Damnnit... I paid UPS yesterday for fees owed, truck came today with the miner on it and -- driver said it was COD. Showed him the receipt and UPS conf# and doesn't matter 'cause the system still has not been updated for it...
Hopefully by time of the days-end pickup it will have cleared so I can get it today vs Monday. Grrrrr..........
Sorry for you. I still can't believe there are fees to be paid. I think I have had UPS deliver all but one of my miners. Never have I paid a fee. (USA) |
|
|
|
|
I will follow but there is not enough information to commit at this point.
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to get more than 4 GPU's to run on a Win 10 rig. I have seen this mod posted in a lot of threads, but I can't get the link to work. Is it me or is this no good anymore? https://lbr.id.lv/6xgpu_mod/6xGPU_mod.htmlWe figured that this issue was motherboard related. What motherboard are you using at the moment for your rig? gigabyte ga-990fxa-ud5 |
|
|
|
I'm trying to get more than 4 GPU's to run on a Win 10 rig. I have seen this mod posted in a lot of threads, but I can't get the link to work. Is it me or is this no good anymore? https://lbr.id.lv/6xgpu_mod/6xGPU_mod.html |
|
|
|
|
It's a gigabyte ga-990fxa-ud5 on Win 7.
Reading some other threads I think 4 GPU's may be the max for Win 7. Some other miners upgraded to Win 10 and now they can get 6 GPU's on the board. I am in the process of trying the same.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to add a second PSU to a rig. I have the first one running the motherboard and 3 GPU's. One is 390 that is recognized as 2 gpu's so really the system sees 4 gpu's total but it's 3 physical gpu's. But I am trying to add another gpu and need a second psu to do that.
I added another gpu with a powered ribbon cable and a 2nd psu. I have one of those 24pin red on/off switches that I am using rather than a paperclip or wire. But that should not be an issue.
I turn on the secondary psu and then the primary. The fans run on the 4th GPU, but it does not get recognized by the pc (windows 7) or the miner (claymore) and it does not mine. It stays very cool like it's not working at all.
I have tried two different gpu's as my 4th to see if it was a gpu problem. But it's does not appear to be. Neither gets recognized by the pc.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Bitmain - This is my money, what your bad customer service wasting.48 hours and no answer for the ticket. ticket 6132 Waiting for reply. Starts the same old story, such as the S5 + One of my today arrived S9 blade does not work in a couple of hours anymore. Low speed. After reboot only 2 blades. The red light is on, on all 3 blades. Power restart did not help . I Replaced the PSU. Did not help . PSU is now Bitmains 1600W, was before IMB 2000W Screenshot.  Click on the image my also ticket 6085 no reply i think because of sat sun If you are in the US and determine you need to RMA - my advice is to forget it. Contact bitmainwarranty.com and send them your miner to fix. You'll have to pay for it, but on the plus side you will actually get it back. I sent a dead S7 board to Hong Kong per their instructions. They claim it was never received. It's a black hole over there. To me it's actually worth it to spend the extra $ to buy the miners from bitmainwarranty.com. Even if the Hong Kong facility repaired and returned the hardware, the lost time mining makes it near useless. IMO |
|
|
|
I'm confused. Now they are giving us two temp readings. In the past, for the S7 and others have we just been seeing the pcb temp (labeled: Temp).
Then why now they showing us the chip temp. Why is that important now? Poor design?
