Hello all and thanks for the replys.

I have seen it posted before that the s3+ voltage setting in the webgui didn't do anything.  However, I've also seen contradictory information.  Most notably here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883197.0  So I guess I don't know what to believe.


Interesting that you ask about the power-supply abaseb.  I had not thought about this until you said it.  I have three of these miners but two power supplys.  Both PSUs are rated for 750W.  One is an XFX brand, the other is Seasonic.  The miner in question here is the one that is drawing power on one blade from Seasonic PSU and the other blade from the XFX.  Based on how I have them arranged, the board that seems to be having the trouble is the one attached to the XFX.

As for testing the voltage, can you point me to an image of what contact points should be used to test the voltage?  Lastly, based on your response, would 0.780 V (0780) be the stock setting?

So I recently aquired a couple used S3+ miners.  One of them I have had running for about 5 days and a couple of times one of the hash boards just stopped responding.  The interface showed all o's for its asics, but the temp dropped to room temp and the hash rate of the unit was cut in half.  The first reboot showed that hash board missing completely, but after fully removing power and starting back up, both boards came online and were hashing at full speed.  

After a little playing I found that it reboots a little more reliably at 218.75M frequency which is stock for the s3 whereas the s3+ stock is at 225.  When I first got this miner running, the previous owner had it running at 231.25 and had the voltage setting at 0785.  So my main question is.  What is the stock from factory voltage setting for the S3+?  Secondly, any tips on what steps to take while troubleshooting this issue?  The strange thing is that the fan speed is still being reported to the controller after the board stops hashing.

Hey Phonetic,

Could you send me an invite?  I have about 2.6 MH/s.  I've been mining DGC but this looks like the next train leaving the station!

Just thought I'd mention that it looks like pool blocks 10739 and 10738 are currently marked invalid but appear to be valid on blockchaininfo.  I'm assuming another blockexplorer problem that'll have to be corrected manually.

@pekv2 - I have found that if you don't use the -v option that the shares are counted by the gui. This is with the phoenix miner, just thought you'd like to know.

Apparently my card(s) doesn't support it I have never been able to use it although I have checked the box to unlock it.  Unless someone with the same card can correct me on that.  I might check out trixx.  I really like that Afb will put a GPU temp reading in the systray as I can see the temp at a glance by remoting into the machine without having to interact with the desktop.

Do you do this for academic purposes?  I have a few HD 4850 cards that are putting out 80 Mhps and I am contemplating whether they should be turned off due to the inefficient Mhashps/joule ratio.

I discovered that I am losing around 2-4 Mhps by using the WORKSIZE=128.  I stopped that.  I am convinced that dropping the mem clock does increase the hash rate for some reason.  I have tried it on two machines and am getting a better rate 2-3 mhps by dropping from 1000 Mhz to 500 Mhz.  I don't know why.  I am using MSI Afterburner to set clocks and apparently it won't let me go below 500, I may not want to for usability as others have said.  I am using phoenix not poclbm so my options are a bit different from yours.

Hey stryker, looks like your #2 5800 is outperforming mine by quite a bit despite being clocked 25MHz lower.  Could you elaborate on your miners setup?  I'm on phoenix and posted the options I'm using in the post directly before yours.


Also, a general question for all who may read.  I have been decreasing the mem clock on this card and now that I am down to 550 from 800 previously my mhash rate is up from 287 to around 293.  Is this a benefit of the lower memory clock rate?  I was under the impression that a lower memory rate was just a measure to save wattage.

Wow a lot of replies!

So to answer the questions.  I am using MSI Afterburner to do the overclocking and I do have the unofficial OC enabled.

The Brand is Sapphire and the model I believe is 100297-2L  Let me know if that doesn't make sense. (this one does vent into the case)

This is in a machine that my wife has to use daily so it has to be stable and usable.  If I underclock the mem to 300-325 will it be noticeable when using the windows areo?  My temps aren't bad the case is an NZXT PanzerBox case with 2 300mm fans plus one 120 in the back. I'm currently running around 66C with an ambient room temp of ~72F.

