Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 04:30:53 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 118 »
1021  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: May 25, 2012, 08:55:09 PM
I used to mine with phoenix on Eligius. The hash rate reported by both of them did agree (in average). Now I am trying Diablo. This miner reports much higher hash rate (by 15%). However, Eligius reports only 53% of the hash rate reported by Diablo. When I count shares/blocks submitted in last 15 minutes it actually does roughly match. So it seems that despite apparent higher hash rate less shares/blocks are submitted to the pool.

I got Diablo from binary zip archive from link at the very front of this topic. It seems to be quite up to date. Timestamp on DiabloMiner.jar in archive is May 23. So it is recent version.

I was searching this forum and googled it. However, I am still in the dark abyss (and Diablo is lurking somewhere around ...) Does what I described ring a bell?

Never use the pool hash rate. It is trying to count using an random event (share finding). Eligius comes close on the 3hr meter, but its still usually ~5-10% +/- off
1022  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [Emergency ANN] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation on: May 25, 2012, 05:03:32 AM


I lol'd
1023  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 25, 2012, 03:30:09 AM
I dunno about redundant, but they are Mean Well PSUs, which are some of the best in the industry. You can see the MW logo in the pics.

Those kind of modules (lots of manufs make them) are typically used in either redundant PSU housings hold 2 to 4 modules, or people use them with custom wiring harnesses if they have specific wiring requirements.
I was totally going to use them in my rig, but they are damn expensive. http://www.meanwell.com/search/rsp-3000/rsp-3000-spec.pdf
Nice lugs for attaching bus bars to.

Yeah, its a 2400w PSU module. Something like that really should cost $550-600.
1024  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Diablo Mining Company (DMC) on: May 25, 2012, 03:12:35 AM
Wow, I screwed up my earlier math. Where I said we're at 0.41 mh/$? I forgot to count Bitbond as 2mh bonds, I counted them as 1mh. We're currently at 2799 mhash @ 0.46 mhash/$.

That means we're already in the upper 0.40s, and should pass into the lower 0.50s within 3 months.
1025  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 25, 2012, 02:42:44 AM
I dunno about redundant, but they are Mean Well PSUs, which are some of the best in the industry. You can see the MW logo in the pics.

Those kind of modules (lots of manufs make them) are typically used in either redundant PSU housings hold 2 to 4 modules, or people use them with custom wiring harnesses if they have specific wiring requirements.
1026  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 25, 2012, 02:22:15 AM
1.5 sq. mm wires. ( AWG 15 ).

Quote
For current big bf-110 we used RSP-3000-12 - 200 Amps @ 12 V . Boards however consume only ~160 Amps. So there's reserve for overclocking or for grid under-voltage condition. I expect to put something nice and reliable installed into box as well. They're not cheap, but it is crazy to put cheap PSU to power such expensive equipment.

Wait, you're already using redundant modules for the PSU? Thats totally okay then. Theres 2 or 3 1400w or more models out there, although they all use a different incompatible interface.

Quote
I have not misstated. 0.4 kV L-L - that's about 230 Volts phase - to - neutral fed from transformer. When it gets to me, due to losses in cables - it gets to standard 215 - 220 Volts phase - to - neutral voltage. And then
22 x 218 x 3 = 14.4 kW approx.

I am not using 4U design right now - 4U design is during planning... look @ photos on www.bitfury.org - that are the bf-110 used now for mining!

So you're going to sell 2U boxes initially? 500w in a 2U could be easily done.
1027  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 25, 2012, 02:07:31 AM
Hrm, I was wrong. Athena Power sells a 1100w non-redundant: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817338021
1028  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 25, 2012, 12:45:11 AM
BTW re power Molex: Remember, Molex chain has a maximum of 5 amps/60 watts of 12v, and 5 amps/25 watts of 5v. That is not per plug, and a lot of chains have 3 or 4 plugs on it. PCI-E 6 is 2 amps/75 watts of 12v, PCI-E 8 is 4 amps/150w of 12v, P4 is 16 amps/192 watts of 12v, EPS12v is 32 amps/384w of 12v.

If you're putting 6 or 8 FPGAs on a board inside the rig, you're going to want to be using PCI-E plugs not Molex.

6 Amps per pin limit for molex from datasheet, if I remember it correctly and about 100 times plugging before tin
degrades guaranteed. So this should not make big problems. 4 pins used, 2 pins for +, 2 pins for -, 12V powered.
The only problem is how to make efficient down conversion from 12 V to 1.2 V. I used TPS40090-based one,
and its COP and size is not very nice, however works without any problems.

