[4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool

[pekatete]

You've really got something wrong with you.

Lets get back on-topic ... pool is now 10.44 Ph/s ... is that some thresh-hold to behold?
PS. Did you notice the pool was, for a while yesterday, not setting diffs and did a longer than usual sync?

Didn't notice the diffs but did notice the sync.  Might be coincidence but it looked like others were going slow too.  Maybe a network thing.

11 hours followed by 20 is crippling.

Yep, network was definitely slow(er) too (or at least it seemed so to me), but I think we also had issues of our own. Saying that, we've popped another one .... and that just as I was rebooting one of my rigs!

[1713928282]

1713928282

[1713928282]

1713928282

[1713928282]

1713928282

[dmwardjr]

Thanks for the detailed info dmwardjr! I plan on trying this weekend.

You mention "This is an S3+ [I have 13 of  them].  All of them are clocked at 193 MHz and 0625 volts to achieve 390 GH/s and 238 watts at the wall [fan speeds are very low with 37 Celsius temps].  This also comes out to approximately .61 watts per GH/s."

What was the efficiency of the S3+ prior to reducing frequency and voltage?

Prior was [on average] 455 GH/s with 351 watts at the wall [Corsair AX860 PSU's] with same temps and all rigs at factory frequency default of 218.75 MHs.  I could not adjust the voltage on them at the time without the January 9, 2015 firmware update.  This comes out to ,77 watts per GH/s

[dmwardjr]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

[bigbitmine]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

Not sure.  Going down the "If it's not broke don't fix it" route.

[dmwardjr]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

Not sure.  Going down the "If it's not broke don't fix it" route.

I understand.  That was the same way I was thinking.  However, I decided to take a chance with a batch 8 S3+ for the sake of saving on power costs and it worked out for me.  Then, I decided to risk an older S3 [not S3+] purchased off of eBay and it managed to work out for me as well.  So I was able to save quite a bit on power costs.  Power costs are a big factory these days with bitcoin at it's present price.

[bigbitmine]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

Not sure.  Going down the "If it's not broke don't fix it" route.

I understand.  That was the same way I was thinking.  However, I decided to take a chance with a batch 8 S3+ for the sake of saving on power costs and it worked out for me.  Then, I decided to risk an older S3 [not S3+] purchased off of eBay and it managed to work out for me as well.  So I was able to save quite a bit on power costs.  Power costs are a big factory these days with bitcoin at it's present price.

When I replace them it will be S5, SP20 or whatever new units they've released.

[dmwardjr]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

Not sure.  Going down the "If it's not broke don't fix it" route.

I understand.  That was the same way I was thinking.  However, I decided to take a chance with a batch 8 S3+ for the sake of saving on power costs and it worked out for me.  Then, I decided to risk an older S3 [not S3+] purchased off of eBay and it managed to work out for me as well.  So I was able to save quite a bit on power costs.  Power costs are a big factory these days with bitcoin at it's present price.

When I replace them it will be S5, SP20 or whatever new units they've released.

I'm not sure when Bitmain will release the S5 again.  Or even if they will release it.  They seem to be pushing cloud mining with the S5 pretty hard at the moment and the option to buy the S5 at approximately $430 + shipping if you choose to have it shipped to you.  That is rather high in my opinion.  I jumped on a 15 unit package of the Spondooliestech.com SP20's while Bitmain was on their new year holiday.  I'm happy I did.  The SP20's are great rigs.

There are rumors that Spondooliestech will only sell their next generation rigs in bulk and they will be large form factor rigs [About 12U in size, which is very large].  They will also have an efficiency of .05 to .03 watts per GH/s.  That low of efficiency would be a miracle and would change mining BIG TIME!  I believe that low of efficiency is another reason why they would only sell in bulk.  Otherwise, the difficulty would go up astronomically.  That low of efficiency is phenomenal!  The Bitmain S5's efficiency is .51 watts per GH.  Spondooliestech is shooting for .05 to .03.  WOW!

[thedreamer]

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.

[kkurtmann]

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

[thedreamer]

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

Still. I somehow doubt they have more efficient engineers than Intel or ATI/AMD, IBM, and even they have not reached such low power figures.

I just don't see it.. This next gen releases will probably be in the 0.30W/GH power figure, maybe high 20's if they really get some good dies made.

Besides if that becomes true. It will highly impact the BC Mining world and I don't think in a good way for smaller miners.  

[kkurtmann]

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

Still. I somehow doubt they have more efficient engineers than Intel or ATI/AMD, IBM, and even they have not reached such low power figures.

I just don't see it.. This next gen releases will probably be in the 0.30W/GH power figure, maybe high 20's if they really get some good dies made.

Besides if that becomes true. It will highly impact the BC Mining world and I don't think in a good way for smaller miners.  

Well, KnC miner claims achieving 0.07 w/GHs for their new 16nm on their website here https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-118 . I'm sure other manufacturers will make the same or better claims. This is old news that companies have been working on this, but I'm pretty sure there won't be any physical devices until the end of this year at the earliest. 

[bspurloc]

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

I haven't been following but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. It all sounds to me like the newer versions are flakey and people are trying to find something to blame.
  I have all mine left alone and mining till they die. haven't touched them in 3 months. just letting everything wind down, got tired of chasing new hardware! never mind bitmain adding huge shipping and handling fees soured the taste of their equipment.
have spondoolies become more quiet yet?
 

[pekatete]

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

My thoughts exactly ... to an extent.

.... but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. ....

You'd be wrong because the controller board has a programable chip, and the PIC firmware is uploaded on each cold boot (not sure about a restart). I am actually convinced that this is where bitmain fudge things up, as the PIC firmware is obfuscated and no source code available. I have tried dis-assembling the firmware with no positive results as there are only so many hours in a day!

However, I believe the subsequent changes to the PIC firmware are to blame for the sporadic results with the latter firmware, so the logic would be the reverse of sequentially installing updates as the last firmware update wipes the lot off (as you correctly state)!

[bigbitmine]

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

My thoughts exactly ... to an extent.

.... but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. ....

You'd be wrong because the controller board has a programable chip, and the PIC firmware is uploaded on each cold boot (not sure about a restart). I am actually convinced that this is where bitmain fudge things up, as the PIC firmware is obfuscated and no source code available. I have tried dis-assembling the firmware with no positive results as there are only so many hours in a day!

However, I believe the subsequent changes to the PIC firmware are to blame for the sporadic results with the latter firmware, so the logic would be the reverse of sequentially installing updates as the last firmware update wipes the lot off (as you correctly state)!

Although the S3's are reverted to original F/W and operating perfectly well again one does like to beep every now and then indicating it has briefly lost connection.  Not really bothered by it so I won't be messing with it again.

[SargeR33]

I used to get random beeping and very slow cpanel access with particular firmwares on the S3. I can't recall which I'm using now but I found it is the best of the lot.

[alh]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

[MrTeal]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

[musicmaker613]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

[bigbitmine]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

Please!!!  Not the 10PH argument again.

[kano]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I get the feeling people took your comment seriously