 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
mfr said parts to seller next week. I love the miner, wish they sent spare parts with batch's. runs a sweet 56-66t on 2hu. normal mode.
Interesting. When one of my hashboards quit, the unit would do about the same ~50th/s but only for about 20 minutes before dying. Temperatures are misread, fans operate at incorrect speeds. Having 1 hashboard out essentially renders the whole unit unoperable. Did you unplug the faulty hashboard? |
|
|
|
Yeah I agree you on that one. If manufacturers ask as huge prices as they currently do, the gear better be bullet proof.
If the user is left with some probability risk of gear breaking,
then that down time risk should be seen in the initial price being lower than it now is.
Canaan reported in a press release that they have received a massive order "Canaan Announces Significant Customer Order of 11,760 Bitcoin Mining Machines" https://canaan.io/1081.html, so for their own sake they ought to have their chip sourcing strategized. Such large orders would naturally mean they should have the ability to provide replacement parts, as well. But I also wouldn't be surprised if their priorities shift from smaller/home mining operations to large scale miners. Still, they're going to need to be able to source replacement components for even bigger operations if this is the case. Under the contract, Canaan will ship and install its A1246 ASIC AvalonMiners throughout 2021, adding a total of 1.05EH to Mawson’s global mining operations. Considering that the 1246 has their proprietary onboard controller, and I'm guessing that a large mining operation is going to be using their own home-cooked controllers and software, this order is probably for a stripped down version? Regardless, hopefully these components will be available quickly, as they've most likely ramped up production. |
|
|
|
HagssFin,
I've referred to table 4 and I would assume from your reply I am at the mercy of Canaan. when I opened unit, I noticed the center board did not have red light on, so I assumed it was board #2. The temp that showed zero celcius is labeled H2. Of H0/H1/H2. Your review mentioned 3rd board? so I am assuming board with light out in the middle is bad. The temps # labels have me confused as to physically which one is bad? should I go by the light out or persue understanding the configuration of HU labels? in another post a fella mentioned Canaan would send blokforge (US seller) the replacement for him to install.
Thank you! your guides are most impressive. I have alot to learn. I thought it would be easy.
Seems there are a lot of problems with the Avalon 1246, and people are waiting on replacement hashboards. One of the hashboards on mine isn't working either, and sending the logs to Canaan they verified that it's indeed faulty. The board failed after about 8 weeks. Canaan said they have multiple sources for their ASICs, so hopefully the turnaround time won't be too long, but who knows. |
|
|
|
Hey. I have one miner that is not working and there is no support online and the email support is not responding.
Can you please provide me with the Firmware you got from Canaan and what is the best option to get in contact with Canaan support team
Thanks.
Did you use Blokforge or different distributor? I was able to get a somewhat newer firmware for the 1246 by contacting Blokforge through their support system (support.blokforge.com). Unfortunately Canaan hasn't updated their site with the link to the latest one. |
|
|
|
|
There isn't any clear information out yet on how to service these so we will have to wait until more people crack them open. I had a similar experience, as opening/servicing wasn't as straightforward as other miners and I didn't want to risk damaging anything.
Some notes about my recent experience with Blokforge and the Avalon 1246:
I had a sort of "bait & switch" with Blokforge, not sure if they did it intentionally or not, but NOTE: There are various types of 1246s out there, and Blokforge was originally advertising the 90TH/s model, however they are shipping the 85TH/s model (1246-85). Also, Blokforge only supports for about 10 days after shipment is delivered, in which case you'll get pretty poor support from Canaan (w/big language barrier).
If you're running in "Normal Power" mode, and getting 80Th/s, and "High Performance Mode" gets you ~84TH/s, you most likely have the 1246-85. To summarize: When ordering the 1246 from Blokforge, please note that you may NOT get the 90 TH/s model. This being said, I have no issue with Blokforge, as they've always been helpful in procuring miners and always reply quickly to inquiries.
