I get jealous some times knowing I can't buy the larger rigs. Even over electricity I'm more concerned about noise. Not a temporary fan change or a duct tape job, I do really need it quiet.
it mostly depends on your living situation and ambient temp in the "hashing" room. I currently have two SP20 (used to be three) and two S5 in one room, sitting on two circuits and hashing at 4.6-4.7Th. Sp20 are undeclocked at auto fan and fan 10 (third one was on auto too), S5 modded with Noctua NF-12 3000rpm (push, PWM) and Scythe Ultra kaze (pull, molex). power use-~2.5kw. This setup gives out a very modest noise level throught the house as i have two other family members and nobody complains about it. I wouldn't put this setup in my bedroom or office, though; I tried to put one machine in the office and it was brutal. A C1 is pretty quiet. Just don't have it blowing right on you, it's kind of hot. M |
|
|
|
I'd like to state that I don't think this is Bitmain's fault, as they didn't manufacture these fans. It would be nice of them to extend the 3 month warranty for the fans, though, as these seem to be failing pretty close to the 3 month mark. A quality fan usually has a MTBF of 50000 hours, these are having a hard time reaching 2160 hours. The same could probably be said of the PSUs.
I think you give Bitmain too much credit. They probably used the cheapest fans that would just barely fit the bill. Like the PSU.. M Oh, I'm sure they did. It would cost a fraction of a penny more for that rubber oil seal in the quantities they're buying.. Look at how much people were crying that the S4 was too expensive when it came out, imagine if they had put a quality PSU and 4 Delta fans. They have no choice to compromise, I guess. I'd be willing to pay a bit more for a quality PSU and fans, but most people would complain I imagine. The only quality parts in the S4 are the actual hash boards that were made by bitmain, the rest is outsourced lowest bid junk unfortunately. I'm sure bitmain thought those parts would be adequate for the job, but they had no way of telling for sure. Now they know. I'm certain they have some space in their profit margin to sell at the same price, use higher quality components, and still make money (just not quite as much). M |
|
|
|
Here's a new build of v5.0. This contains a few minor fixes/enhancements pertaining to mobileminer.Download link: MMinerMonitor50.zipM |
|
|
|
how to mining onw computer?
thank you.
Hello, I don't understand your question. M |
|
|
|
thank u so much for update.
but i have problem with mobileminer:
Error occurred submitting MobileMiner stats: The remote server returned an error: (500) Internal Server Error.
i'm not sure if this error is from me or the app but i haven't any issues when using other app for moblieminer monitoring like multiminer .
I'm not sure what to suggest other than to double check your API key and email address? M |
|
|
|
I'd like to state that I don't think this is Bitmain's fault, as they didn't manufacture these fans. It would be nice of them to extend the 3 month warranty for the fans, though, as these seem to be failing pretty close to the 3 month mark. A quality fan usually has a MTBF of 50000 hours, these are having a hard time reaching 2160 hours. The same could probably be said of the PSUs.
I think you give Bitmain too much credit. They probably used the cheapest fans that would just barely fit the bill. Like the PSU.. M |
|
|
|
Here's a beta of v5.0. It contains some minor fixes, and initial support for MobileMiner. Big thanks to NWoolls for this, he did the heavy lifting. Download link: MMinerMonitor50.zipI'm new to MobileMiner. It seems to be working properly to me. However I no longer have much hardware available to me for testing this, so please report bugs here. NWools: please see my PM for comments on this. M |
|
|
|
You'll always do better with your own node.
EDIT: assuming you have the bandwidth for it.
Question on this... What kind of sustained bandwidth does a normal mining operation consume? I have a 30MB up/down pipe and was wondering what I should allocate. I can build a DMZ for my local P2Pool server to run on, and set the limits on bandwidth. Would 2MB be enough? More? You have tons of bandwidth. I'm able to do pretty well with 3MB down and 768k up, as long as I only use Bitcoin. When I start merge mining, I get problems because of bandwidth issues. M |
|
|
|
It is/was a well intended idea that bogged down on the unforeseen hurdles till it got all Spun-Out.
They are being quiet about it. This was either their intention all along, or it didn't work as they planned. Either way, it's not p2pool, and not decentralized, and Bitmain is doing a dis-service to themselves by continuing to advertise it as such. M |
|
|
|
Just installed this, testing it on two, but will have it running 12 ant S3 and 5 SP20.. So really want to make sure it works  2015-02-06 11:47:27 AM: Initiated Ant refresh
2015-02-06 11:47:28 AM: ERROR when querying S3:1.109 (step 1.4): Arithmetic operation resulted in an overflow.
2015-02-06 11:47:28 AM: ERROR when querying S3:1.109 (step 1.4): Arithmetic operation resulted in an overflow.
I know the ip is right, and passwords are still default. Very nice ap, was looking all over for this, as soon as it's running I'll be sure to pay!  Step 1.4 is where it gets the temperatures and frequency of the Ant. Can you PM me the "get miner info" output from that address (x.x.1.109) so that I can see what it's choking on? I can't see how it's choking on the temperatures, so something odd is going on. Thanks. M |
|
|
|
The Chicago node that I am using pings at 51ms. Can I expects do much better running my own node?
You'll always do better with your own node. EDIT: assuming you have the bandwidth for it. M |
|
|
|
Actually its waste of time for miners submitting shares with less than actual difficulty. Is there anyway we can set the miners to work only with the minimum node difficulty? Also are there any chances share submitted with minimum node difficulty can be rejected or discarded?
