Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[Phoenix1969]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

In my personal experiences the temp does not seem to matter. I've run my Jupiter at 70C and in a cooled server room with case off and external fan at 35C with no noticeable effect on my hashrate.

142 is great for a mercury...  I wouldn't touch a thing imho
If you're  "up to spec", (and beyond) why bother?

[1715359858]

1715359858

[FeedbackLoop]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

Based on your hashrate your machine seems to have a ridiculously low level of hardware errors so I would say it doesn't matter, in any firmware, for you.
  

[Mogumodz]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

Sounds peachy, just leave it be.

[ASIC-K]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

my mercury is running the exact same. take a look at your hw errors and rejected tho, mine are around 7.7% hw and 3% rejected.... :/

[xyzzy099]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

my mercury is running the exact same. take a look at your hw errors and rejected tho, mine are around 7.7% hw and 3% rejected.... :/

If I'm not mistaken, 144 GH/s is the theoretical maximum hash rate for a Mercury (192 cores @ 750 MH/s each), so you are doing very well.

[ASIC-K]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

my mercury is running the exact same. take a look at your hw errors and rejected tho, mine are around 7.7% hw and 3% rejected.... :/

If I'm not mistaken, 144 GH/s is the theoretical maximum hash rate for a Mercury (192 cores @ 750 MH/s each), so you are doing very well.

oh yeah, its doing great. hw errors bring it down to about 137-138 on the pool...still not bad!

[sbfree]

Good morning Phoenix.

I should add that I'm running my machine in a bit lower temps as well (closer to 60 reported, hard to say if it makes a big difference in 0.98, in 0.95 it was a huge difference for my machine from ~60 to ~70), so we have a dwindle down in both "cold" and "hot" machines.

Exactly... It seems the dwindledown effect happens weather the units are kept at peak temps or not...  cold or warm... it just happens... ug!

My saturn has been hashing steadily at the server between 270GH/s-290GH/s.....chip temps are between 45c and 55c, depending on heat of the day. Not running a/c, lid is off, all fans on unit are running, no extra fans and now at 20M submitted shares 2.5% HW errors, WU 3982 since last reboot.

ps. what i wanted to add was that I do notice a small wave pattern in the hashing speed of the unit where it slows to 270GH/s, then slowly crests its way back up to the low 290GH/s and then will creep back down to 270GH/s etc etc.

[xstr8guy]

Good morning Phoenix.

I should add that I'm running my machine in a bit lower temps as well (closer to 60 reported, hard to say if it makes a big difference in 0.98, in 0.95 it was a huge difference for my machine from ~60 to ~70), so we have a dwindle down in both "cold" and "hot" machines.

Exactly... It seems the dwindledown effect happens weather the units are kept at peak temps or not...  cold or warm... it just happens... ug!

My saturn has been hashing steadily at the server between 270GH/s-290GH/s.....chip temps are between 45c and 55c, depending on heat of the day. Not running a/c, lid is off, all fans on unit are running, no extra fans and now at 20M submitted shares 2.5% HW errors, WU 3982 since last reboot.

ps. what i wanted to add was that I do notice a small wave pattern in the hashing speed of the unit where it slows to 270GH/s, then slowly crests its way back up to the low 290GH/s and then will creep back down to 270GH/s etc etc.

I'm certainly no expert on this so I may be completely off-base here.  But isn't your pool hashrate just an estimate by some complicated equation including shares submitted, share difficulty, yadda, yadda?

If true, this might cause you pool hashrate to have some significant swings that aren't necessarily indicative of your machine's actual hashrate.

[Phoenix1969]

Good morning Phoenix.

I should add that I'm running my machine in a bit lower temps as well (closer to 60 reported, hard to say if it makes a big difference in 0.98, in 0.95 it was a huge difference for my machine from ~60 to ~70), so we have a dwindle down in both "cold" and "hot" machines.

Exactly... It seems the dwindledown effect happens weather the units are kept at peak temps or not...  cold or warm... it just happens... ug!

My saturn has been hashing steadily at the server between 270GH/s-290GH/s.....chip temps are between 45c and 55c, depending on heat of the day. Not running a/c, lid is off, all fans on unit are running, no extra fans and now at 20M submitted shares 2.5% HW errors, WU 3982 since last reboot.

ps. what i wanted to add was that I do notice a small wave pattern in the hashing speed of the unit where it slows to 270GH/s, then slowly crests its way back up to the low 290GH/s and then will creep back down to 270GH/s etc etc.

