Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 04:47:24 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Avalon ASIC users thread  (Read 432256 times)
Dhomochevsky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 240



View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:52:21 AM
 #41

Oh hey, and here I was thinking this was an Avalon ASIC user's thread... But Nemesis here seems to not get the subtleties of the thread title between namecalling and cursing.
Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511023644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511023644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511023644
Reply with quote  #2

1511023644
Report to moderator
1511023644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511023644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511023644
Reply with quote  #2

1511023644
Report to moderator
1511023644
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511023644

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511023644
Reply with quote  #2

1511023644
Report to moderator
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:53:51 AM
 #42


So please do not use an " announced " chip power consumption number to compare with a full system power consumption number, it's meaning less.

It would be nice if all vendors published the full power consumption figures for their stand alone units.

Will people in countries with 240 AC supply have a slight advantage in terms of power consumption?

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
darkip
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:54:21 AM
 #43

Any system needs to pay these extra power, including BFL.
I'm tempted to agree with you. However, I do still stand by the fact that the total system wattage should be stated on the sales site, not the wattage of the chips. It's as simple as it being misleading.
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 390



View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:54:35 AM
 #44

Did I tell you to shut up?

BFL can plug into a OpenWRT device LIKE one in AVALON. Even an Android phone would work.

Your question is does Raspberry Pi gonna have enough bandwidth as a host? Fck yes, it also shows you know crap about this.


Avalon engineered the OpenWRT solution to work effectively.

I don't know what they had to do to make that happen, but I know that you can get away with using a low computer power single purpose device if well engineered to the application.

Everyone in this thread seems to be suggesting the end consumer should slap some 5W toy device called a "Raspberry Pi" into their BFL miner. My experience tells me this is not a real solution.

What operating system and mining software should they install on it? What optimizations should they perform on the OS build to ensure the bitcoin miner is not interrupted by other processes?

If BFL isn't going to provide a mining controller, then most users will end up using a real computer, not a "Raspberry Pi." You should be more realistic.

ngzhang
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 589


We will stand and fight.


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:56:35 AM
 #45


So please do not use an " announced " chip power consumption number to compare with a full system power consumption number, it's meaning less.

It would be nice if all vendors published the full power consumption figures for their stand alone units.

Will people in countries with 240 AC supply have a slight advantage in terms of power consumption?

Yes. But only after others have a working device.

19.5w -> 80w

CEO of Canaan-creative, Founder of Avalon project.
https://canaan.io/
Business contact: love@canaan.io
All PMs will be unread.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:57:57 AM
 #46

Paging Jgarzik.  Party of one.  Jgarzik, party of 1!  Your seat at the ASIC table is ready.  JGarzik, party of 1!

ITYM party of 2 Smiley  Bitcoin Foundation has theirs too.

With so many in transit, it won't be along though, I'm guessing.

And in the meantime, folks who have purchased Avalons can ask questions here.


To be fair, if I read correctly, that second unit was hand-delivered. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

This post is in no means a diss toward Avalon. Just posting a fact, again unless I'm in error.

With this great news, I'm happy to state that I 97% believe BFL, too, is not a scam. (97% sure Tom at bASIC drinks)

~Bruno K~
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:58:34 AM
 #47

Since this is supposed to be a 'users' thread.
Could one of the 'users' please ask Avalon for the 'Open Source' source code for the version in their Avalon.
They are required by the GPL3 license to give it to you (or supply you information where you can get it from) if you ask for it.

Still no sign of it anywhere (not sure why they have been hiding it for well over a week)

I'll also point out that if you want to plug your Avalon ASIC into a PC, you can't at the moment without someone who has the source code making a binary for you ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 03:59:31 AM
 #48

If BFL isn't going to provide a mining controller, then most users will end up using a real computer, not a "Raspberry Pi." You should be more realistic.

Perhaps you should read the BFL forums more.  A lot of them are planning on using a Raspberry Pi - and why not, they only cost USD 25-35.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
hardcore-fs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2013, 04:02:07 AM
 #49


And it is starting to 'warm up', it's going to need 3 fans in there.
jgarzik
1. What is your ambient room temp.
2. Temp on heat-sink (shielded from air flow)


BTC:1PCTzvkZUFuUF7DA6aMEVjBUUp35wN5JtF
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 390



View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:02:25 AM
 #50

If BFL isn't going to provide a mining controller, then most users will end up using a real computer, not a "Raspberry Pi." You should be more realistic.