My pcb temps are running 56, 56, 59 at 625M. On any other Antminer I would say there is plenty of room for some over-clocking. Or in this case to move to the default 650M. (EDIT)
Chip temps are 87, 86, 91. Are these temps higher than an S7 with the above pcb temps? In other words is there more of variance on this miner than the older ones. Where we can burn out a chip before the pcb gets to 80C. That's still the safety shutdown temp. I believe.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe I will do some clarification here. 1) All previous chips until now are not able to read chip temperature because of missing temperature probe on chip die. 2) temp reading was done through temp probe at PCB, far away enough from chips to get much lower readings. 3) temp of PCB is extremely inacurate because it can't discover poor heatsink contact and chip overheat. PCB temp vs Chip temp accuracy is extremely affected by frequency (total heat generated) and fan speed. Low freq and low fan speed keeps PCB temp closer to chip temps. 4) generally, all chips follow the same temperature characteristic, so if datasheet says it is safe to operate the chip at 125C, it is true, because it is common to all other similar chips. 5) a lot of previous miners (S5 is the winner) suffered from high power density and poor heatsink contact, so there was big number of failed S5 due to overheating 6) knowing chip die temperature is the key to operate chip safely. Keeping the chip within safe margin keeps the chip running virtually indefinitely. 7) since antminer S5, all chips are able to withstand temperatures about 200C under load (under load is very importatnt). It is from my own experience when chips were running and due to overheat they desoldered themselves while soldering temperature is about 200C. Resoldering chips back was enough to fix the board. BTW: My Radeon 5970 GPU was working at 150C without destruction. TLDR: So, reading die temperature is the key to operate chips within safe region. Answers to your questions: 1) why so important: let us know key safety information 2) poor design: Yes, until now. With chip temp reading miners wouldn't fail. 3) are S7 temps lower/higher than S9: With the same PCB readings your chip temps will vary about +-10 degrees on both S7 or S9 miners. This is because PCB temperature is far away from chips and it is also cooled by fan. Depends on fan and frequency speeds. 4) OC suggestion: Keep your chips temp below 125C under any circumstances. Lower is better. From my experience chips can work even higher, but PCB componnents are aging and efficiency drops. Hope it helped also others  Now there's an honest to god reply. Thank you sir. You at the very least sound like you know of what you speak. And I like your numbers. Appreciated! |
|
|
|
|
In a data datacenter I'm getting 13.55 TH/s average for one day as read by the pool.
13.66 TH/s on the miner (avg). Errors are at 0.003. 650M.
Temps are 62 PCB and 88 chips.
As good as it will get I imagine.
|
|
|
|
Right - for this and fee reasons never use saved or mined btc to pay for a miner. If you really think btc will go up, buy the btc with cash, then buy the miner.
Not sure I'm following - what difference does it make where the BTC came from? It's still the same amount that you need to ROI. Speaking of which - if you think that BTC will go up, why buy an overpriced miner that might or might not ROI in 9-12 months? BTC going up will just make it worse for ROI (likely faster difficulty growth etc). the cost of mined a coin is not the same as purchased coin. Much longer explanation is needed,but here goes. I go to coinbase today right now spend 2k on coin and send it right to bitmaintech. my cost is 2k in btc and in usd. If I sold 8 gpus at 200 each in btc on June 1 I made a gain since the coin went up in fiat so I would use less coin 15 days later to buy the miner. same applies if I mined coins from april to june 16 to buy the unit. the coins went up in value. Thank you. |
|
|
|
The jump in price works against B1 buyers just as much as it works for them, since to buy batch 1 you had to buy BTC at about 30% less than it's going for now. So someone buying a later unit for the same USD would have to mine back about 30% less coin to break even, which because of diminishing returns from diff increases will mean breakeven more than 30% faster.
Right - for this and fee reasons never use saved or mined btc to pay for a miner. If you really think btc will go up, buy the btc with cash, then buy the miner. |
|
|
|
Wow nice S9's hopefully the price of them doesn't drop by half in a month or so lol but looks like you made the right gamble with the price of bitcoin skyrocketing.
Keep in mind on price right now your getting pre-having mining which is a big thing. It is before block reward so the miners will make more now vs after having. So a higher price now would make sense. We have no idea what price will be after having but I would imagine cheaper due to not mining these day's before having, which again is huge to have in my eyes. I would guess price would reflect after... but how much I have no idea. But it is a tradeoff as you did not get the pre-having mining if you wait for a lower price. Agree. The question is, and what counter acts the theoretical price drop after halving, is demand for coin. Before the run up the market took in the coins being mined and we have been at somewhat of an equilibrium. But that same demand for coins in 3 weeks can't be met. |
|
|
|
|
Well between the S9 delivery yesterday and the price going through the roof again today - In a week's time I have gone from squeaking out earnings of $40/day to just shy of $100 today. Too bad mining is dead.
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. Now they are giving us two temp readings. In the past, for the S7 and others have we just been seeing the pcb temp (labeled: Temp).
Then why now they showing us the chip temp. Why is that important now? Poor design?
My pcb temps are running 56, 56, 59 at 625M. On any other Antminer I would say there is plenty of room for some over-clocking. Or in this case to move to the default 650M. (EDIT)
Chip temps are 87, 86, 91. Are these temps higher than an S7 with the above pcb temps? In other words is there more of variance on this miner than the older ones. Where we can burn out a chip before the pcb gets to 80C. That's still the safety shutdown temp. I believe.
Inquiring minds want to know.