Yes, with a combination of the / and + parms on your username, you can only submit shares > say 10,000,000. However it'll seriously mess with your speed reports on p2pool, which really doesn't hurt anything except makes it hard to monitor your miners and make sure they are online. M |
|
|
|
|
eVGA 1300w PSU is now sold.
Still have the Thermaltake and the Enermax left!
M
|
|
|
|
back2back ! yeeehaaaaaa
It can be like waiting for a bus sometimes - nothing for ages, then they all come at once...... Very nice! But got another question... How is p2pool able to pay out the coins so fast compared to other pools? The "shares" that are submitted on the alt chain contain the payout info for all the miners. When a share is big enough to be a block, it's submitted to the Bitcoin chain, and if accepted, the payout is distributed through the Bitcoin network as the share describes. It's a very elegant solution. Note that "payout" is probably a bad term.. more like mining distribution. M |
|
|
|
Just restarted ckpool to update/add more fixes in the running version.
As usual, most shouldn't failover, and this one has more changes to try and reduce the few that do failover.
Mine failed over, and both lost their custom work size.  M |
|
|
|
A few things about that ... Rejecting shares that are worth nothing really should not be of concern You have to send a XMillion share before it counts as anything at all ... and the rejections you are talking about is WAY below that and wont affect sharechain shares that are actually worth something. Yup, see my addendum #1 above. Secondly, you'd need to check what the message is that p2pool is sending.
The protocol allows p2pool to tell the miner to discard all work and use the new diff, and the reverse to mean that finish your current work then move on to the new diff.
If the protocol messages aren't telling the miner to discard work and immediately move on to the new diff, then that's a bug in p2pool rejecting them.
Again, you lose nothing coz they are worthless, but it shouldn't reject them in this scenario.
It's been a while, I don't recall the exact verbiage. I do remember the sequence of events, however, and it's exactly as I described above. p2pool says "difficulty change!" and up to 10 seconds later the Ant submits work with the old difficulty and it gets rejected. There wasn't a "work restart" request in between either. This was testing with my S2 long before Bitmain significantly improved performance of the S2s on p2pool, so it's probably 5 seconds or so now. And, on the p2pool side, I clearly saw the "worker X submitted share with too high difficulty, expected X (received Y)" or something like that. If the protocol is telling the miner to discard work, and you have "submit-stale" on (which is on by default and ALL p2pool miners must have it on) then it really doesn't matter at all since the miner is simply submitting stale shares as is required for p2pool to avoid throwing away valid bitcoin blocks - which would be a REALLY bad thing to do and not have "submit-stale" enabled  Though some of the bitmain firmware does this in their version of the driver - discard valid blocks that p2pool says are stale - but you'd have to check their code for the driver you are using if it's not master cgminer. I no longer have any Ants in my possession, so I'm not able to look at this again to confirm. M |
|
|
|
|
Two additional points on my prior comment:
1 - For work that is oversize, it obviously doesn't hurt anything because it's too low to be of any value. Any significantly sized shares (like an alt chain share) wouldn't reject. So this only inflates your reject rate for no good reason.
2 - The poor overworked Ants have enough to do already without having to switch work sizes all the time, so fixing the pseudo share size should help in some manner or another, however so slight.
M
|
|
|
|
Same here, p2pool does it nicely Yes, it does do it nicely. However if you have overburdened overworked miners, such as all Antminers are, there is a reason to set the pseudo share size. I've pointed my former Ants through my homegrown proxy to see what causes rejects and why. One is beyond the control of p2pool, although it can be alleviated by setting the queue size to 1 or 0. The other, however, you can solve by fixing the pseudo share size that p2pool feeds your Ants. Here's what happens: p2pool: work size is now 121 Ant: got it, I'll start using 121 as soon as I can Ant: here's some work from the prior work size of 105 p2pool: rejected! difficulty is too high (it really says this! in reality is too high, but too keep it simple for people, we reverse it and say it's too low) Ant: alright, here's some work of size 121 p2pool: accepted! Ant: and more p2pool: accepted! p2pool: whoa, hold on Ant, you're feeding me work too fast. work size is now 151! Ant: got it, I'll start using 151 as soon as I can Ant: here's some work from the prior work size of 121 p2pool: rejected! difficulty is too high! And so forth. Fix your pseudo share size, and no more rejects because of work size that is "too high". M |
|
|
|
I don't follow? The screenshot above shows them at 1,797, except for one, which is at 2,112. Neither is a factor of 2. (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, etc).
Every Ant I've had since S1s has had this issue.
M
Ah - I misunderstood, so it's only when the diff is a factor of 2 that the ants don't display best share - is that right? Peace Bingo! And if you don't set your difficulty on p2pool, the odds of you getting a difficulty that is a factor of 2 is pretty slim. M |
|
|
|
Not too sure about that tbh. Here's another screen I just took, only one of the miners is using a diff factor of 2, yet the best share is still being displayed:  - unless the display is only updated when the diff is at a factor of 2 of course......I've heard a few miners say they can't get the best share to show up either on the miner gui or on your monitor, but I've never had an issue with it personally. Lucky, I guess.....  I don't follow? The screenshot above shows them at 1,797, except for one, which is at 2,112. Neither is a factor of 2. (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, etc). Every Ant I've had since S1s has had this issue. M |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