Perhaps you should read the BFL forums more.  A lot of them are planning on using a Raspberry Pi - and why not, they only cost USD 25-35.

These toy devices are a PITA in my experience. I wish them good luck if they do not have experience with these products. Hopefully they are easier to use than a Beagleboard or similar.
darkip
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:03:12 AM
 #51

Everyone in this thread seems to be suggesting the end consumer should slap some 5W toy device called a "Raspberry Pi" into their BFL miner.
BFL themselves have said they'll support Android as a host.

Guess what processor is in your Android phone? An ARM. Guess what processor is in the Raspberry Pi? An ARM.
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:03:48 AM
 #52

Did I tell you to shut up?

BFL can plug into a OpenWRT device LIKE one in AVALON. Even an Android phone would work.

Your question is does Raspberry Pi gonna have enough bandwidth as a host? Fck yes, it also shows you know crap about this.


Avalon engineered the OpenWRT solution to work effectively.

I don't know what they had to do to make that happen, but I know that you can get away with using a low computer power single purpose device if well engineered to the application.

Everyone in this thread seems to be suggesting the end consumer should slap some 5W toy device called a "Raspberry Pi" into their BFL miner. My experience tells me this is not a real solution.

What operating system and mining software should they install on it? What optimizations should they perform on the OS build to ensure the bitcoin miner is not interrupted by other processes?

If BFL isn't going to provide a mining controller, then most users will end up using a real computer, not a "Raspberry Pi." You should be more realistic.
While that is true, it's also true that most miners probably won't be connecting a computer to each of their Singles. You might have to add 20W for a laptop/netbook or 80W for a PC to power the SC Single, but for anyone looking to run 2 or 4, that becomes less of an issue.

ngzhang, what power supply will all of the V2 units ship with, and will it be capable of actually running 6 modules?
Sitarow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680



View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:20:35 AM
 #53

thanks for clearing that up ngzhang.

Makes sense as it's a stand alone unit.  When quoting BFL's numbers, no one includes the PC it's hooked up to either.

No, I think it's nothing to do with the host PC.

To power the chips, we must convert 220vAC to 1.2v DC. And we must shift all heat out. This process cause power loses.

Any system needs to pay these extra power, including BFL.

So please do not use an " announced " chip power consumption number to compare with a full system power consumption number, it's meaning less.

Do you know the power draw per unit @ 1.2v DC?

Thanks! Smiley
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:32:31 AM
 #54

The miner is currently running on an already loaded residential house power circuit, while sharing a Back UPS ES 550 with another desktop machine.

If I were you, I would plug it right into the grid, or into a UPS that outputs true sine wave AC.

An APC Back UPS ES outputs nasty noisy square wave AC that isn't real good for things.  I wouldn't run a computer on one myself, much less a rare and expensive ASIC miner.

I also would not trust the power measurement taken by a kill-a-watt with it plugged in through that UPS.

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:38:21 AM
 #55

Somewhat OT but directed at comments above:
I will have an r-pi B very soon.
The person supplying it has been having USB testing done without the USB problems being reported - due to his work on it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137934.msg1489596#msg1489596

My current cgminer BFL USB code (the USB code is not in the Avalon) uses only a few CPU seconds per hour on my 3.6GHz desktop with 1 BFL FPGA, Stratum mining at 8 difficulty on OzCoin
This code isn't in the Avalon - so no idea how well they scale or how much CPU they a;ready use.
(as we all know - they didn't deal with ckolivas or myself doing the code and thus the Avalon code doesn't include the new upcoming features of cgminer that anyone can already get and use - it's open source and in my git)

5.5 hours runtime (top output) yeah it really isn't using much RAM there either:
 4080 root      20   0 1498m 4220 2628 S  0.3  0.0   0:13.81 cgminer-2104n

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
klondike_bar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638

ASIC wannabe


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:41:30 AM
 #56

The miner is currently running on an already loaded residential house power circuit, while sharing a Back UPS ES 550 with another desktop machine.