Now, technically - some issues I've found with my 1246:
1.) One of the ASIC chips misreads temperature way too high (~120-180C), unfortunately not worth repairing as it hashes fine. Yet this misreading will still affect the overall average temperature reading, and cause one of the fans to run unnecessarily higher.
2.) After about 2-3 weeks of mining, one of the fans is constantly at nearly 100% RPM, regardless of how cool the unit is running. I suspect this fan will die out sooner than it should.
3.) Factory reset did nothing to alleviate these issues.
Sending logs to Canaan simply gets a reply: "Everything is working fine with your miner". Additionally, there are no new firmware upgrades yet, and online resources are basically nil, so please be sure to post as much info as you can for those running/buying this unit.
For anyone who is interested, I would wait a little bit before buying the 1246 as it seems there are still some issues with it. Aside from the points mentioned, it is still pulling about ~.0005BTC/day depending on the pool.
|
|
|
|
If temp is really over 180C then char it - yes. Also a safe be that the chip would be dead by now from semiconductor failures in it.
Historically Canaan has always had temp sensors inside of each chip (hence the per-chip readout) so considering it is otherwise running normally I go with the idea that it is a false positive.
Agreed, my hypothesis is that if that temperature was correct it would have been fried already, or lead to some other failure. So for posterity, is it possible it's a faulty temperature sensor inside of the chip? I'm not sure how Avalon's CGMiner implementation works against their hardware - I took a look at their github and nothing jumped out at me at first glance, as I thought maybe it was their software misreporting. This was running for quite an extended period of time at that reported temp, and hashing on that chip is normal and working without issue. I can't say too much for the chip architecture, but the likelihood of one of the ASICs even reaching that high temperature while being in such close proximity to the heat sink (even if the thermal paste wasn't 100%) AND the fans cranking seems VERY unlikely. For example: The unit will be completely shut off, ambient room/device temperature is 55F. I turn the unit on and that ASIC reports 180C immediately. Apologies for the hypothesizing, I'm just trying to pinpoint the false positive and if it's a hardware or software issue. |
|
|
|
You can see my Troubleshooting guide for older Avalons for reference (link is in my signature space). Good cpu paste will do.
Great, thanks a lot. I was waiting to hear back from Canaan before opening anything up, as I followed up with them with latest logs showing that same ASIC running at 120C... well... Latest update: That same chip is now showing 180C+ (Sometimes 198C!) for same voltage in the miner logs, and Canaan replied back that it is most likely a false positive and everything is fine (but pretty sparse details on their end). Could this be a false positive? Wouldn't 180C melt the PCB? Keep in mind, it's not rebooting or anything, and seems to be chugging along fine. All other indicators seem okay. |
|
|
|
|
I'm willing to take a look, not a big deal. It's a shame too, because the room is fairly cold (45F).
Do you have any resources you can point in my direction for things to be aware of during disassembly/inspection? Will typical cpu thermal paste do, or do you recommend a specific type?
|
|
|
|
Ah! Thank you! I think my eyes are shot. Good catch.
I contacted Canaan, and they told me not to worry about it unless it runs consistently over 105C (the most I've seen that chip get to was 100C for a few minutes before dropping down to 88C). Not sure if its worth cracking this open and checking everything, or sending it back and losing a month or two over one ASIC.
Also, funny enough, it found a block this morning, no kidding (you're welcome, slushpool).