Molex's peripheral cable uses AMP 1-480424-0, AMP 60619-1, AMP 1-480426-0, and AMP 60620-1 for the socket housing, socket, pin housing, and pins respectively. This is rated for 13 amps. However, these are commonly wired with 18 AWG wiring. Putting 13 amps through this will melt the wiring, let alone 13 amps on every single plug in the chain. And although it has 4 pins, only one set are for 12v, the other set is for 5v.

Also, I hope you're using enterprise rated PSUs. You don't need redundant, but the largest non-redundant PSUs you can typically buy are in the 850w to 900w range. Not quite the 1100w you're aiming for. They do make 600-700w 2U non-redundant PSUs though, so you can always double up.

Quote
Still, consider some method to undervolt them. At some point within the next 2-3 years for most users, the cost of electricity will exceed the value of the coins, but undervolting will catch them up for at least another year of usage.

I actually think that programmable voltage in range 1.15 V .. 1.45 V would be good. If someone would decide to risk with Spartans but get higher returns - then that's OK. Their devices would give +20%. If one would decide to go with less electricity consumption - then switch to 1.15 V and lower clocks. It just adds challenge with PSU - it should be still efficient in all ranges of power consumption.


If you can get them still mining at 1.10v that would be far enough for most people, since most Spartan 6s are ran at 1.20 to 1.25v now.

Quote
Well - I am using now 3-phase 0.4 kV L-L @ 33 amps when chiller is running and @ 22 amps when chiller is not running. I think that if someone would like to install many of these things @ home - he should invest in cable connected directly to transformer to not disrupt power distribution for other houses. How much would it cost to me, if I would ask in America utility company for say 50 kW power to my household ?

I have installed PSUs with power factor correction (PFC). and it is important, as otherwise power losses would be significant.

About DCs I thought that way - 350 W per 1 U x 4 = 1.4 kW.... Otherwise how they would setup 4 x 1 U @ 350 W ?

In the US we use 240v single phase for electric ovens and driers and electric water heaters and larger air conditioners. Its provided as two hots and a neutral, with the two hots 120v lines that have their phases 180 degrees out of phase (so peak + on one is peak - on the other). Seems that Europe uses 3 phase 400v for the same reasons.

If we're limited to 4 120v 20a circuits per rack (which is what I've been told is a common limit, and you have to pay extra for the other two), and each 4U uses 9a (= 1100 watts) and we place an empty U between each (for airflow/cooling and easy maintenance reasons), thats 40u used in a 42u rack, or 8800w.

You shouldn't include your chiller, because a DC provides its own cooling. So, 22 amps of 400v is 8800w.

So, either your math is wrong or you misstated something, because we're coming out to the same power usage.
1029  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Diablo Mining Company (DMC) on: May 24, 2012, 10:30:28 PM
Hey! Crazy project you have planned there, I like it! :-)

Some people are viewing this premium as strictly "buy DMC for 2/3rds the cost", which is not entirely true. Up front, yes, you buy the DMC shares for that, but you give up two short term abilities: dividends (they are cut in half as per the 50% dividend/50% growth agreement in the contract), and the ability to sell (there is not a huge demand for DMC shares yet as the company is still new).

I'm not sure I can agree with this argumentation. The market should (in theory) have already factored all of these things into the price of the asset. If you are saying that 2x YABMC at 0.6 BTC (total) is really sort of equal to 1x DMC at 1 BTC after all things considered, then apparently the market disagrees or - since in this case the DMC price is just an arbitrary price set for the IPO - you have lowered the IPO price of your shares retroactively. That's not exactly fair to anyone who has bought shares at 1 BTC as they are now, as others have pointed out, in fact being diluted.

Well, just my two cents. In any case, looking forward to see where this project is going! :-)

The market isn't very efficient here, sadly. The market is not factoring in the fact that I only pay out 50% of the bond dividends, the other 50% is going into the growth fund (which is now just buying more bonds). I would have to wait like 3 months or more to get any hardware I buy... bond dividends being cycled directly back into more bond purchases for those 3 months will start rapidly catching us up. We've already gone from 0.40 mh/$ to 0.41 mh/$ after one week, we should be 0.41 -> 0.43 by the next weekly bond dividend payout.