If I were you, I would plug it right into the grid, or into a UPS that outputs true sine wave AC.

An APC Back UPS ES outputs nasty noisy square wave AC that isn't real good for things.  I wouldn't run a computer on one myself, much less a rare and expensive ASIC miner.

I also would not trust the power measurement taken by a kill-a-watt with it plugged in through that UPS.


agreed.

also, i think its fair to see that the PSU efficiency isnt a necessary factor in the announced power use. When you say a 7970 draws 400w, do you account for the PSU efficiency? its a fairly uncommon testing value.

should be 3*[power per board]+[control board]+[fan power] to identify the system draw. PSU issues can be fixed if the end-user feels like paying for a better PSU

24" PCI-E cables with 16AWG wires and stripped ends - great for server PSU mods, best prices https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563461 also selling 6" M-F-M PCIe splitters and PCIe-PCIe
No longer a wannabe - now an ASIC owner!
jjiimm_64
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 04:45:43 AM
 #57

PSU issues can be fixed if the end-user feels like paying for a better PSU

140usd.  plug in a SeaSonic 750 forthe win

1jimbitm6hAKTjKX4qurCNQubbnk2YsFw
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 05:04:24 AM
 #58

I'd like to point out that the power usage for this unit is economically irrelevant, and not really necessary for discussion.

The statistic that matters most is time -- Avalon released first, so they win. That's really all there is to it.

Maybe for batch #1 which can take advantage of a lack of competition, but batch #2, batch #3, upgrade modules?  Power matters in the long run.  

Purchase price: $1500
620W for 1 year @ $0.10 per kWh = $543
620W for 2 year @ $0.10 per kWh = $1357

620W for 1 year @ $0.10 per kWh = $1086
620W for 2 year @ $0.25 per kWh = $2715

So depending on the economical lifespan of the miner and the power costs we are talking from 26% to 65% of "total cost of ownership" being electrical costs.  A 55% increase over quoted power consumption is significant.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 05:11:28 AM
 #59

Any system needs to pay these extra power, including BFL.

Can we have honestly from one builder ONCE?  You guys were doing so good up to this point.

That is pure and utter crap and you know it to.

The host in this case is a OpenWRT board pulling what 10W? Ok so 620W vs 610.  Claiming 400W on your site is disingenous.  Sure you have DC to DC losses so does anyone but that is part of the power load.  AMD doesn't quote the power consumption of the raw chip when selling an entire graphics cards.  They quote the card power usage which includes GPU, RAM, VRMS, fans, and any associated control circuitry.   

Your system doesn't use 400W.  Don't advertise that it uses 400W.  It uses ~600W.  Claiming anything less and then saying "oh it needs a host" when you know the host board is pulling a tiny fraction of that is just plain dishonest.  Period.   620W vs 400W is a 55% increase.  That is significant.  Rise above your competitors and start acting like a real company.  You know a real one which wouldn't pull a stunt like this because they would be facing a class action lawsuit for blatant misreprenstation of a material fact.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
February 02, 2013, 05:43:37 AM
 #60

The host in this case is a OpenWRT board pulling what 10W? Ok so 620W vs 610.  Claiming 400W on your site is disingenous.  Sure you have DC to DC losses so does anyone but that is part of the power load.  AMD doesn't quote the power consumption of the raw chip when selling an entire graphics cards.  They quote the card power usage which includes GPU, RAM, VRMS, fans, and any associated control circuitry.   

Your system doesn't use 400W.  Don't advertise that it uses 400W.  It uses ~600W.  Claiming anything less and then saying "oh it needs a host" when you know the host board is pulling a tiny fraction of that is just plain dishonest.  Period.   620W vs 400W is a 55% increase.  That is significant.  Rise above your competitors and start acting like a real company.  You know a real one which wouldn't pull a stunt like this because they would be facing a class action lawsuit for blatant misreprenstation of a material fact.

However, it is fair to provide the base power consumption, because that potentially provides a better apples-to-apples comparison with other competitors.

IMO module and whole-unit power consumption figures would be the ones to publish.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 221 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!