hosted happily with them No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?
If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.
I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example  ), but I just don't understand how you get there. It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do. Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners? Isn't that kind of a contradiction? If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so. I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be. As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool. I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good. In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners. If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool. Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does. I agree with you, but I try to do my part in educating people about various pools. If people get scared, irrationally or rationally, it effects BTC Price. If BTC price goes down because of this fear then it effects me so I try to help people realise that you don't need pretty pictures to mine. You just need a pool with great uptime, decent stats, and frequent payouts. I also try to educate people that BTCGuild is taking 3% of your hardearned money. That Ghash.io has a sister site CEX.io and you can draw your own conclusions on how much of the network they have between themselves. People will choose what they choose for the reasons they choose but hopefully with a little more education they can make an informed choice. I don't disagree with anything in this post. But it seems to me that educating people about pool choices is one thing, and advising miners to arbitrarily leave any pool that exceeds some arbitrary percentage of network hashrate is something completely differeent. |
|
|
|
No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?
If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.
I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there. It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do. Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners? Isn't that kind of a contradiction? If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so. I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be. As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool. I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good. In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners. If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool. Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does. |
|
|
|
I have been reading the thread and trying to find out the best pool for a Nov order, so I can preconfigure my miner. I have started a poll on new thread.
Can you please vote. Thanks in advance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341888.0As far as I am aware Eligius and Ghash.io are the only 2 pools that: - have fast enough speeds that you don't have no worry about variance
- have zero fees
- have merged mining (Eligius gives you 105% NMC while GHash.io gives you NMC, IXC and Devcoin)
- TX fees are shared between miners
So for a maximum profit these 2 are the best pools. there seems to be no option to choose ghash.io in the preconfigure pool menu on the KnC site / order page, which is a problem. unless they are easy to configure. ROFL= about variance... I may try .io if there were a good set of directions....the wiki is vague. it gives desktop directions....we have stanalone machines... It's easy. 1) Create an account on cex.io. 2) Log in to ghash.io using the same user/pass as the account you created on cex.io. 3) Point your miners to the address listed at the top of the mining stats page. 4) Wait a while, then collect mined loot from your cex.io account at your leisure, or set up automatic payouts. |
|
|
|
Why mine at any other pool when Eligius is 0% Fees?
Downtime. I guess you could do elig + a backup pool. Not sure I've experienced any downtime in the past month or so that was caused by eligius. And please tell me, why do you mine at Eligius? Such an ugly site! That Wizkid and his pool.
I mine at eligius because with 11 Jupiters, 3% Fees would have been over 11 Coins already for me that I would have given to BTCGuild or other pools. Why mine at any other pool when Eligius is 0% Fees? Because you like pretty Stats? Not worth all that lost money. Also 105% PPS NMC helps out, get an extra coin or two per month. Pool basically pays you to mine there Ghash.io has 0% fee, pays transactions to miners, and merge-mines NMC, IXC, and DVC - and their stats page seems to be very reliable. Ghash.io has made it extremely clear that their fee is "currently" 0% and could likely change it in the future. They are directly connected to CEX.io and have the majority of the networks hashrate currently. Unless Eligius gets too big I don't plan on switching and would sway others from joining a pool that currently has 24% of the network https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrsWhen I started mining on Eligius two months ago, it had 2% of the network hashpower, and 50BTC had ~20%. When I quit mining there yesterday, Eligius was at ~15% of the network, and 50BTC was almost nonexistent. These things change frequently and quickly. If you are really that concerned about decentralization for the long-term, set up a P2pool node. Anything else is just a very short-term strategy that ultimately will not be sufficient. The majority of miners will always tend to mine on the pool where they perceive the most profitability, just like they do currently. Help make P2pool (or another distributed pool that you invent) the obvious pool of choice, or continue to watch miners flock to the biggest pool with lowest fees, the most merge-mining, or some other perceived advantage. |
|
|
|
I know what you mean I went over to multipool which I used to use for scrypt mining on gpu's as they were trying to get their Bitcoin pool hashrate up. I spent nearly 48 hours there without getting one decimal fraction of a BTC because basically I was like 15% of the hashrate on my own. Effectively it was like solo mining.
Whats P2pool like as an experience?
It works pretty well if you have enough hashpower, but the variance is very high if you are a low-hashrate miner. Some hardware (like Knc H/W) does not work well with it, at least it didn't the last time I tried. The payout is good - miners get 100% of block reward + transactions. But a 2% pool fee? According to p2pool.org P2pool.org is not the same as P2pool - you are mining on a node owned and operated by someone else, and paying them a fee. P2pool is meant to have each miner create his own node for mining. The P2pool software, by default, will automatically give 1% to the author, but you can set it to 0% if you choose. Aha! Sneaky bugger. Looks like http://p2pool.in/ is the official site. Looking into it now. No, the 'official site' is on your own PC You download the P2pool software, read the instructions on how to set it up at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool , then you run a P2pool node that connects to other nodes, and your own bitcoin-qt. Your miner will connect to the P2pool instance running on you PC. |
|
|
|
I know what you mean I went over to multipool which I used to use for scrypt mining on gpu's as they were trying to get their Bitcoin pool hashrate up. I spent nearly 48 hours there without getting one decimal fraction of a BTC because basically I was like 15% of the hashrate on my own. Effectively it was like solo mining.
Whats P2pool like as an experience?
It works pretty well if you have enough hashpower, but the variance is very high if you are a low-hashrate miner. Some hardware (like Knc H/W) does not work well with it, at least it didn't the last time I tried. The payout is good - miners get 100% of block reward + transactions. But a 2% pool fee? According to p2pool.org P2pool.org is not the same as P2pool - you are mining on a node owned and operated by someone else, and paying them a fee. P2pool is meant to have each miner create his own node for mining. The P2pool software, by default, will automatically give 1% to the author, but you can set it to 0% if you choose. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