DMC shares do not represent a fixed amount of mh, bonds do. Its hard to do the comparison, so thats why I have this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.msg901464#msg901464
1030  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Diablo Mining Company (DMC) on: May 24, 2012, 09:42:08 PM
You know, I should add this to my plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOcLros-w0

The DMC DC totally needs one of these. Srsly.
1031  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Diablo Mining Company (DMC) on: May 24, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
I've rebalanced the bond offer and added JAH.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.msg901042#msg901042

We're issuing our first dividends the first of June, so make sure you swap in before then.
1032  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Diablo Mining Company (DMC) on: May 24, 2012, 09:08:26 PM
Sales seem to be nonexistent - sell orders @ 0.75 now on GLBSE. What do you intend to do if the IPO fails to attract any more attention? (And when do you intend to pay dividends on the mining company shares/bonds currently held by DMC?)

People have actually been buying up all those shares. Its mostly all people who bond swapped for a quick buck trying to flip their DMC shares to rinse and repeat. I know where most of the straight out purchased DMC shares are, and they're all sitting on them. In fact, many are quite happy to buy up a lot of those flipped shares just so they can increase their DMC holdings.

Generally, most of the almost 1200 shares sold are being sat on for the long term.

As for dividends, yes, I intend on paying out on those. Bonds are virtual hash power to me, its no different than buying hardware at a slight premium*. I'm treating May as a half month so we can start paying out monthly on the first. It won't be much, but it will be enough to spur more share sales as people reinvest their earnings.

* Buying non-BFL hardware in small numbers is in the lower 0.60s per mh/$. After expensive residential electricity and waiting for delivery, we're in the lower 0.50s mh/$. I'm buying bonds at a premium that puts us at in the lower 0.40s mh/$ in the short term, lower 0.50s mh/$ in the longer term. It ends up evening out and it also helps people buy into DMC and rebuild their investment portfolio now that Bitcoinica is unlikely to payout what they owe.
1033  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 24, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
Quote
Withing this chassis single Intel Atom D525 motherboard is installed. Boards with 6 spartans can be even without microcontrollers and flash, everything could be programmed right via LPT-port. Bandwith required to communicate with every chip is quite low - about 300 bps. So with all chips it would be about 27 kbps. Bitstream loading over LPT port however will be slow. For smaller scale RS-485 is overkill. Why to bother about it and not implement using USB - simply because flashing chip or flashing controller
adds up cost of controller and also costs of programming and testing them, also when something should be updated, and you have to reprogram every controller - that rises service cost. I would like to say, that current design of BitFury rack, where controller only translates RS-485 to SPI bus with Spartan and back requires almost zero maintenance.

Use SATA plugs for the actual connector, but normal serial over it. SATA has 7 pins and is enterprise ready. The cost of serial is the complex plug, not the actual design. You could use a very tiny FPGA for the controller on each board to interface with the serial using GPIO pins or something.

SATA plugs! thanks, nice idea! 4-in cables are there.... This as simple as just installing proper size of SATA PCB layout on PCB! $1.67 x 16 = $26.7 for all of the connectivity. Just connecting each board to another one. Simply installing them and connecting. 1.6m long wire.

http://www.satacables.com/

About controller - I've mentioned only 500 bps per chip, so for 90 chips it would be max. 45k bps in and out...
Information about protocol is avail in initial post. So pinout can be following:

PIN1 - SCK
PIN2 - MOSI
PIN3 - MISO
PIN4 - GROUND
PIN5 - RESET
PIN6 - PROGDATA
PIN7 - PROGSCK

So it would be possible (a) upload bitstream (b) reset all chips (c) send/receive work.

OR - ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS TO USE JTAG (but I don't know actually how well it work via such long chains like 90 chips, even when TCK, TMS will be transmitted using buffers.

PIN1 - TMS
PIN2 - TCK
PIN3 - TDI
PIN4 - GROUND
PIN5 - UNUSED
PIN6 - RST
PIN7 - TDO

Please not that key is not important, as improper insertion of cabling won't fry things. However it would be
perfectly possible to transmit jobs over JTAG. JTAG also seems to be nicer, because key can be programmed into board right using this slot.

So single SATA and single power molex. Are there cons in JTAG vs 2 SPIs ?

JTAG might work but I don't think you're supposed to use JTAG that way. If you can make it work and not damage the hardware, go ahead, its your product, all of us will just treat it like a black box. BTW, BFL minirigs are using SATA connectors for their serial communication between boards, and Ive seen other designs repurpose connectors SATA internally or Infiniband connectors externally.

