Guys I need your help, I just added BFGminer and CGminer (official latest versions) to Minera but now I would like to hear from you what you'd like to have as miner software in Minera (only cgminer/bfgminer forks for specific devices please). I'm looking at these specific for Zeus too: * https://github.com/Darkwinde/zeus_cgminer-3.7.2* https://github.com/dmaxl/cgminer/I would like to add a miner also for Innosilicon A1/A2 but I think the company hasn't release any source version yet. Now, it's the time for your suggestions! Feedback please! I've had the best luck with CPU Miner, but I haven't tried the newest BFGminer. I believe michelem is talking about device support other than gridseeds (like Zeus). |
|
|
|
Guys I need your help, I just added BFGminer and CGminer (official latest versions) to Minera but now I would like to hear from you what you'd like to have as miner software in Minera (only cgminer/bfgminer forks for specific devices please). I'm looking at these specific for Zeus too: * https://github.com/Darkwinde/zeus_cgminer-3.7.2* https://github.com/dmaxl/cgminer/I would like to add a miner also for Innosilicon A1/A2 but I think the company hasn't release any source version yet. Now, it's the time for your suggestions! Feedback please! You have my vote for both of those. I've used both and while bfgminer seems to work really well, I have a little more success (less rejects) and more compatibility with the pools I use with dmaxl's cgminer. I would also like to see A1 support as well. |
|
|
|
I just converted all my equipment over to 220v/240v circuits. I have some more hardware arriving this week and really had nothing better to do besides mow the grass. Figured I may as well get as much efficiency out of the power being used as I could.
Amp readings before and after? Awesome you did this... At least amp readings? Amps should be very much lower. More efficient and less electricity. In theory. Edit, picture of the job? I don't have any amp readings unfortunately. I don't have the equipment to take those measurements. A good clamp on ammeter has been on my "to get" list for a while, but I always end up getting other stuff instead. As for pics....it really just looks like a standard outlet. I wired it using 10-2 indoor house wiring and a 30A breaker so it should be able to handle whatever I throw on it with regards to mining/computer equipment. That freakin' wire is a pain in the ass to work with in a tight space like an electrical box too. Ironically....I got it all at home depot....using a gift card....that I bought through a smartphone app called Gyft...with bitcoin I mined... |
|
|
|
First post here so please be kind!  I had a few hours yesterday morning and gave myself a little 4th of July holiday challenge: 1.Take a few of my Blizzards/Furies from my mini-farm. 2.With ONLY a tray of various screws/wires, thermal paste, and some mini-heatsinks, use the parts that make-up the stock units and reconfigure the design to: A. Consolidate cooling. B. Consolidate size. C. (Hopefully) improve performance. 3.Enjoy a nice cold Hefeweizen and whistle while I work! (Items also present on my work bench = Weller soldering iron + solder, razor blade, Phillips head, and hex head drivers) After repasting and improving the PCB to aluminum casing thermal transfer, the mini-heatsinks were applied to each individual ASIC. Next, I combined the V+ input of each set of (2) miner boards before running a new power feed line to the rear of each pair. I then soldered one of the available fans to one of the available PCB's. Everything is now reinstalled in to each cashing set and joined with the original fan housing bolts, which are also used to [temporarily] secure the now vertically mounted blower-fans. Just for extra cooling assurance, one of the other extra fans is plugged in to the stock location on the PCB and retained on the top of my "mini-tower of 5.5MH/s power" by seating it so its mount holes securely rest on the union bolt/nut tips. Lastly, to keep each pair of miners level, two M3x40mm hex-head bolts w/ nylon lock nuts are used in place of the (2) rear PCB mount screws on the lower miner of each pair. Now each pair of miners can be stacked and hooked up! My opinion of the results: Veni, vidi, vici! Overall, the units are running cooler and I can see approximately a 10-15% improvement in hashing effectiveness - including less HW errors (only approx. 10 over a range of 1000 accepted shares with less than 5 rejected shares). I am going to continue to test and see how it does over the weekend. Update: Now I have 8 units made into 2 towers. Numbers @ 340MHz are looking good (see below).  Scott- *Images snipped* Nice work. What software are you using to control them? It's beyond me why they didn't put all the connectors on one end in the first place...stupid design to plug crap into both ends if you ask me. I just converted all my equipment over to 220v/240v circuits. I have some more hardware arriving this week and really had nothing better to do besides mow the grass. Figured I may as well get as much efficiency out of the power being used as I could. |
|
|
|
Hey Darkwinde - I've been testing out your latest bfgminer on my rpi with 2 Fury's. I'm getting VERY inconsistent results. Although the hashrate shows higher, I get a VERY high number of reject compared to Dmaxl's builds of cgminer on Nicehash, and otherwise a wildly fluctuating hashrate (same speeds between cgminer and bfgminer). Is there some setting I'm missing? Must be because I see so many others that are getting good results with it....
