Phoenix1969
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
LIR DEV
|
 |
October 27, 2013, 05:29:10 AM |
|
Almost wishing i had a bad board to play with. Mine are running so so... once there are warm they error rates drop to about 7-9% and usually hashes about 550-554 SO i don't want to go and make things worse. Though if i had a board that i was sending back to RMA i couldn't help my self but try and heat it up . tomorrow i might check and see if a little more pressure dose help mine at all.. if so i might just grind off a little on the spacers.
I found a few screws that attach the heat sink to the board to be a tad loose and was able to get get a half to a full twist on them. I already know mine are down tight. I took mine apart the first day i had it... witch is why Im thinking about grinding a little off the spacer to make it a bit more tight. but first ill test tomorrow if any more pressure helps. Would go ahead and try tonight. But i had a couple drinks earlier.... And well drinking and tinkering with a 7k machine don't go to well together in my books lol. Wait tell im nice and fresh tomorrow. Haha right! Even when I'm 100% sober I feel nervous doing anything, to apply pressure on the heat sink took me almost 1.5 days to do. @Phoenix1969 Glad to hear you found a "bug" yeah!... I was able to get a pair of angle pliers in there and get a twist or two on it... good stuff. I then checked all the others... most of which took at least half a turn to get tight. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
|
|
KnCMiningOp
|
|
October 27, 2013, 05:31:47 AM |
|
Almost wishing i had a bad board to play with. Mine are running so so... once there are warm they error rates drop to about 7-9% and usually hashes about 550-554 SO i don't want to go and make things worse. Though if i had a board that i was sending back to RMA i couldn't help my self but try and heat it up . tomorrow i might check and see if a little more pressure dose help mine at all.. if so i might just grind off a little on the spacers.
I found a few screws that attach the heat sink to the board to be a tad loose and was able to get get a half to a full twist on them. I already know mine are down tight. I took mine apart the first day i had it... witch is why Im thinking about grinding a little off the spacer to make it a bit more tight. but first ill test tomorrow if any more pressure helps. Would go ahead and try tonight. But i had a couple drinks earlier.... And well drinking and tinkering with a 7k machine don't go to well together in my books lol. Wait tell im nice and fresh tomorrow. Haha right! Even when I'm 100% sober I feel nervous doing anything, to apply pressure on the heat sink took me almost 1.5 days to do. @Phoenix1969 Glad to hear you found a "bug" yeah!... I was able to get a pair of angle pliers in there and get a twist or two on it... good stuff. I then checked all the others... most of which took at least half a turn to get tight. Any change in performance or temp? |
|
|
|
|
thejestre
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
October 27, 2013, 05:38:31 AM |
|
Well I still am getting the "Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)" error from the web GUI.
Yes, I have cleared the cash on the browser, AND used a different browser.
More importantly I can tell it isn't doing anything because the pool isn't getting much work.
Looks like 0.96 isn't up to prime time for my Mercury. Going back to 0.95 because at least that was hashing something. Unless there is something else to do to get 0.96 to work?
Thanks,
_theJestre
|
|
|
|
|
|
KnCMiningOp
|
|
October 27, 2013, 05:49:27 AM |
|
Well I still am getting the "Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)" error from the web GUI.
Yes, I have cleared the cash on the browser, AND used a different browser.
More importantly I can tell it isn't doing anything because the pool isn't getting much work.
Looks like 0.96 isn't up to prime time for my Mercury. Going back to 0.95 because at least that was hashing something. Unless there is something else to do to get 0.96 to work?
Thanks,
_theJestre
Not that I know of. People have had bad luck with .96 too, I haven't. You did check the box in the mining page that say enable CGMiner API right? |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix1969
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
LIR DEV
|
|
October 27, 2013, 05:57:34 AM |
|
actually, yes...the hot one came down 10c
Now they are ALL 3 offically over-spec!.. 279,283,284...BAM
|
|
|
|
thejestre
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
October 27, 2013, 06:08:53 AM |
|
Well I still am getting the "Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)" error from the web GUI.
Yes, I have cleared the cash on the browser, AND used a different browser.
More importantly I can tell it isn't doing anything because the pool isn't getting much work.
Looks like 0.96 isn't up to prime time for my Mercury. Going back to 0.95 because at least that was hashing something. Unless there is something else to do to get 0.96 to work?