Yes, that is just how they run....
I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.
Even when I did graphics cards... That was the "nature of the beast"
Each and every unit does it...all simultaneously, but at their own top/bottom values.
I'd say, the cycle varies from a minute, to 3 minutes, depending on the flushwork/block detection timing.
         ********
But I also noticed there is still a bit of room for improvement in the flushwork area here... they flush every time a block is detected, instead of the correct block....every block.
I'd rather no flushwork at all, and take my rejected shares at the time a block is ACTUALLY found by our pool...... if it can't be corrected... it would save time.
Pools will usually send a flushwork request at the appropriate time if I understand this correctly....
I'm sure someone must be working on this....   hopefully....

[augustocroppo]

I should probably stop replying to you but just because I don't want you to dumb down what I think is an important factor often disregarded, I will put it very explicitly and simple so you can't twist it around:

(...)

Right...

From "promising sound currency" to " bio-eco-super tomatoes" to "independence project"... No, I cannot really "twist" something you already did very well.

So, again, why would anyone want to convert BTC to fiat money?

Since Bitcoin mining is a zero sum game, hobbyists will actually have an impact against pure profit driven mining farms. This is actually good for Bitcoin because it works against  centralisation of mining.

So, again, going back to the context of that reply, you are mining for profit or for fun?

[Phoenix1969]

Not to poke a lion... but I personally Mine for fun, in hopes of a profit...

[ASIC-K]

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

[Searing]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

In my personal experiences the temp does not seem to matter. I've run my Jupiter at 70C and in a cooled server room with case off and external fan at 35C with no noticeable effect on my hashrate.

I'm in a cool bsmt 62F....I have 2 5" er I guess they are menard fans pointing crossways across the front blowing with cover off with.95 and it is sitting at 568gh or so...my cores are like 20c 34c and 41c for last 2...

i'm the doppelganger of phoenix's units I turn off 1 fan and my hash rate goes down ..I leave everything alone and I two will get the dwindle down effect but usually only a couple gh or so....

it is pretty much stable as long as I continue to keep the jally I got on haloween (april order) at other end of the house (only explation bfl units are evil)

so yeah shut a fan off and gh goes down turn fan on goes back to where it was

only other thing is I think I only have 2 cores go on/off  or I've only seen the two once every 3hrs or so for 1 ...once a day maybe for the other (guessing)...it is likely more

so again it is DRY in my bsmt ..ie winter is coming....Phoenix is in Hawaii ...could humidity have something to do with all this ie...with his box setup he is probably moving more air then me and it is probably a lot more moist

other then that ....I try to stay as far away from the unit as possible less I trip on it or something foolish

Searing

[-Redacted-]

Good morning Phoenix.

I should add that I'm running my machine in a bit lower temps as well (closer to 60 reported, hard to say if it makes a big difference in 0.98, in 0.95 it was a huge difference for my machine from ~60 to ~70), so we have a dwindle down in both "cold" and "hot" machines.

Exactly... It seems the dwindledown effect happens weather the units are kept at peak temps or not...  cold or warm... it just happens... ug!

My saturn has been hashing steadily at the server between 270GH/s-290GH/s.....chip temps are between 45c and 55c, depending on heat of the day. Not running a/c, lid is off, all fans on unit are running, no extra fans and now at 20M submitted shares 2.5% HW errors, WU 3982 since last reboot.

ps. what i wanted to add was that I do notice a small wave pattern in the hashing speed of the unit where it slows to 270GH/s, then slowly crests its way back up to the low 290GH/s and then will creep back down to 270GH/s etc etc.

Yes, that is just how they run....
I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.
Even when I did graphics cards... That was the "nature of the beast"
Each and every unit does it...all simultaneously, but at their own top/bottom values.
I'd say, the cycle varies from a minute, to 3 minutes, depending on the flushwork/block detection timing.
         ********
But I also noticed there is still a bit of room for improvement in the flushwork area here... they flush every time a block is detected, instead of the correct block....every block.
I'd rather no flushwork at all, and take my rejected shares at the time a block is ACTUALLY found by our pool...... if it can't be corrected... it would save time.
Pools will usually send a flushwork request at the appropriate time if I understand this correctly....
I'm sure someone must be working on this....   hopefully....