PCB temps are useless...just a cheap way to guesstimate what the die temps would be. My guess would be that with more real-estate afforded by 14/16nm it became worth it it put temps sensors on the dies, and the fact that chips at these node levels are more sensitive to high temps. Anything over 90c continuous on die temps will shorten the life of the chip. I would be concerned if they are running over 80c. if 80c on the chips is bad then the s-9 should be clocked at 575 vs 650 as to go to 79c will not be easy in rooms without ac. i went to 625 but may indeed go to 600. mean while i fixed the mad whistle https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1493601.msg15223731#msg15223731https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1493601.msg15223315#msg15223315I let mine run overnight at 650M when it's especially cool in the mine. Even then my die temps were in the upper 80's, with PCB temps in the mid to low 50's. But when you say anything over 90 will shorten the die's life, are you speaking generally about asic chips? Or specifically about asics designed to mine crypto? The reason I ask is that these chips do not need to last 3-4 years. Even with the S9 being by far the leader right now, I can't imagine it being profitable 18 months from now. I would not want to keep a miner throttled back 10% below "manufacturer's default" speed just so the chips will last 3-4 years. I just need them to last about 18 months at the most. Even that would be the longest life cycle for a miner since asics. And I want to suck the life out of them for those 18 months. No sense leaving coin on the table. |
|
|
|
I've just got to put this out there before writing anything more about the S9 I picked up today. I dunno much about sharing audio clips but this deserves a listen: https://clyp.it/juwxpa1h(Recorded with an iPhone from about 30cm directly above the power inputs) That's a Batch 1 S9 as it ramps through unknown RPM levels partway through its first startup. 0:03 to 0:06 --- =| Holy crap. I work near Luke Air Force Base. That's sounds like an F-16 on takeoff. EDIT - that's why I have someone else host my miners. |
|
|
|
I'm confused. Now they are giving us two temp readings. In the past, for the S7 and others have we just been seeing the pcb temp (labeled: Temp).
Then why now they showing us the chip temp. Why is that important now? Poor design?
My pcb temps are running 56, 56, 59 at 625M. On any other Antminer I would say there is plenty of room for some over-clocking. Or in this case to move to the default 650M. (EDIT)
Chip temps are 87, 86, 91. Are these temps higher than an S7 with the above pcb temps? In other words is there more of variance on this miner than the older ones. Where we can burn out a chip before the pcb gets to 80C. That's still the safety shutdown temp. I believe.
Still confused. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin in its current state as a decentralized network doesn't scale well enough to allow for every lolly to be settled as an individual transaction on the blockchain.
Please show your math. Right. That's we need to increase the block size. I'm glad you see that. |
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. Now they are giving us two temp readings. In the past, for the S7 and others have we just been seeing the pcb temp (labeled: Temp).
Then why now they showing us the chip temp. Why is that important now? Poor design?
My pcb temps are running 56, 56, 59 at 625M. On any other Antminer I would say there is plenty of room for some over-clocking. Or in this case to move to the default 650M. (EDIT)
Chip temps are 87, 86, 91. Are these temps higher than an S7 with the above pcb temps? In other words is there more of variance on this miner than the older ones. Where we can burn out a chip before the pcb gets to 80C. That's still the safety shutdown temp. I believe.
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
|
So why not increase the block reward by 10 and the block size by 10 too? We come back to the distribution problematic and what does it means to have a protocol. It's clear that for early adopters bigger block less rewards more users is the way to wealth... Nothing to do with the success of Bitcoin. Individual greed at its finest...
Remembers the dollars does everything of Bitcoin will ever be able to do as a currency... It even sent people to the moon.
If you can't make the distinction between small technical adjustments to handle growth and changing the block reward I can't help you. No one can. One Satoshi talked about changing. The other is one of the most fundamental characteristics of bitcoin that Satoshi said would NEVER be changed. |
|
|
|
|
Higher fees and slow transaction times has already stifled btc growth over the past 9 months. This stupid argument has done that.
BTC was not designed by Satoshi to spawn a side chain so it would work properly. It was designed to have increased block size.
Any increase in fees you think you get from slowing down transactions is peanuts compared to what btc would have done in the past 9 months and going forward. Your actions seek to kill the very thing that makes your fees.
But of course blockstream will save everyone from bitcoin's inherent flaws of not scaling. It's a solution to a manufactured, fake problem that they have created for themselves. And unfortunately, so many have bought into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