BTW re power Molex: Remember, Molex chain has a maximum of 5 amps/60 watts of 12v, and 5 amps/25 watts of 5v. That is not per plug, and a lot of chains have 3 or 4 plugs on it. PCI-E 6 is 2 amps/75 watts of 12v, PCI-E 8 is 4 amps/150w of 12v, P4 is 16 amps/192 watts of 12v, EPS12v is 32 amps/384w of 12v.

If you're putting 6 or 8 FPGAs on a board inside the rig, you're going to want to be using PCI-E plugs not Molex.

Quote
Quote
Cost of such chassis with power supply and Intel ATOM motherboard could vary in $400 - $600 range. Cost of Spartan6 chips when purchased in bulk quantities (WITHOUT VAT) would vary in $70 - $95 range, depending on shipment location and quantity of chips ordered. Cost of other components (using numbers from our current design):

No. Use something smaller and lower power to run this, not some shitty Atom board. Use a Pi or that new $50 Via x86 board http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/via-launch-a-49-android-pc-20120522/

Nice board, is there any other boards that support GPIO for example or SPI or JTAG output without any additional converters ? So I could launch software on linux ? That would be excellent for this project. Possibly with 2 cores, so one core could drive GPIO in realtime manner, while other core is communicating with world. But not necessary, as SPI tolerate lags!

You're probably only going to see GPIO on ARM boards meant for embedded usage, otherwise you're looking at a custom build of a standard USB->serial controller. Raspberry Pis are like $25 and have enough power to run cgminer, so if you can get them in bulk it seems they'll do what you want.

Problem is you might run out of GPIO pins because you'd need one to every controller (one per 4?).

Just whatever you do, don't put USB cables in the case. They easily get disconnected during transit and sometimes just unplug themselves due to case vibration or high pressure air cooling.

Quote
Quote
200 Mh/s bitstream - would produce 18 Gh/s - it would be compared to 71% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $10'859.
250 Mh/s bitstream - would produce 22.5 Gh/s - it would be compared to 89,2% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $13'643.
300 MH/s bitstream - would produce 27 Gh/s - it would be compared to 107% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $16'365.
325 MH/s bitstream - would produce 29.2 Gh/s - it would be compared to 116% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $17'722.

Remember, if you're overclocking these, provide some way to underclock+undervolt these to extend the life of these once diff goes too high in 3-4 years. This is a big feature that a lot of people are asking for.

These are not overclocked, overclocking could give +20 - 25%, but will consume more power and possibly damage chips permanently.

Wait, you're doing 325 mh per Spartan 6 SLX150? Holy crap man. Is that just back of the napkin math, or do you have a working bitstream that can do that?

Still, consider some method to undervolt them. At some point within the next 2-3 years for most users, the cost of electricity will exceed the value of the coins, but undervolting will catch them up for at least another year of usage.

Quote
Also, another thing, make sure the total power usage for the box fits so an integer number of these fits on a 120v 20a  (the most common circuit in DCs, you often get two of these per rack). ~1000 watts each would be fine if you intend on putting two on a circuit.

Well one box 4U would consume about 1.3 - 1.5 kW power that's 10,8 - 12,5 Amps @ 120 V seems to be bad.
With 11-12 boards it would be not more than 10 Amps @ 120 V however.

Well, on typical hardware, you shouldn't exceed 10 amps on 120v. That gives you a 1200 watt continuous PSU. Two of those will just barely fit on an enterprise 120v 20a line in a DC and hopefully not trip it, or one will fit on a household 120v 15a line (note: household lines _suck_, never drive them at >12a 24/7).

There ARE servers that require 208/240v service in DCs, usually some nearline data warehousing server that you shove 40 drives in, but a lot of DCs don't offer this or require a special order for it, and no house in America would typically have that service outside of an electric oven range or dryer socket.
1034  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: May 24, 2012, 06:59:04 PM
Apologies if this has been answered before, but I could not find an answer to my question on Google.

Is there a way for me to set a lower aggression for DiabloMiner ? I thought setting the -f flag to some high value might help, but not getting the desired result.


-f is fps. Set it to a multiple or divisor of 60. Higher is less aggressive.

That's what I thought Sad Very strange. On a multi-card setup, I've tried -f 1, 60, 600, 6000, 60000 and it's seemed to make no discernible difference in affecting hashrate Sad I'll try snagging the latest-and-greatest DiabloMiner later this evening if see what's what.