I don't think it's a PSU issue,  the supply is an XFX XXX 650W it has two dedicated 6-pins and is only powering the system and this card. Core 2 Duo 3.016 GHz

I am only getting around 287 Mhashs which I think is a little low.  For reference here are the CL options copied directly from the phoenix guiminer.  -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT AGRESSION=9 FASTLOOP=TRUE

I have a 5830 card that I recently installed but I can't seem to get it to overclock to the degree that I see others doing.  I can only increase the clock speed to 950 MHz where I see several reports on the mining hardware comparison that state 1040.  I haven't tried to mess with the memory clock much I have tried it at the stock 1000 MHz and 810 MHz.  Is there something I'm missing here or is it just a poor performer?

If it matters I am mining with guiminer, phoenix with the phatk kernel that is bundled with guiminer. (-k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT FASTLOOP=true WORKSIZE=128)

Why am I so unlucky?  I say I'm fairly average.  I had been paid 53.12 BTC and the I found a block. Probability wins again!

Hey everyone!  I found my first block!  I would like to start my speech by saying you are welcome and you lives are infinitely better for having known me!  I don't know if there is a way to tell what actual block I found.  I would like to know just for curiosity's sake.

Well I think that's the point really isn't it? Eventually when the block generation reward drops to zero the idea is that only transaction fees will  be paid.  The reason is that the original design assumption is that miners/pools will only process transactions with fees attached because there is no incentive to include the ones that don't.  The block generation fees are really  just a quite successful strategy to attract the necessary hashing power to the network to make it secure enough to resist attack.

Currently the incentive to include transaction that have no fees is that if two block solutions are found in a near tie then the solution which has processed the most work will be accepted by the network.  However, when there is not an incentive to find a block for the sake of finding a block alone then you can see how it may not be in a miners best interest to include transactions with no fee.

Also as I understand it the design of the system is such that we are only hashing for a result based the block header.  This should mean that we won't run up against a limit to the number of transactions processed in a block.  If this were an issue I would also expect someone to be pointing the flaw out in this forum which I haven't seen yet.

I am at least glad to see it doesn't appear to be heading for an increase again! 

However, since I have added power this round that confirms that that at lease that many people have quit, whatever their reason.  I will probably mine even if it does become unprofitable in the same way I used to crunch numbers for BOINC projects, however, if I am not making money at it, I won't be breaking my neck to get miners back on when they crash or have a power loss!

Any reason you don't want to use dummy plugs?  That's what I do and it works fine, even on computers someone else is using!

Hey helios, did you ever figure this out?  I have 4 machines with 4850 cards in them that are running in an office environment when the user is logged on.  The problem is that one of these machines is having this exact message in the event log and won't start the miner.  The other three are happy as can be!

This is happening for me with both poclbm and phoenix.  I have no idea what caused this one to just flake out on me!

You cannot compare you per round payment from one pool to another.  While deepbit does pay you less per round for a given hash rate, they will also be solving more blocks within a defined amount of time because of their higher collective hash rate.  (All other things being equal)  A fair comparison would be the amount of payout you get per day for the exact same hash rate.

I love the idea of namecoin and it's possibilities.  The issue is that we can't expect it to take off until a mainstream DNS provider will resolve .bit lookups.  And what happens when someone pays the thousands to ICANN for .bit.  Then who really owns it?  We have to make the .bit tld ubiquitous or else it will fail.  I'm not saying now but eventually mainstream browsers or dns providers will have to give it legitimacy.  Who knows if they will.

/edit Typos

It's almost identical to bitcoin and you can use the same miners.  The only major difference right now is that the clients are daemon only.  There is not GUI interface that I have seen yet.  I am using namecoind.exe for windows which can be downloaded from the http://dot-bit.org landing page.  there are also some pages on that site discussing usage.

I noticed that bitparking.com (the only working namecoin pool) is down.  This may account for the foretasted difficulty decrease.