cgminer is highlighted in black, bfgminer in red. The tests were performed against the Nicehash pool, I just switched to coinking for a bit when I took the screenshot and noticed nowhere near the level of rejects as on Nicehash...but I still see a very erratic hashrate which fluctuates down to near 0 at times and upwards of 7.
*image removed*
crap...forgive the typo in your name on the pic...
..."darkwine" is a nice nick...LOL... Just kidding... BTW, did you really got 1.71MH on your Fury(s)...  Cheers, ZiG Well, the clock was set to 381 and that's what bfgminer was reporting...but poolside was VERY inconsistent. I couldn't tell what hashrate it was getting. Poolside:  Starminer report:  In the starminer graph, the usage of bfgminer on coinking starts at the Thur 18:00 mark. Poolside was all over the place. I'm going to go back to dmaxl's cgminer and do a run with it on the same pool for the same amount of time to see if the poolside graph looks different. |
|
|
|
Hey Darkwinde - I've been testing out your latest bfgminer on my rpi with 2 Fury's. I'm getting VERY inconsistent results. Although the hashrate shows higher, I get a VERY high number of reject compared to Dmaxl's builds of cgminer on Nicehash, and otherwise a wildly fluctuating hashrate (same speeds between cgminer and bfgminer). Is there some setting I'm missing? Must be because I see so many others that are getting good results with it.... cgminer is highlighted in black, bfgminer in red. The tests were performed against the Nicehash pool, I just switched to coinking for a bit when I took the screenshot and noticed nowhere near the level of rejects as on Nicehash...but I still see a very erratic hashrate which fluctuates down to near 0 at times and upwards of 7.  crap...forgive the typo in your name on the pic... |
|
|
|
Made an adjustment to batch file  May I ask what speed you're running it at? I'm curious because you are getting that kind of performance from it at a high ambient temp of 90f+....the ambient temp where mine will be running is around 69f-72f. |
|
|
|
|
Hey giveen....that's a thunder x3 right?
I should have a falcon coming next week. If you don't get it figured out before then I'll take mine apart and grab photos and notes of the layout.
Are the switches in any sort of order? Example would be switch one is set a certain way and the switch on the next board is the same sequence off by one? I'm sure you've already thought of that but just checking.
Ah...spoke too soon..you got them..let us know how the proper application of thermal paste goes. It did wonders for my furys.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, looks like Fury have been taken off GAWminers website. anyone knows what happen ?
It looks like ALL Zeus hardware with the exception of one unbranded 28mhs miner for around $2400 is off the site. Maybe they're updating prices...or decided to dump Zeus and their shady practices and half-assed hardware implementation. Edit - they must be updating things...there's a "TEST" category now with nothing in it. |
|
|
|
I cloned Lukejr's latest with Zeus support and increased the max clock to 600 in the code. Just from some testing I could do this morning, anything above that magic 381 gives VERY erratic results. I raised it to 425 at one point and all I got was rejects. Dropped it back to 400 and it returned to working like it did before 425. I was getting a little higher error rate (8%), but between the error rate and rejects I wasn't gaining any more speed at 400 than at a lower speed like 381. I dropped it back to 390 just now and will let it run for a couple hours to see where it's at. I remember changing the max clock in Darkwinde's fork of bfgminer but that was before his re-base to Lukejr's 4.3.0. Unfortunately I don't remember if it had the same behavior or not. :EDIT - even 390 is showing 32% reject and 9.6% hw error....not looking very good for even 390. |
|
|
|
I'm using dmaxls beta 2 and am getting 1.68mhs on nicehash (381mhz clock).