Posting this, maybe someone can help shed some light. Also replied to Canaan with more log data. PVT_T0
[71 70 69 71 70 70 70 70 69 74 70 69 74 69 72 75 72 69 72 72 73 73 68 71 69 73 72 72 71 70 70 71 70 73 72 70 68 69 74 69 70 69 65 70 69 68 69 66 64 66 68 67 64 63 62 [b]105[/b] 64 62 64 63 63 57 57 61 59 60 62 61 60 59 61 62 64 64 60 61 66 64 65 64 63 59 66 65 64 63 64 63 66 65 69 64 62 62 67 68 69 68 64 65 68 68 69 69 64 64 68 70 69 66 63 65 73 68 67 69 62 62 67 69]
PVT_V0
[294 299 303 292 295 297 301 308 306 292 291 294 294 292 295 301 299 295 292 289 289 307 306 309 290 288 286 290 290 297 290 291 292 291 291 294 291 295 300 290 292 296 297 301 302 300 294 297 298 304 299 301 300 299 305 [b]337[/b] 297 300 297 302 303 298 297 299 298 304 302 303 308 300 302 303 306 310 306 308 306 306 296 295 299 301 305 300 297 297 294 299 295 296 297 298 307 296 303 308 294 297 302 299 298 301 296 294 293 305 302 294 295 293 291 306 300 303 298 299 296 298 296 298]
MW0
[82 87 96 74 69 53 83 81 74 50 75 77 69 76 55 72 78 87 52 83 61 79 81 80 77 70 66 67 72 16 71 88 85 75 76 73 66 88 75 57 81 85 88 68 75 73 86 77 96 48 79 61 77 67 80 72 71 82 68 77 81 67 64 69 82 92 78 78 57 83 63 72 63 95 76 84 78 71 71 80 74 82 60 72 74 90 80 80 92 53 46 74 79 83 87 72 86 81 82 91 66 46 74 90 69 100 91 73 104 86 67 88 85 91 69 85 78 70 73 81]
There is definitely something funky going on with the ASIC there. |
|
|
|
I've got an Avalon 1246, and it has been reporting a Tmax pretty high (over 85C) in the logs. However, the actual chip temperatures, the MTavg values don't seem to match up. The hash rate is solid (between 80-82 TH/s on low power mode), and the Dashboard shows everything is fine, but I was concerned about this high value being reported. Sometimes it reads up to 93C. Has anyone seen anything like this with Canaan or have any ideas why the discrepancy? No audible issues and no major fluctuations in Hashing, mind you. Faulty temperature sensor? Temp[31]
TMax[91]
TAvg[65]
Fan1[4360] Fan2[4330] Fan3[4330] Fan4[4315]
FanR[57%]
MTmax[91 76 70]
MTavg[66 67 63]
PVT_T0[ 70 70 68 69 69 69 69 69 68 72 68 68 72 68 71 74 70 68 70 70 71 71 66 70 68 71 70 69 69 69 69 69 68 71 71 69 67 68 73 69 69 68 65 69 68 68 68 65 64 66 67 67 63 62 62 91 63 61 64 63 64 57 57 62 60 60 62 61 60 60 62 62 63 64 60 61 66 64 64 64 63 59 65 65 64 63 63 62 66 64 69 63 61 62 66 68 69 68 64 65 67 67 67 68 64 64 67 69 67 66 63 64 72 67 66 69 62 61 67 68]
PVT_T1[ 66 71 70 69 67 69 69 67 70 72 70 69 66 69 71 71 74 66 71 72 70 70 76 71 69 71 71 73 70 69 71 74 74 69 73 70 71 72 70 70 73 71 66 71 69 68 69 68 66 64 65 66 67 66 64 64 66 66 64 65 60 57 58 62 64 62 64 65 66 64 65 65 61 64 62 63 67 70 66 64 65 64 66 67 69 66 64 66 67 68 67 65 64 67 67 67 69 68 66 64 67 69 68 65 62 62 68 65 67 65 66 65 66 68 67 65 65 64 63 69]
PVT_T2[ 68 69 69 66 65 65 63 68 69 65 65 68 65 64 69 67 69 67 67 68 66 70 68 69 66 65 66 69 66 68 65 65 69 70 67 65 66 67 68 69 66 67 63 66 66 64 64 64 58 63 64 61 62 59 57 60 59 58 59 57 56 56 57 59 58 58 62 60 60 61 60 61 60 63 63 63 61 62 63 64 64 61 62 64 64 63 62 64 64 64 61 66 62 63 66 63 67 67 64 64 64 63 67 63 61 65 66 60 61 61 63 64 65 63 66 63 64 61 61 67]
|
|
|
|
Samsung could spend north of $10 billion to bring its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to the U.S., Bloomberg reported Friday.