 Thanks !

It doesnt effect the hashrate much, it effects the aggression. Only in badly designed miners that it greatly effects the hashrate.

On my 7979 at stock speeds -f 1000 gets me about 512. At the default of -f 30 it gets me about 556. I assume the difference is much larger in Windows.
1035  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: DiabloMiner GPU Miner (LP, BFI_INT, async nw, multipool, 79xx GCN) on: May 24, 2012, 06:46:29 PM
Apologies if this has been answered before, but I could not find an answer to my question on Google.

Is there a way for me to set a lower aggression for DiabloMiner ? I thought setting the -f flag to some high value might help, but not getting the desired result.


-f is fps. Set it to a multiple or divisor of 60. Higher is less aggressive.
1036  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Algorithmically placed FPGA miner: 245MH/s/chip and still rising on: May 24, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
I'm definitely not an ASIC developer, so correct me if I'm wrong here. From the small number of simple designs I've done and layed out in Cadence, routing in an ASIC is definitely not free, especially if you're really trying to push the boundaries of all your well, gate, pad, etc keepouts to maximize density on the silicon. If you're not careful with your planning and design your number of metal layers can jump way up which definitely adds to the cost of the design even outside of the possible performance penalties from haphazard routing. I've only ever done work at 90nm and above so I don't know how difficult the routing would be at 45nm or whatever a BTC ASIC would end up getting designed at, but small rolled cores might be more effective in an ASIC as well as in an FPGA. Someone would actually have to look into it to know. Maybe Vladimir could shed some light onto the subject.

ASIC gives you maximum flexibility in the design. The biggest problem with FPGAs is the fact FPGA designs must use the DSP blocks and the BRAM for storage of the constants. Routing is still a problem on ASICs but _you_ design the routing. You no longer have to worry about routing around things on FPGAs, and you no longer have to worry about paying for hardware you'll never use (like, for example, that high speed serial IO fabric isn't cheap, or is the onboard Ethernet controller and such).

ASIC has a huge upfront design cost, but if we could sell 250k ASICs (or, approximately more chips than all the FPGAs currently in use for mining put together) it would be cheaper per mhash over the next 10 years by an order of magnitude.
Definitely agree on that. I was more questioning whether a few fully unrolled cores are inherently more efficient that more rolled up cores? Routing is much more flexible on an ASIC, and things that have been giving eldentyrell fits like turning the corner don't have to be an issue, but that alone doesn't mean that unrolled is a better choice than rolled. Is there some inherent advantage to a fully unrolled core that would make it the defacto choice if someone were designing an ASIC?

Unrolled ASIC design seems to be a waste. You have a lot of dependencies, and the dependencies come in nearly identical sets (the only real difference is just shuffling the output to put it back into the next stage). Hell, unrolled GPU kernels? They're not even unrolled, they just optimize the ordering and parallelization (ie, what FGPA coders would consider a function of routing).
1037  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 300 nodes only??!!! on: May 24, 2012, 04:56:40 PM
300

THIS IS BITCOIN!
1038  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [Emergency ANN] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation on: May 24, 2012, 04:33:46 PM
Some may even argue it is a mistake to even code a site like Bitcoinica on RoR.

THIS
1039  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Algorithmically placed FPGA miner: 245MH/s/chip and still rising on: May 24, 2012, 04:33:00 PM
With ASICs it will do same mess BTW Smiley lots of wires for round expander Smiley + lots of clock problems.

With (fully custom) ASICs, however, you can just match your exact routing needs with wires, which should take care of the routing problems.
I'm certainly not an expert on that area, but I'd expect the overhead of intermediate result storage (in a rolled design) to outweigh the routing overhead (in an unrolled deisn).
As I stated above already a rolled design might still be useful to increase yield by containing defects into smaller functional units.

Thats only if you get real ASIC. SASIC still screws you the same way since its just a hardwired version of the FPGA.

I'm definitely not an ASIC developer, so correct me if I'm wrong here. From the small number of simple designs I've done and layed out in Cadence, routing in an ASIC is definitely not free, especially if you're really trying to push the boundaries of all your well, gate, pad, etc keepouts to maximize density on the silicon. If you're not careful with your planning and design your number of metal layers can jump way up which definitely adds to the cost of the design even outside of the possible performance penalties from haphazard routing. I've only ever done work at 90nm and above so I don't know how difficult the routing would be at 45nm or whatever a BTC ASIC would end up getting designed at, but small rolled cores might be more effective in an ASIC as well as in an FPGA. Someone would actually have to look into it to know. Maybe Vladimir could shed some light onto the subject.

