updated first post with link to new bfgminer 4.1.99

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=16301.5760

Sources:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fygluxm446cjctn/AAAFUAJDeIEYiWnuEefimKjWa

actually it's around 6k now.  I adjusted it just slightly.  It seemed that with my fury the max I could get with 7k was 500 with less than 4% error.  I adjusted the pot down .2k and can now hit 520.  Possibly higher, but I won't know with the current version of hashra/cgminer - I'll have to try bfgminer.

The voltage mine is reading now is 1.54v (original reading was 1.26v) and I can run it at 520Mhz and stay in the 3%-4% error rate.  For whatever reason, it seems that with Hashra it stops displaying the correct hashrate above 520Mhz.  I've looked through the code a bit and couldn't really find anything that would limit what it's displaying so I think it may be in whatever version of cgminer it is using.  I know in a litecointalk thread Maxzilla (who supports Hashra) asked if he could use the new builds of bfgminer that are being worked on but I haven't had the time to get the files on there and do a manual run of it to see if bfgminer has the same issue with clocks above 520.  

As for power usage....I have no idea.  A Kilowatt and decent clamp ammeter is something I've been meaning to get for a while now and always end up getting distracted by something else lol

Well I've been slowly increasing the clock speed every few hours and it seems that at least with Hashra, it stops displaying the correct hashrate above the 520Mhz mark.  Instead of 1.5mhs or whatever it should be, it shows as .51mhs.  Poolside is showing a range of 1.51 to 1.95mhs though.

Awesome!  2nd post updated.  Thanks Zig!

2nd post updated with J4bberwok's info that was posted. 

Also...my poolside hashrate is a LOT higher than the local reported hashrate. 
Local reported hashrate is around 1.52mh average.  Here's a pic of the poolside rates (under the nst6563.fury2 entry).  Single Fury. 

I did the mod...used a 50k trim pot adjusted down to 7k.

I had to leave but I was running it at 450mhz with a 3% error rate.  I just upped it to 500mhz and so far 0 errors in 10 minutes.  It's averaging 1.52mhs.  I'll let it run at 500 while I'm out and report back.  Temp probe only registered an average 3f increase with my heatsink setup.



Also....if anyone is running Hashra you have to edit the /var/www/index.php to allow those higher speeds

Exactly what type of cooling are you referring to?  Something similar to the heatsinks on the chips I posted in my picture?  I've already got those + thermal paste on the back of the circuitboard and that let me clock up to 354 (~1.41mhs). 

I have a small 60mm fan blowing through over the circuitboard and heatsinks.  Thermal probe on the heatsink shows 76f-78f (ambient is anywhere from 69f-72f depending if the AC is on or not). 

If I didn't have plans tonight I'd be doing this mod....

I really think the fury's/blizzards are pushing the limits of those 5A power supplies.  I've seen the reports of people saying how hot they get and I just set mine aside and used a 7A until I had a power connector ready I could plug into the power supply.

And I know those USB cables you're talking about...they are nice.  The ones I got with my gridseeds were, thick, blue, shielded but only a couple feet long.   The cable that came with my Fury was black.  It's not as thick/nice as the blue ones, but it's not super thin either.

To be honest I have less problems with the rpi than I did using a Windows pc.  I hadn't tried linux with the fury though...might be different.

As far as I know, it's only for the pi.

See the first post.  There are links to both Zeusminer and GAWMiner pages where they have the cgminer binaries and sources hosted.  If you're using rpi, I also have links to the rpi images that support the Zeus/GAW GenA miners. 

You can download the source from one of the links and compile it and run it on a rpi that is running other mining software like minera for gridseeds.  That's what I did at first, just ran it from the console.

340 is better than 328

I think I found the sweet spot on my Fury.  I edited the index.php for the Hashra Lunar Landar image to allow speeds higher than 350. I didn't need to go far though. 
At 355 I get an error rate of around 6%.  However, at 354 my error rate so far is at 2.95%...it's only been running for about 2 hours now, but in that same time at 355 I had an error rate of over 6%.  I'm on manicminer pool where you can set the difficulty and I have it at 304.

I'm going to let it run until tomorrow at 354Mhz, 304 diff and see what the numbers look like.

What's your ambient temp?  I have all my mining stuff in the basement where it stays between 70f-73f.  Slightly cooler in the winter (around 68f).

I know what you mean on letting it run....I'm waiting for the other Fury to show up so I can take the voltage readings all over the board.  I'll have a huge update after it comes in.  I just wish I had a good camera that I could get a decent high res macro shot of it. 

I would assume so yes.  There is a section for current hashrate and average hashrate, and then below there is a section for individual miners.  I should have another fury later in the week so I'll know for sure, but check out the screenshots I posted on page 1 of this thread. 

I used starminer for a while and switched to Hashra's Lunar Lander image.  I only have one Fury right now, but the reasons I had for switching away from starminer were:
Slow interface.  It seemed to take forever to save a change or switch to different pages within it.
Not very intuitive in my opinion.  At first changing settings seemed to be obscure at best.
  It seemed that my miner would just stop mining for no apparent reason.  It would show the pool as dead, but my gridseeds running on a pi with Minera were all connected to it and running fine.

I've been using Hashra for most of a week now and compared to starminer it's:
Faster - overall.  no delays in changing settings or switching pages or anything else.  
Stable - I haven't seen it yet where it just says the pool is dead while everything else is still connected and mining to the same pool from the same network.
Cleaner more intuitive user interface.


Just my opinion though.  My suggestion would be to try them all.

If anyone has a link to a new image or system I'll add it to the first post (I added your's already happydaze).

Edit:  it looks like starminer is being actively worked on and the interface latency issues should be resolved with an upcoming release.

I know it's the com port speed and nothing to do with hashing speed, my thought behind changing it was for the error rate.  Since each nonce returned has to pass through each chip in the chain before being passed to the controller perhaps raising the communication speed to a higher value could reduce any possible bottleneck in data movement.  Not likely, but even if it made a .5% difference it would be an improvement.
In the driver, it's hardcoded to 8 cores per chip, but the number if chips is variable.  So I'm not so sure a separate version for the 6-chip blizzard/Fury's and the higher chip count devices would be required.    Much like the gridseed 5-chip and 80-chip.  

I don't know C myself...I can read through it and get an idea of what's going on, but I don't know squat about coding with it.  I'm a vbscript/vb.net/powershell scripter by trade and that doesn't really help in the crypto world.

I could try changing that value in the driver and recompiling.  If I have time this evening I may do that just for kicks.  Like I said though....I'm not a C coder so for all I know we'll end up with cold fusion in a jar when I'm done with it.



:EDIT:
Actually...I couldn't wait so I opened the driver file and found this at the top....I'm wondering if changing this value would have any effect...

I've left the fan alone on my fury.  It's a lot quieter than the gridseeds fan and moves a good amount of air. 

I would definitely recommend the thermal paste.  Anything that's non conductive should be better than what's on there now. 

My Fury has been running for over 10 hrs now, 3103 accepted shares, 125 hw errors.  Sitting right at 4%.  Heatsink temp probe is still at 80f.  I'm moving the probe to the circuitboard to see if there's any difference.

Stock cooling or have you done anything to it? 

Here's a 4hr run on mine at the full 350Mhz that Hashra allows.  Still sitting around the 4% error range. 



If a better application of thermal paste and the addition of heatsinks on the top of the IC's can take the speed from 328/336 to 350+ on stock voltage while maintaining the same error rate I'd say that's a step in the right direction.