Thanks,
_theJestre
Not that I know of. People have had bad luck with .96 too, I haven't. You did check the box in the mining page that say enable CGMiner API right? Indeed I did, thanks. I was also letting it run for a long time and it didn't report a single share to my pool for over 7 minutes, so there is some kind of problem beyond just the web GUI not displaying CGIminer info. I don't feel like SSH'ing to the thing tonight to muck about [and also haven't really read up on what I need to avoid doing so as to not void the warranty] so I've just flashed back to 0.95 which it came with. So far I'm getting a report of ~80 Ghash/sec @ 42.0 C so I think I'll go relax and let it run overnight. At least it won't just be sitting there doing nothing. I haven't tried the 0.961 yet, maybe will see if that works tomorrow. Thanks again, _theJestre |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix1969
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
LIR DEV
|
|
October 27, 2013, 06:16:36 AM |
|
Ill bet you find the credentials are entered wrong, or something like that
was it running before?, or u just got it?
|
|
|
|
edgar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 27, 2013, 06:56:11 AM |
|
the crossbar screws seem to want to disintegrate despite needing a slight tightening.
most needed at least a 1/4 turn - no noticeable improvements yet
|
|
|
|
|
Searing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1058
Clueless!
|
|
October 27, 2013, 07:06:02 AM |
|
Almost wishing i had a bad board to play with. Mine are running so so... once there are warm they error rates drop to about 7-9% and usually hashes about 550-554 SO i don't want to go and make things worse. Though if i had a board that i was sending back to RMA i couldn't help my self but try and heat it up . tomorrow i might check and see if a little more pressure dose help mine at all.. if so i might just grind off a little on the spacers.
I found a few screws that attach the heat sink to the board to be a tad loose and was able to get get a half to a full twist on them. I already know mine are down tight. I took mine apart the first day i had it... witch is why Im thinking about grinding a little off the spacer to make it a bit more tight. but first ill test tomorrow if any more pressure helps. Would go ahead and try tonight. But i had a couple drinks earlier.... And well drinking and tinkering with a 7k machine don't go to well together in my books lol. Wait tell im nice and fresh tomorrow. Haha right! Even when I'm 100% sober I feel nervous doing anything, to apply pressure on the heat sink took me almost 1.5 days to do. @Phoenix1969 Glad to hear you found a "bug" mine is now running 565gh after 6 days up...5% error rate on .95...only thing I need is to find the thread on how to put in 2nd pool manually because not on .95....my core temps are 27c 31c 34c and 42c ...and I have once in a great while a core enable and unenable itself (maybe 1x ever 4hrs or so I'd guess) so I HAVE TOUCHED NOTHING ..in fact I walk by the beastie and I look downward and away less it get p/o'd at me and make it go CLUNK! I will however have to look at the screws above to see if they are tight the next time it is powered off of which I plan for it to be NEVER if possible anyway if anyone trips over the trick to get a 2nd pool in on .95 ..still looking for the link..pm me or post it here....if power goes out I have lots to check out but until then GO BABY GO! off to check the unit in the bsmt.....(must avert eyes...i'm not worthy) Searing |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
|
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| | BitBlender |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
|
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| █
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix1969
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
LIR DEV
|
|
October 27, 2013, 07:12:18 AM |
|
nice...Id be scared to touch it too, thats great!
on the 2nd pool, I think you can just use putty to do it in cgminer, just remember to save to /config/cgminer.conf, and not the root/default directory. your default pool is pool 0, the backup is 1...
BTW... error rates, 1%, 3%, 3%. wow.
|
|
|
|
sickpig
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 27, 2013, 07:55:02 AM |
|
nice...Id be scared to touch it too, thats great!
on the 2nd pool, I think you can just use putty to do it in cgminer, just remember to save to /config/cgminer.conf, and not the root/default directory. your default pool is pool 0, the backup is 1...
BTW... error rates, 1%, 3%, 3%. wow.
Dumb questions: 1) Did you apply all those hw tricks withe the machine switched on? 2) a part from makes VRM clicks and check the heatsink screws thre's something else to do? Unreleated to this just wanna share that BB sys load lowered to 1.5 from 1.9 when using bfgminer instead of cgminer (bfgminer compiled fro source doeas not include dynamic cores enable/disable mechanism committed on the 25) |
Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
|
|
|
|
ElGabo
|
|
October 27, 2013, 07:57:11 AM |
|
Hi
Now after 24 hours my jup is going with 552ghs rock solid but I figured out something interesting.