ASIC gives you maximum flexibility in the design. The biggest problem with FPGAs is the fact FPGA designs must use the DSP blocks and the BRAM for storage of the constants. Routing is still a problem on ASICs but _you_ design the routing. You no longer have to worry about routing around things on FPGAs, and you no longer have to worry about paying for hardware you'll never use (like, for example, that high speed serial IO fabric isn't cheap, or is the onboard Ethernet controller and such).

ASIC has a huge upfront design cost, but if we could sell 250k ASICs (or, approximately more chips than all the FPGAs currently in use for mining put together) it would be cheaper per mhash over the next 10 years by an order of magnitude.
1040  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production on: May 24, 2012, 04:27:51 PM
Second, I was surprised by reaction about comparision with ButterFly Labs with 'Estimated price'. People, that's $90k is with 20% VAT, which is not paid in US for example and with having in mind that it would have single hot air outlet and that's all about it... but to get mini-rig we would pay +20% on customs VAT, so it would be not $15'295 but $18'354 + shipment costs,

Remember, US customers don't pay VAT, so you've probably quoted a EU price that is useless for US customers. If you can get BFL Minirig prices on Spartan 6 hardware, BFL is screwed.

Quote
Third, 300 Mh/s is not limit of this bitstream, it can give even more rounds, if you count that almost all DSPs are not used in left part of design, and some free space in topmost part. So it could definitely give 8% at least better performance, it would then cost to us $0,57 per Mh/s, which is even less than BFL Mini-Rig.

Someone said in another thread that the sea of hashers design will have three types of cores, ones near DSPs, one near BRAM, ones near neither.

Quote
I've been asked by email and skype about smaller editions. And I would say that in my opinion best solution would be standard 4-U chassis, 0.5 meter long, with 14-15 boards with 6 chips on board installed (that is 84 - 90 chips), like with shalab.si original ideas, but a bit different layout to prevent overheating chips.

That gives people mostly what they want.

Quote
Withing this chassis single Intel Atom D525 motherboard is installed. Boards with 6 spartans can be even without microcontrollers and flash, everything could be programmed right via LPT-port. Bandwith required to communicate with every chip is quite low - about 300 bps. So with all chips it would be about 27 kbps. Bitstream loading over LPT port however will be slow. For smaller scale RS-485 is overkill. Why to bother about it and not implement using USB - simply because flashing chip or flashing controller
adds up cost of controller and also costs of programming and testing them, also when something should be updated, and you have to reprogram every controller - that rises service cost. I would like to say, that current design of BitFury rack, where controller only translates RS-485 to SPI bus with Spartan and back requires almost zero maintenance.

Use SATA plugs for the actual connector, but normal serial over it. SATA has 7 pins and is enterprise ready. The cost of serial is the complex plug, not the actual design. You could use a very tiny FPGA for the controller on each board to interface with the serial using GPIO pins or something.

Quote
Cost of such chassis with power supply and Intel ATOM motherboard could vary in $400 - $600 range. Cost of Spartan6 chips when purchased in bulk quantities (WITHOUT VAT) would vary in $70 - $95 range, depending on shipment location and quantity of chips ordered. Cost of other components (using numbers from our current design):

No. Use something smaller and lower power to run this, not some shitty Atom board. Use a Pi or that new $50 Via x86 board http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/via-launch-a-49-android-pc-20120522/

Quote
200 Mh/s bitstream - would produce 18 Gh/s - it would be compared to 71% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $10'859.
250 Mh/s bitstream - would produce 22.5 Gh/s - it would be compared to 89,2% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $13'643.
300 MH/s bitstream - would produce 27 Gh/s - it would be compared to 107% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $16'365.
325 MH/s bitstream - would produce 29.2 Gh/s - it would be compared to 116% of Mini-Rig and so product price could be $17'722.

Remember, if you're overclocking these, provide some way to underclock+undervolt these to extend the life of these once diff goes too high in 3-4 years. This is a big feature that a lot of people are asking for.

Also, another thing, make sure the total power usage for the box fits so an integer number of these fits on a 120v 20a  (the most common circuit in DCs, you often get two of these per rack). ~1000 watts each would be fine if you intend on putting two on a circuit.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 118 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!