The semiconductor giant is reportedly investigating building a chip fabrication facility in Austin, Texas, capable of producing silicon wafers based on the company’s forthcoming 3-nanometer manufacturing process. https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/samsung-eyes-10b-texas-chip-fab/2021/01/ |
|
|
|
using a 300mm wafer with 5x5mm die w/0.25mm scribe lines & default edge loss and excellent 97% good yield produces 2,248 usable dies per that yield calculator. Given the still short good-enough-for-production age of 7-5nm tech and increasing defect rate to 5 per sqcm still gives 88% yield and 2,017 usable chips per wafer. Not bad but do remember that calculator and most others do not predict speed performance which can vary quite widely. The calculators only account for hard faults. Regarding how much real estate the chip has: Like gpu chips that is because they DO contain a massive amount of transistors used as cores. Unlike gpu's, mining ASIC cores are far more simple as they cannot be programmed on-the-fly - that translates into fewer connections to now unneeded different intermediate circuits. Space needed by intermediated circuits now goes to more identical cores so just a few litho masks needed to create and connect the logic circuits. For some reason for the T15 chips, 256 cores per chip rings a bell... Odds are the s17 & 19 pack in even more. Good part about that is that a chip can have many dead cores from a hard defect but the chip is still usable, just lower number of cores cycling per clock. End result is why I can see the chips being what I consider amazingly inexpensive. I can also see why TSMC and other Foundries have now given the <7nm mining chips a lower priority over much more complex and ergo higher value chips. Not exactly fair considering that from what I've seen, since around start of the 16nm node miner chips have been rather excellent mass-production testbeds for the Foundries. Yeah, Apple et al paid for the research to do it but making the simple and very fault tolerant miner chips gave TSMC and Samsung the expertise to use those nodes to produce chips en-masse. That said, there is still very limited production capacity for chips using the still at cutting edge <7nm nodes. That will not change for several years. Only 1 company makes the EUV stepper/scanners used for the photolithography and they are very massive and complex beasts that cannot be mass produced. The handfull of foundries that can produce the chips - Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and Global all need them. I'll have to find the article but as I recall they can make only a couple dozen per year, Awesome post, thank you. Been trying to dig up info on the process as a newbie and this was super informative. A question i posed in another thread: I get that these manufacturers are based in China, but do any of the US based foundries have this type of tech? I recall TI having capabilities for ~20nm in Texas but thats as far as I got with my research. I was using this list and then cross referencing the company websites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants*EDIT - Scratch that, looks like Intel in the Pacific Northwest is the only place with that type of capability. |
|
|
|
This brings up another topic. The chinese has leapfrogged us in technology, and we have yet to realize it... in the mainstream its something we talk about happening "possibly" in the future. But looking at the miners: asia is at 7nm (such as the latest SHA256 miners, and 5nm coming?)... and we can't make our own medical masks. jesus... im afraid. I feel like we are just a system of finance, laws/patents.
This is probably why Taiwan is such a hot button topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Intel, AMD, and others are all ordering from TSMC. Im happy to share the any information on the the actual mining manufactorer, and mining rig information. Anything to move away from bitmains. i just am not sure how my employers would feel about quoting companies we are on friendly terms (that aren't mining manufactorers), thats all.
Do you have any info on the actual chips? All I can ever find online are things like "It uses a BM1387 for hashing" etc, but never any specifics about these chips. Were they designed by Bitmain, then sent off to TSMC for mass production? I'm curious, as I just started playing around with VHDL and FPGAs, so I'm pondering doing a design as a hobby/side project. |
|
|
|
|
I'm more interested to see if any US based foundries get into the game for the chips. Texas Instruments, maybe? Seems like most US based foundries are firmly settled in the military/rf space.
On that note, does anyone have the data/specs for these Samsung 8nm semis being used in the latest generation of miners? I can never seem to find any specifics.
Any prospective US based miner manufacturer would have to bulk order these things, big time.
|
|
|
|
|
