goxed
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1006
Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
June 10, 2013, 10:29:55 PM |
|
Can anyone report what is maximum safe operating temperatures for Avalon?
There are three temperature values reported Temp1, Temp2, Temp3. What do these correspond to? With the current weather and temperatures I wanted to know at what cutoff point should I downclock the avalon.
Also, what is the max safe junction temperature of avalon chips?
|
Revewing Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
|
mtbitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 876
Merit: 1000
Etherscan.io
|
|
June 16, 2013, 07:42:35 AM |
|
Anyone try the latest firmware?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 16, 2013, 08:02:06 AM |
|
Anyone try the latest firmware?
Cheers
I did. Accourding to my testing 3.2 clocked at 300 is making about 68000 compared to 3.1 70500. 24 hours run. I downgraded to cgminer 3.1. I do not know what is the reason, but there is performance decrease. Will Anyone else to share the cgminer 3.2 results?
|
|
|
|
Kuma
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
June 16, 2013, 09:42:30 AM |
|
Anyone try the latest firmware?
Cheers
I did. Accourding to my testing 3.2 clocked at 300 is making about 68000 compared to 3.1 70500. 24 hours run. I downgraded to cgminer 3.1. I do not know what is the reason, but there is performance decrease. Will Anyone else to share the cgminer 3.2 results? Hi, I noticed that too and asked CKolivas. He replied: The old avalon code lied about the hashrate and lied about the hardware errors. It counted hardware errors as hashrate (and since it's a hardware error it can't be valid hashes that it's doing) and didn't count "no matching work" scenarios as hardware errors. So the new code will appear to have a lower hashrate and a higher hw error count, but in fact it's doing more useful work and just not lying about the rates (along with all the other benefits in the new code). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg2406402#msg2406402
|
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 16, 2013, 10:31:30 AM Last edit: June 16, 2013, 10:57:43 AM by loshia |
|
Hi, I noticed that too and asked CKolivas. He replied: The old avalon code lied about the hashrate and lied about the hardware errors. It counted hardware errors as hashrate (and since it's a hardware error it can't be valid hashes that it's doing) and didn't count "no matching work" scenarios as hardware errors. So the new code will appear to have a lower hashrate and a higher hw error count, but in fact it's doing more useful work and just not lying about the rates (along with all the other benefits in the new code). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg2406402#msg2406402With my deep respect to Con and Kano i can state following: I calculate my ACTUAL hash rate as advised by Kano taking in account Diff1 shares accepted from pool(s) and cgminer up-time. This gives me EXACT (Real) hashrate. Knowing the fact my network was fine and i did not have downtime due to Network issues, pool issues or FPGA controller hangs (I am monitoring it every two minutes + automated power off/on no reboots) i am 100% sure that 3.2 is not performing. The magic can be this commit: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/bd6bc6bd23424958ebf1d49f22d6a50070d13d23Not tested yet. Avalon image was released before that It may turn out that 24 Hours run is not enough because of the variance and/or bad luck - that is the only fact that makes me uncertain about 3.2 performance. I will give it another 48 hours run next weekend and i will report back the results. Mean while i will stick to 3.1 Best PS: just for the reference (do math yourself) Computer: cgminer 3.1.1 Elapsed: 7h 11m 30s Difficulty Accepted:431530.00000000 MHS:71587.77 That was not happening with 3.2
|
|
|
|
Kuma
Member
Offline
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
|
|
June 16, 2013, 11:05:03 AM |
|
Hi, I noticed that too and asked CKolivas. He replied: The old avalon code lied about the hashrate and lied about the hardware errors. It counted hardware errors as hashrate (and since it's a hardware error it can't be valid hashes that it's doing) and didn't count "no matching work" scenarios as hardware errors. So the new code will appear to have a lower hashrate and a higher hw error count, but in fact it's doing more useful work and just not lying about the rates (along with all the other benefits in the new code). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.msg2406402#msg2406402With my deep respect to Con and Kano i can state following: I calculate my ACTUAL hash rate as advised by Kano taking in account Diff1 shares accepted from pool(s) and cgminer up-time. This gives me EXACT (Real) hashrate. Knowing the fact my network was fine and i did not have downtime due to Network issues, pool issues or FPGA controller hangs (I am monitoring it every two minutes + automated power off/on no reboots) i am 100% sure that 3.2 is not performing. The magic can be this commit: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/bd6bc6bd23424958ebf1d49f22d6a50070d13d23Not tested yet. Avalon image was released before that It may turn out that 24 Hours run is not enough because of the variance and/or bad luck - that is the only fact that makes me uncertain about 3.2 performance. I will give it another 48 hours run next weekend and i will report back the results. Mean while i will stick to 3.1 Best PS: just for the reference (do math yourself) Computer: cgminer 3.1.1 Elapsed: 7h 11m 30s Difficulty Accepted:431530.00000000 MHS:71587.77 That was not happening with 3.2 To be honest, I haven't tried to compute that and I don't have the old reference numbers. As new FW is rock stable for me, I haven't tried other things yet due the time restrictions . Of course if performance can be better, I'll be glad .
|
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 16, 2013, 11:11:32 AM |
|
To be honest, I haven't tried to compute that and I don't have the old reference numbers. As new FW is rock stable for me, I haven't tried other things yet due the time restrictions . Of course if performance can be better, I'll be glad . I do agree with you 3.1 still needs power off/on on occasions. This happens rare for sure but still happens. As long as i solved this from day one, 3 000 MHS do matter for me and i am sticking to 3.1 Let us wait for Con comments. Best
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 16, 2013, 12:46:45 PM |
|
I removed the F1 fuses on my two Avalons this morning - It's surprisingly easy (DISCLAIMER - I'm not responsible for any issues), I just pinched off the fuses with my leatherman pliers.