If all my vrm output above 0.7 V the pool shows great 550-560Ghs, if just only 1 or 2 vrm output goes down under 0.7 V (for example 0.687V) the pool hashrate dorps down to 510-540. In cgminer still 552.
Any ideas?
|
" I'm waiting for my punishment, I know it's on my way
So cut, cut, cut me up and fuck, fuck, fuck me up"
|
|
|
|
FeedbackLoop
|
|
October 27, 2013, 08:10:04 AM |
|
Hi
Now after 24 hours my jup is going with 552ghs rock solid but I figured out something interesting.
If all my vrm output above 0.7 V the pool shows great 550-560Ghs, if just only 1 or 2 vrm output goes down under 0.7 V (for example 0.687V) the pool hashrate dorps down to 510-540. In cgminer still 552.
Any ideas?
KNC's cgminer includes hardware errors in the reported hashing rate. Something not done by the other versions of cgminer. From the maker: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=319533.0Please compute your hashing rate from cgminer using: 2^32 * Accepted / Elapsed What are your temps and HW in both circumstances? |
|
|
|
|
|
ElGabo
|
|
October 27, 2013, 08:35:53 AM |
|
Hi Feedbackloop! Here is a picture. Everything is just the same. Only the vrm output changing nothing else. No hashrate drop, nothing. Ecerything is just fine...  |
" I'm waiting for my punishment, I know it's on my way
So cut, cut, cut me up and fuck, fuck, fuck me up"
|
|
|
|
ElGabo
|
|
October 27, 2013, 08:41:05 AM |
|
Hi
Now after 24 hours my jup is going with 552ghs rock solid but I figured out something interesting.
If all my vrm output above 0.7 V the pool shows great 550-560Ghs, if just only 1 or 2 vrm output goes down under 0.7 V (for example 0.687V) the pool hashrate dorps down to 510-540. In cgminer still 552.
Any ideas?
KNC's cgminer includes hardware errors in the reported hashing rate. Something not done by the other versions of cgminer. From the maker: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=319533.0Please compute your hashing rate from cgminer using: 2^32 * Accepted / Elapsed What are your temps and HW in both circumstances? Now I understand I think. IF Hw counts in the hasrate, when the output drops a bit, maybe the hw rate goes up a bit and the real hasrate goes down. It would be great if we could control the output of the DC-s.... (And maybe the clock)  |
" I'm waiting for my punishment, I know it's on my way
So cut, cut, cut me up and fuck, fuck, fuck me up"
|
|
|
edgar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 27, 2013, 09:24:45 AM |
|
exactly
|
|
|
|
|
Searing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1058
Clueless!
|
|
October 27, 2013, 10:13:49 AM |
|
Hi
Now after 24 hours my jup is going with 552ghs rock solid but I figured out something interesting.
If all my vrm output above 0.7 V the pool shows great 550-560Ghs, if just only 1 or 2 vrm output goes down under 0.7 V (for example 0.687V) the pool hashrate dorps down to 510-540. In cgminer still 552.
Any ideas?
KNC's cgminer includes hardware errors in the reported hashing rate. Something not done by the other versions of cgminer. From the maker: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=319533.0Please compute your hashing rate from cgminer using: 2^32 * Accepted / Elapsed What are your temps and HW in both circumstances? using above formula mine is 7.15% I'm running 565ss 555ave on .95 temps 27c 40.5c and two at 33.5c so a bit higher then the 5.4% I got just using HW values Searing |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
|
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| | BitBlender |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
|
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| |
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| █
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| |
|
|
|
|
jelin1984
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 27, 2013, 10:35:19 AM |
|
Which is these formula? What I must write at cgminer at Jupiter to have it solid run?  ? |
|
|
|
|
|
tunctioncloud
|
|
October 27, 2013, 10:40:01 AM |
|
Hopefully KNC latest drivers are always best.
Because it is hard to follow this discussion to have the best hashrate possible
|
|
|
|
|
timmmers
|
|
October 27, 2013, 11:13:06 AM |
|
Hopefully KNC latest drivers are always best.
Because it is hard to follow this discussion to have the best hashrate possible
Have been for me. Not had a single problem yet .97 from the day after it was released (just to make sure if the latest version wasn't homicidal). I don't get this .97 doesn't work stuff, how can that be the firmware for one rig and not for others? |
|
|
|
|
