Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[soy]

I hear the figure 30PH/s tossed around for this coming January.  Then to stay current we need to buy 10x the hashing power we have now.  Ouch.

to stay current, you need to double the amount of your miners with every difficulty rise

                             

Alas, we're competing against technical investors with big bucks who likely held off, and perhaps a LOT of them.

[1713467080]

1713467080

[Puppet]

why burn bridges?

Some bridges are better burnt because of where they lead.

[soy]

Starting bfgminer as described (of course I "q"uit the original cgminer first) results in a Segmentation fault and the TTY settings broken and a cleared screen.

Code:

opkg install gdb
gdb --args ./bfgminer -S knc:auto -c /config/cgminer.conf -T -D
run

... wait for the crash ...

Code:

bt

I had been in direct contact with Luke-Jr (thanks for your time!) and it looks like he could find the problem and
fix it. I think re-installing bfgminer from the GIT repository will fix the problem (if anyone else did experience it).

I made some tests (using a binary compiled with debug symbols - I must re-compile it) and it did work for 1 hour.

As some questions did pop up using bfgminer, I switched back to cgminer.

Luke-Jr: Can you give us some more ideas about how your software works with a KnC miner?
The old cgminer (or is it some other task running in background?) is disabling (and enabling) cores with too many HW errors.
This can be visualized using that BertMod utility.
bfgmiger is now doing this task by its own. You can see the number of active cores (2*4*48=384 for a Saturn) in the status
line. It looks like you can manually "enable" disabled cores. Will they also be enabled over time automatically again?
Is it possible that the BertMod statistics don't match the status of bfgminer?

My DIE 0 is the one that always had been warmer and the one that starts to disable cores (without very good cooling).
Using bfgminer you can see very good that this DIE has 7% HW errors compared to 2% of the other DIE 3.

The effect of a fushwork is still a big impact on the hashrate. I can not really confirm that it's better than how
cgminer is doing this.

Luke-Jr: Is this a general problem that can not be fixed due to the nature of those multi hundred cores?
From your programmers point of view, what advantage do you think bfgminer will have on those flushworks?

trepex / Ralf

I note your mention of good cooling.  I mentioned in a post how having fans on the sides of the module when removed found the voltage and current going up on the cores and the few iffy cores came back and apparently stayed back.  I forgot to mention one other thing.  With the fans away I could reach in and test the temp with my finger.  Thinking I had forgotten to try and remove a cover of a VRM when I was putting tantalum caps on the 12v rail, I considered that if they are snap on tops, heatsinks, then taking them off and putting heatsink compound might be possible but then maybe one just wasn't down far enough and since I could reach the VRMs I pressed down on each.  The die with the iffy cores still runs more current than the others but is 100%.  Maybe it wasn't the fan removal but the pressing down on the VRMs' tops.

Edit: I made sure not to press down too hard as flexing the board could break solder joints at the Ball Grid Array points of the ASIC.

[joeventura]

more likely is BTC going to 2000usd!

BTC value ≠ difficulty, although that seems to be the trend.  Anyhow, I digress.  We need to wait till the market stabilizes, it's too risky to buy/pre-order any ASIC right now.  I am almost certain any ASIC bought today, will see very little to no ROI by the time the device gets to your door and/or after you mine back the initial investment cost.

Forget about BFL's Monarch, given their track record.. it won't be released till Q3/Q4 of 2014.  By then, it's like having a Jalapeno of today... or worst.

I look at the size of the thing and the projected hashrate and think it's going to get too hot.

BFL customer once, never again.

Never say never, why burn bridges?

I am not the one burning bridges

[timmmers]

I hear the figure 30PH/s tossed around for this coming January.  Then to stay current we need to buy 10x the hashing power we have now.  Ouch.

to stay current, you need to double the amount of your miners with every difficulty rise

                             

Alas, we're competing against technical investors with big bucks who likely held off, and perhaps a LOT of them.