more interesting would be what you get on pool side. The miner/GUI can talk much but the accepted hares are counting  8 gridseeds + 2 Fury's on Nicehash. You can see the large dip in the graph where the 2 fury's were offline (I was using bfgminer but took things offline to flash the new release of starminer and clone/compile the latest dmaxl cgminer), take note of the Minera hashrate (last tab in Firefox) sitting at 3.5Mhs. I'd say the 2 Fury's are more than pulling their weight...and from the looks of it dmaxl's cgminer work is catching up to the speed of bfgminer.  and btw....I had been using your builds of bfgminer up until this latest release of Starminer (6/27) for mining on Nicehash (you can see the first peaks in the graph - that's bfgminer 4.2.2). It seems to have some problems with the other pool I use so I have always had cgminer on the sidelines for mining at my other pool. |
|
|
|
I'm using dmaxls beta 2 and am getting 1.68mhs on nicehash (381mhz clock).  |
|
|
|
Maybe if you can nst, throw both of these into your mod/tuning section somewhere? 1st post updated. Sorry, was out of commission most of the day with a migraine...I hate those things. |
|
|
|
|
I've read that a higher difficulty will reduce hw errors. According to the documentation available the Zeus chips like a higher difficulty unlike the gridseeds which preferred a lower difficulty.
If that holds true...then raising difficulty should reduce hw errors.
I usually run mine with 256-512 difficulty when I can set it manually. I've seen it as high as 1024-2048 with vardiff though.
|
|
|
|
Would it be better for the miner if i remove all the casing and run them without it ? cooling measure  Unless you have a huge heatsink to put on the backside of the circuitboard, I would say absolutely not. You'll do more harm than good. The casing IS the heatsink. If you want to take further 'cooling measures' then replace the stock thermal paste with some good quality non-conductive/non-capacitive thermal paste and add some small heatsinks to the tops of the chips and add a fan to blow through the chamber. |
|
|
|
|
That's awesome. I read that darkwinde was testing at rc of 270 but haven't seen results.
I would use that version but it doesn't work at all with manicminer pool which is where I usually mine at so I'm stuck with dmaxl's build of cgminer.
I'd like to get one miner that works for both gridseeds and Zeus hardware. In tried building bfgminer with support for both last week but had no luck. It would see the gridseeds but not the furys.
|
|
|
|
@nst6563 Would you mind updating the OP with this link for the "Link to thread" you've previously posted? New link: https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=20477.0Since Darkwinde updates his OP, it may make more sense to send folks there to get their binaries/help. I guess I've been going to the new thread not realizing it changed from what I had in the post. Updated |
|
|
|
|
I'm running my small farm from a 700w Seasonic ATX psu (2 rpi, 7 gridseeds, 2 Fury's 5x 120mm fans). I never even used the adapters that came with my Fury's.
|
|
|
|
Damnit...seems like every time I clone and compile a new build another one comes out. I'm glad it's actively being worked on though.... better than the stagnate state things were in when we first got the hardware |
|
|
|
I've not had time to read the entire thread since finding it...but I wanted to ask for those folks who applied new TIM to their Blizzards, are you seeing any benefits other than temps? I see some folks are pushing the clocks pretty high (~380-ish)...but is that with volt-mods or just new TIM applied.
Cheers!
Yes, you can increase your clocks quite a bit from my experience just from using good thermal paste and applying heatsinks to the tops of the chips. Adding a small fan to blow through the chamber over the circuitboard also helps. Without the addition of the extra fan, I was able to raise my clocks from 333 with a 4%-5% hw error rate to 350 with a 4%-5% hw error rate. (roughly about 1.4Mhs). The addition of the voltmod does allow all the way up to the max clock of 381Mhz though. We're hoping we can actually overcome that 381Mhz barrier. I looked at one of my Blizzards and the entire back side of the circuit board looks like it was coated in TIM...doesn't seem quite right. Should I clean that off and apply some high quality TIM just behind the 6 chips or spread it over the whole board like Zeus did? Definitely clean the old stuff off first. You can either cover the entire back with a nice coat (not really needed in my opinion) or just do the spots with the chips. Personally, I put three lines across the back of the board under the chips (2 rows for the chips, 1 row for the rest of the components). I however have a huge 30gram tube of Prolimatek pk-2...so 3 thin rows wasn't really a lot. Whether you do three rows, cover the whole back, or just do dabs on the backsides of the chips...it will make a huge difference because the stock setup was done for cost efficiency...not thermal transfer efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
