OLD: BFGMiner 3.10.0: modular ASIC+FPGA, GBT+Strtm, RPC, Mac/Lnx/W64, AntU1, DRB

[DrGuns4Hands]

can BFL Singles be overclocked and what are safe temps to aim for if they can be?

[vulgartrendkill]

can BFL Singles be overclocked and what are safe temps to aim for if they can be?

I`m not sure they can, but there is a thread re firmware hacking of jallies.

[Luke-Jr]

Testing/comments please

"bfgminer" main branch ("3.2.90") now has stratum proxy support that could use some testing.
From my release notes draft: "Support for proxy virtual devices has been extended to include the stratum protocol when the upstream pool selected is also stratum and supplies sufficient extranonce2 space. If the upstream pool does not meet this criteria, stratum clients will be disconnected and new ones will fail to subscribe. You can take advantage of this to failover to the getwork proxy. Support for upstream getwork pools is impossble, but GBT is planned."

I've also put together a "rpc_fulldev" branch with some proposed RPC changes (removal of redundant "devdetail" method, and splitting processor-detail-level into new methods to make the original ones more cgminer-like). Testing and comments appreciated.

I'll be back to working on bitfury code tomorrow.

What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

[vulgartrendkill]

Testing/comments please


What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

That sounds a very nice idea!

would give me a better idea of actual hashrate

[Mudbankkeith]

Testing/comments please

"bfgminer" main branch ("3.2.90") now has stratum proxy support that could use some testing.
From my release notes draft: "Support for proxy virtual devices has been extended to include the stratum protocol when the upstream pool selected is also stratum and supplies sufficient extranonce2 space. If the upstream pool does not meet this criteria, stratum clients will be disconnected and new ones will fail to subscribe. You can take advantage of this to failover to the getwork proxy. Support for upstream getwork pools is impossble, but GBT is planned."

I've also put together a "rpc_fulldev" branch with some proposed RPC changes (removal of redundant "devdetail" method, and splitting processor-detail-level into new methods to make the original ones more cgminer-like). Testing and comments appreciated.

I'll be back to working on bitfury code tomorrow.

What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

So it would show "Instant",  "Average",  &  "Pool + Error Corrected" ?

[Luke-Jr]

What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

So it would show "Instant",  "Average",  &  "Pool + Error Corrected" ?

Right.

[Mudbankkeith]

What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

So it would show "Instant",  "Average",  &  "Pool + Error Corrected" ?

Right.

Go for it!!!!!!!!!!

[Taugeran]

What do you all think about changing the 2nd or 3rd hashrate to be based on nonces found adjusted by accepts/total shares?
Basically the idea is to get a "hashrate after hw errors and rejects" with better accuracy.

So it would show "Instant",  "Average",  &  "Pool + Error Corrected" ?

Right.

Go for it!!!!!!!!!!

1++

[Taugeran]

on a side note regarding pool priorities. 0 is default and 1-? lower is higher or reverse?

[HellDiverUK]

0 is highest.

[eddiebl]

i runed it on opnwrt thanks
i want to see the detailS of process  (speed  hw etc)
how can i do

[Nemo1024]

Luke-jr, I have a problem with bfgminer on Windows 7 (both 32 and 64 bit builds), which appeared recently (possibly after I installed monitoring software for UPS units). It appeared on both machines, running about 60 BEs each.

The problem is that when bfgminer starts, I would get

Code:

Do not have user privileges required to open \\.\COMx

where 'x' is some random port (it tends to be in the range 1-15, but will sometimes pick ports in the higher range).

The port will then light solid green and will not hash.

Restarting bfgminer will yield another "failed" port. Sometimes all ports will get recognised and will not light green, but then all miners will blink a little and one port will light solid green again. I have double-checked and have enough power for all miners. I also tried with a smaller subset.

My request: could you for ports that give that "privileges" error, make a retry at a later point. It seems that time-out for failure is too short or something...

[mogrith]

Luke-jr, I have a problem with bfgminer on Windows 7 (both 32 and 64 bit builds), which appeared recently (possibly after I installed monitoring software for UPS units). It appeared on both machines, running about 60 BEs each.

The problem is that when bfgminer starts, I would get

Code:

Do not have user privileges required to open \\.\COMx

where 'x' is some random port (it tends to be in the range 1-15, but will sometimes pick ports in the higher range).

The port will then light solid green and will not hash.

Restarting bfgminer will yield another "failed" port. Sometimes all ports will get recognised and will not light green, but then all miners will blink a little and one port will light solid green again. I have double-checked and have enough power for all miners. I also tried with a smaller subset.

My request: could you for ports that give that "privileges" error, make a retry at a later point. It seems that time-out for failure is too short or something...

if may be that that COMx is now reserved by windows for the UPS monitor. If you are running bfgminer as a user not administrator a -S all or -S COM(that x) will fail. you can try running bfgminer as admin but the will allow bfgminer to send a data string as part of it's scan over a reserved COM port (Might mess up UPS monitor)

[Luke-Jr]

My request: could you for ports that give that "privileges" error, make a retry at a later point. It seems that time-out for failure is too short or something...

You can always ask BFGMiner to rescan...

But sounds like your UPS program has it locked.

[Nemo1024]

The thing is: it's not a specific port, but rather a random one, which will be different between bfgminer restarts.
Also I run bfgminer unattended in my Crypto Miners in Tray with -T command line arguments, so an automatic rescan of failed ports with some command-line defined delay/interval would be welcome.

I also tried removing all USB-COM port mappings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300638.0) and re-inserting the miners from scratch, allowing Windows to reinitialise all hubs and BEs.

In the meantime, I'll try uninstalling the UPS monitoring software and see if the problem goes away.

[NginUS]

Hi,

I'm considering purchasing a custom mining rig that's made out of these BFL chips that are for sale as part of the following Group Buy listed at this URL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236103.0

I'd like to know before I commit to buying it whether or not the device will work with bfgminer running in Windows.

Does anyone know who can tell me if it would work?

Thanks.

[Luke-Jr]

Hi,

I'm considering purchasing a custom mining rig that's made out of these BFL chips that are for sale as part of the following Group Buy listed at this URL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236103.0

I'd like to know before I commit to buying it whether or not the device will work with bfgminer running in Windows.

Does anyone know who can tell me if it would work?

Thanks.

The only boards I can confirm support for at this time, besides the official BFL ones, are:

• Cointamination
• Eligius Mining Patty
• GamaStack

I'd be glad to support more though - perhaps ask your potential vendor if they can send me a PM.

[NginUS]

It looks like the 2 boards that are on the Eligius website- Gamastack & Patty aren't available yet, even if they were to accept these chips.

And the other one won't take these chips.

So it looks like I'm out of luck.

[Luke-Jr]

It looks like the 2 boards that are on the Eligius website- Gamastack & Patty aren't available yet, even if they were to accept these chips.

And the other one won't take these chips.

So it looks like I'm out of luck.

Well, I wouldn't give up without asking the vendors if they can provide documentation and/or a sample unit for development... That's pretty standard.

[NginUS]

One of the board devs had 'Cointamination' in his signature, so I asked him about it, maybe it will work after all. I hope I'm wrong in my assumption that it doesn't fit.

Either way I'll have opened up a dialog & can ask that he talk to you.