I think one possibility is that in time we will all see that buying ASICs won't be anything more than a money pit, much worse than now.
The prices will drop, to a point...then there may come a day when ASIC manufacturers may see  that returns mining those rigs beat selling them ...since they aren't paying RRP but cost price. They won't need to earn 7k to balance a Jupiter for example...just more than it cost to produce which will be a lot less.

Who can compete with that?

They need us now to fund the dev period, but maybe once they have the funds or speed stalls for a while that won't be important.

[soy]

more likely is BTC going to 2000usd!

BTC value ≠ difficulty, although that seems to be the trend.  Anyhow, I digress.  We need to wait till the market stabilizes, it's too risky to buy/pre-order any ASIC right now.  I am almost certain any ASIC bought today, will see very little to no ROI by the time the device gets to your door and/or after you mine back the initial investment cost.

Forget about BFL's Monarch, given their track record.. it won't be released till Q3/Q4 of 2014.  By then, it's like having a Jalapeno of today... or worst.

I look at the size of the thing and the projected hashrate and think it's going to get too hot.

BFL customer once, never again.

Never say never, why burn bridges?

I am not the one burning bridges

Yep, if I ever bought from them again I expect the outcome would much the same as Lucy holding the football to be kicked by, who is it, Linus? who ends up flat on his back.

[Bitcoinorama]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QGnppJ-ys

[sheebang]

If the powers that be go to adversely effect BTC, aside from having Washington DC make it outright illegal, they'll target BTC stability, pump and dump punishing investors again.

How can Washington do that? They are closer to being bankrupt than Greece.

[Micky25]

oh.. for a moment I thought KNC found a way to run the Jupiters at 900...

[frankenmint]

I got my unit today  

Just a mercury - was having some trouble on the ghash.io pool....KNC miner would start then drop to 39 GHash before spitting out issues with connectivity.  I'm also having some problem with consistency in connection.  Once I switched pools it has been very smooth sailing since.  (~130-143 GH/s 45.5 C)

Also, I decided to upgrade my fw to .96 which has been fantastic so far.  The comparison between .95 and .96 speaks for itself and its nice and responsive.  

I put in Bertmod but didnt realise it was only tested up to .95 only.  I'd be willing to downgrade firmware (maybe)...but I think I"ll instead choose NOT to tinker with anything as its seeming to run well and stable.  30 extra gh over what was expected.  Great Job KNC....This alone was off the ground in less than 30 minutes wheras my block erupters and fpgas took like 3-4 hours to configure (probably helped that I've had experience with the latter so it was very fast to get my KNC miner off the ground)

Yes I had a loose fan shroud that was very easy to reattach.

Yes I checked

[DPoS]

I had been in direct contact with Luke-Jr (thanks for your time!) and it looks like he could find the problem and
fix it. I think re-installing bfgminer from the GIT repository will fix the problem (if anyone else did experience it).

I made some tests (using a binary compiled with debug symbols - I must re-compile it) and it did work for 1 hour.

As some questions did pop up using bfgminer, I switched back to cgminer.

Luke-Jr: Can you give us some more ideas about how your software works with a KnC miner?
The old cgminer (or is it some other task running in background?) is disabling (and enabling) cores with too many HW errors.
This can be visualized using that BertMod utility.
bfgmiger is now doing this task by its own. You can see the number of active cores (2*4*48=384 for a Saturn) in the status
line. It looks like you can manually "enable" disabled cores. Will they also be enabled over time automatically again?
Is it possible that the BertMod statistics don't match the status of bfgminer?

My DIE 0 is the one that always had been warmer and the one that starts to disable cores (without very good cooling).
Using bfgminer you can see very good that this DIE has 7% HW errors compared to 2% of the other DIE 3.

The effect of a fushwork is still a big impact on the hashrate. I can not really confirm that it's better than how
cgminer is doing this.