They have to flush every time a block is detected, because all pools have to start working on a the new block.  You don't just hash on one block indefinitely, you have to start a new block every time a block is found.

[Searing]

I should probably stop replying to you but just because I don't want you to dumb down what I think is an important factor often disregarded, I will put it very explicitly and simple so you can't twist it around:

(...)

Right...

From "promising sound currency" to " bio-eco-super tomatoes" to "independence project"... No, I cannot really "twist" something you already did very well.

So, again, why would anyone want to convert BTC to fiat money?

Since Bitcoin mining is a zero sum game, hobbyists will actually have an impact against pure profit driven mining farms. This is actually good for Bitcoin because it works against  centralisation of mining.

So, again, going back to the context of that reply, you are mining for profit or for fun?

er I have to admit when BFL said it was gonna ship on time it was for "PROFIT" when the stuff just basically never arrived..(ie did the force convert to monarch out of desperation...brick now or brick later prob don't matter $$ gone)

well..because KNC took cc order with PayPal (which dummy that I am I did not do with bfl) I took a chance...and they came thru ..or at least close enough for my NEW in DENIAL viewpoint

er ..its just a  HOBBY

(denial...just another way to get thru the day)

Searing

[FeedbackLoop]

I should probably stop replying to you but just because I don't want you to dumb down what I think is an important factor often disregarded, I will put it very explicitly and simple so you can't twist it around:

(...)

Right...

From "promising sound currency" to " bio-eco-super tomatoes" to "independence project"... No, I cannot really "twist" something you already did very well.

So, again, why would anyone want to convert BTC to fiat money?

Since Bitcoin mining is a zero sum game, hobbyists will actually have an impact against pure profit driven mining farms. This is actually good for Bitcoin because it works against  centralisation of mining.

So, again, going back to the context of that reply, you are mining for profit or for fun?

You are right. You cannot twist it and you sound like a moron for picking a few terms and put them together senselessly.

I mine for both (and I actually think I'm on the way to get both) and my wasted words on you were about why mining is so attractive even if it is risky from a ROI perspective. Your bright yellow ignore will now become just a bit yellower as I see you truly have no interest in ideas. My post on "bio-eco-super tomatoes", like you put it, holds for another audience. Bye and have fun under the bridge!

[Phoenix1969]

I have missed a few threads here, I know, but is there a current consensus on the ideal temps for these miners. I have a Mercury. Its pootling along at a steady 142 Gh/s at 39.5 degrees C. Sound ok?

In my personal experiences the temp does not seem to matter. I've run my Jupiter at 70C and in a cooled server room with case off and external fan at 35C with no noticeable effect on my hashrate.

I'm in a cool bsmt 62F....I have 2 5" er I guess they are menard fans pointing crossways across the front blowing with cover off with.95 and it is sitting at 568gh or so...my cores are like 20c 34c and 41c for last 2...

i'm the doppelganger of phoenix's units I turn off 1 fan and my hash rate goes down ..I leave everything alone and I two will get the dwindle down effect but usually only a couple gh or so....

it is pretty much stable as long as I continue to keep the jally I got on haloween (april order) at other end of the house (only explation bfl units are evil)

so yeah shut a fan off and gh goes down turn fan on goes back to where it was

only other thing is I think I only have 2 cores go on/off  or I've only seen the two once every 3hrs or so for 1 ...once a day maybe for the other (guessing)...it is likely more

so again it is DRY in my bsmt ..ie winter is coming....Phoenix is in Hawaii ...could humidity have something to do with all this ie...with his box setup he is probably moving more air then me and it is probably a lot more moist

other then that ....I try to stay as far away from the unit as possible less I trip on it or something foolish

Searing

I find them quite durable...You should be able to testify to that as well.. >)

[Nemo1024]

Can't say I like this update from the hosted point of view. After 50 minutes of downtime, the miner is back hashing, but the hashrate, as reporter by the portal, is 14GHs down from what it was before... Still need time to see what it ends up being on the pool side.

PS: Mining mostly for fun (especially with GPUs and then with BEs); buying BTC for profit. I like to tinker with hardware, and if some of my hobby spending is paid back, so much the better.

[Phoenix1969]

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

[ASIC-K]

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

thats what i thought too man, but its made a big difference for me!