All back up and running perfectly.
For anyone interested, after running for a week with the fuses, there was no noticeable damage to the chips on the control boards. However, it's still recommended to remove the fuses.
Aren't all current units arriving with this modification already performed?
|
|
|
|
Elokane
|
|
June 19, 2013, 09:08:34 PM |
|
What's the most up to date Avalon set up/user guide?
|
|
|
|
darkip
|
|
June 19, 2013, 10:00:14 PM |
|
Aren't all current units arriving with this modification already performed? Mine were part of the earlier batch 2 deliveries with the F1 fuse still present.
|
|
|
|
|
PuertoLibre
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:28:08 AM |
|
May I ask what the direct USB feature is?
|
|
|
|
goxed
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1006
Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:41:11 AM |
|
May I ask what the direct USB feature is?
Somewhat along these lines: USB communication to the USB chip without UART emulation
|
Revewing Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
|
Syke
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
|
|
June 20, 2013, 04:53:36 AM |
|
I would like to set all this up in my house. Here, we have 120 volt lines and 15 amp breakers.
so on circuit you can have 120 x 15= 1800 Watts maximum (not taking in account Cos phi effects and such) Buy a kill-a-watt and mesure the exact consumption of your individual machines in action. Slap on some extra safety margin For example, with this weather, my Batch #1 Avalon @ 300 MHz are consuming 655 Watts So three machines would be > 1800 (and I would not try to load it to 99%) You should not go over 80% for a continuous load like a miner. Keep it under 1440 watts for a 15 amp breaker.
|
Buy & Hold
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
June 21, 2013, 01:24:11 AM |
|
With my deep respect to Con and Kano i can state following:
I calculate my ACTUAL hash rate as advised by Kano taking in account Diff1 shares accepted from pool(s) and cgminer up-time. This gives me EXACT (Real) hashrate. Knowing the fact my network was fine and i did not have downtime due to Network issues, pool issues or FPGA controller hangs (I am monitoring it every two minutes + automated power off/on no reboots) i am 100% sure that 3.2 is not performing.
PS: just for the reference (do math yourself)
Computer: cgminer 3.1.1 Elapsed: 7h 11m 30s Difficulty Accepted:431530.00000000 MHS:71587.77
That was not happening with 3.2
Found the regression and I've rewritten the code to avoid this performance loss. It is committed to the master git tree now and will be in the next release. Hopefully xiangfu will be able to make an official testing firmware with it before then too.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2013, 11:43:12 AM |
|
With my deep respect to Con and Kano i can state following:
I calculate my ACTUAL hash rate as advised by Kano taking in account Diff1 shares accepted from pool(s) and cgminer up-time. This gives me EXACT (Real) hashrate. Knowing the fact my network was fine and i did not have downtime due to Network issues, pool issues or FPGA controller hangs (I am monitoring it every two minutes + automated power off/on no reboots) i am 100% sure that 3.2 is not performing.
PS: just for the reference (do math yourself)
Computer: cgminer 3.1.1 Elapsed: 7h 11m 30s Difficulty Accepted:431530.00000000 MHS:71587.77
That was not happening with 3.2
Found the regression and I've rewritten the code to avoid this performance loss. It is committed to the master git tree now and will be in the next release. Hopefully xiangfu will be able to make an official testing firmware with it before then too. I will test it tonight And i will share my findings in the morning. Let us hope that bitminter will not be dosed overnight Thank you very much CON!
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
June 21, 2013, 11:52:35 AM |
|
Even better, I've tried implementing overclocking to higher frequencies and can get my Avalon stable at 350 (without any voltage mods).
It was unstable at 375, but this is at 350 (diff 56) after a few mins: (5s):81.58G (avg):81.55Gh/s | A:144 R:0 HW:135 U:22.4/m WU:1158.3/m
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2013, 11:58:36 AM |
|
Even better, I've tried implementing overclocking to higher frequencies and can get my Avalon stable at 350 (without any voltage mods).
It was unstable at 375, but this is at 350 (diff 56) after a few mins: (5s):81.58G (avg):81.55Gh/s | A:144 R:0 HW:135 U:22.4/m WU:1158.3/m
Nice! What timing have you used (--avalon-options)? Did you change PSU? I am positive that stock green power 650W will die. Did you measure Power consumption? PS: Can you post a patch for overclocking somewhere? 10X And Congats Enjoy your Avalon toy!
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 1644
Ruu \o/
|
|
June 21, 2013, 12:01:45 PM |
|
After a few more minutes it's up to (5s):83.39G (avg):82.64Gh/s | A:350 R:0 HW:357 U:21.4/m WU:1173.2/m Power usage only went up by 5W going to 325 and 10W going to 350. 375 was unstable. The code is already in git master along with the values in ASIC README 34:375 36:350 39:325 Since mine is a batch 2, it has a 750W PSU and it does not seem to be a power issue at 350, but HW errors go nuts above this.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
loshia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2013, 12:03:00 PM |
|
After a few more minutes it's up to (5s):83.39G (avg):82.64Gh/s | A:350 R:0 HW:357 U:21.4/m WU:1173.2/m Power usage only went up by 5W going to 325 and 10W going to 350. 375 was unstable. The code is already in git master along with the values in ASIC README 34:375 36:350 39:325 Since mine is a batch 2, it has a 750W PSU and it does not seem to be a power issue at 350, but HW errors go nuts above this. Thanks a lot! It seems that it will be sleepless night for me I will be gentle start with 325 first
|
|
|
|
|