Luke-Jr: Is this a general problem that can not be fixed due to the nature of those multi hundred cores?
From your programmers point of view, what advantage do you think bfgminer will have on those flushworks?

trepex / Ralf

I think you have cgminer still running in the backgound.   You have to kill it more than once it seems

The only problem I had installing bfgminer was that I first tried in the /config dir and that has write perms of its own, so just start in / and all is well

 Block: ...9687465b #265382  Diff:268M ( 1.92Ph/s)  Started: [19:43:45]
 ST:6  F:0  NB:6  AS:0  BW:[ 52/ 28 B/s]  E:2534.02  I:33.94mBTC/hr  BS:90.9k
 4/683  41.0C | 468.0/472.9/449.2Gh/s | A:320 R:3+0(.93%) HW:14999/8.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 KNC 0: 38.0C | 122.9/127.7/120.3Gh/s | A: 80 R:0+0(none) HW: 4798/9.5%
 KNC 1: 37.0C | 131.2/137.8/134.2Gh/s | A: 98 R:2+0(2.0%) HW:  865/1.6%
 KNC 2: 35.0C | 107.1/112.4/106.0Gh/s | A: 73 R:1+0(1.4%) HW: 3444/7.8%
 KNC 3: 41.0C | 91.48/95.11/88.77Gh/s | A: 69 R:0+0(none) HW: 5896/ 15%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is my troubled miner with the dead die (on KNC 3) and another with lots of cores off (KNC 2) so only 683 enabled

I do wonder what would be left of the install after a reboot

and a reminder to everyone, GUI stats/bertmod won't work as designed without cgminer so you give those up for now (if your screen resolution can handle it, you can switch the display to show each core hashing.. good luck with showing more than 1 asic chip on normal screens)

[The Avenger]

Seems KNC have entirely fallen off the wagon as regards to their "daily" updates.

[Luke-Jr]

The old cgminer (or is it some other task running in background?) is disabling (and enabling) cores with too many HW errors.
This can be visualized using that BertMod utility.
bfgmiger is now doing this task by its own. You can see the number of active cores (2*4*48=384 for a Saturn) in the status
line. It looks like you can manually "enable" disabled cores. Will they also be enabled over time automatically again?
Is it possible that the BertMod statistics don't match the status of bfgminer?

BFGMiner only scans the core state at startup, and doesn't yet support enabling or disabling them, either manually or automatically.

[DPoS]

BFGMiner only scans the core state at startup, and doesn't yet support enabling or disabling them, either manually or automatically.

that could be real interesting when running .93   (not disabling cores)

I think I just have the miner worth trying that on...(posted its situation a few comments up)

[jelin1984]

Ok also does anyone know that will be better or not?
To put some ram heatsink to VRm.?.?

[RoadStress]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QGnppJ-ys

Got your unit?

[paranoidx]

Upgraded to 0.96.1
Miner status shows as stopped.  Have tried hitting the restart cg miner button.  Nada.

[eiliant]

Hosted Jupiter here. Eligius says 320 GH/s but KNC Portal stats read 510 GH/s?

[RoadStress]

I have some noob and semi offtopic questions: 1) how do i check a transaction by the txid?; 2) how do i send a transaction with a message in it?

uuuh, copy & paste worked great for me....?


just kidding...
copy the message they give you..
open your wallet
click on recieve tab
highlight your wallet
at bottom choose sign message
paste message into big box
click sign message
copy the signature over to the signature field in eligius
do not hit save for at least 1/2 hour, as the blockchain will need to send out the signature...
it will tell you if signature failed or succeeded then

I already knew how to sign messages. I'm interested in sending a message visible in blockchain.

you are signing the wallet with a message.."signature"...do it same way
problem is..it's encrypted... so dunno

https://blockchain.info/address/1487ThaKjezGA6SiE8fvGcxbgJJu6XWtZp scroll way to the bottom and you will see some messages like: "Public Note: Thank you for the work you do for the community! Get a drink (or two) on me"

Found the way to search for a transaction by txid thx to blockchain.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/18/how-can-one-embed-custom-data-in-block-headers

And any other solutions for noobs like me? Because i have no idea how to do that...

[Dalkore]

Hosted Jupiter here. Eligius says 320 GH/s but KNC Portal stats read 510 GH/s?

That is a large discrepancy.  How would we explain that?

-D