Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:05:01 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  Print  
Author Topic: BTCMiner - Open Source Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX FPGA Boards, 215 MH/s on LX150  (Read 153720 times)
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
November 07, 2011, 02:07:34 PM
 #101

Thank you so much again for the quick response.  Yea, minimal cost for sure. Do you know what the CFM, voltage and amperage are for those fans?

6.97 CFM
7 to 13.2V
0.06A @ 12V

   Ahh, very friendly numbers. Thanks again. =)

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
1480824301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824301
Reply with quote  #2

1480824301
Report to moderator
1480824301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824301
Reply with quote  #2

1480824301
Report to moderator
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824301
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824301

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824301
Reply with quote  #2

1480824301
Report to moderator
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 07, 2011, 02:52:42 PM
 #102

I got a question about that.  Does GPL protect your IP from a "covert distro".  Meaning someone take your code, tweaks it to get 3% more performance and then sells FGPA already loaded with it.  They still have to release the source code of their improvements right?

Bitstream cannot be stored permanently in the FPGA, i.e. Bitstream is uploaded by the software during the start-up.

But besides of that, source code has also be released if firmware or bitstream is 'hidden in hardware'.


Good to know.  Would hate to see a competitor gain (beyond what GPL allows) from your awesome code.  Hopefully someone does improve upon that in the future but any improvements should be shared w/ all FPGA capable hardware.
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2011, 09:30:23 PM
 #103

Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week.

I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results:

At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate
At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate

Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V.

On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary.  IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it.




DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 08, 2011, 09:38:15 PM
 #104

Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week.

I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results:

At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate
At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate

Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V.

On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary.  IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it.

Nice to know.  You didn't by any chance get power draw (amps) did you?
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2011, 10:10:38 PM
 #105

Would like to know the amp draw as well.  If it is the same it would be 8.78 watts at 200MHz

Pls remove my private data.

Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192)







DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 08, 2011, 10:13:39 PM
 #106

Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192)

Solid.  Still above 20MH/W.  Sure beats the ~2.5MH/W I get with GPUs now.
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
November 08, 2011, 10:13:42 PM
 #107


Pls remove my private data.

Power requirement is about 9.5W (=8.5W*sqr(1.27/1.23)*200/192)



fixed but its stuck in your quote for now...

  Thanks for the numbers.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
November 10, 2011, 02:59:56 PM
 #108

Is there any chance we can sweet talk you into dropping a 1.26v resistor onto one to see the results? =)
I'll try this out next week.

I tested it with a prototype. Here are the results:

At 1.23V core voltage (default, R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.4kΩ): 192 MHz @ 0.0% error rate
At 1.27V core voltage (R12=1.3kΩ, R13=2.2kΩ): 200 MHz @ 0.0% error rate

Those who increase the core voltage (by replacing R12 and/or R13) have to do this on their own risk. The absolute maximum voltage according to the specs is 1.32V. But voltage overshoot has to be taken into account. These overshoots occur at load removal (FPGA reset) and are caused by the energy stored in the coil. The overshoot voltage at a nominal voltage of 1.27V is larger than 1.32V.

On the other hand, the limit of 1.32V is calculated by 1.2V + 10%, i.e. this value is (at least a little bit) arbitrary.  IMHO 1.27V is still quite save, but I cannot guarantee for it.

  I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage.
  Can you verify the voltages for given resistor combo in R12 and R13?

  I.e., am I reading correctly that;
      R12 @1.3kOhms, R13 @2.4kOhms = 1.23v?
      R12 @1.3kOhms, R13 @2.2kOhms = 1.27v or 1.30v?
      R12 @1.2kOhms, R13 @2.4kOhms = 1.27v?
      R12 @1.2kOhms, R13 @2.2kOhms = 1.30v or 1.32v?

  Thanks in advance for your patience in answering such simple questions! I have not read resistor color bars or done Ohms resistance calculations for going on 15 years now. ;p  I.e, TC boards at last hi-tech jobs were 90% throw away and only about 10% actual 're-design/verification' of circuits. sad sad, I know, but its cheaper to outsource that engineering these days for most 'non-custom design' companies. =)


        Cheers
   

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2011, 02:12:39 PM
 #109

  I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage.

1.23V is still save.

The core voltage is calculated by VCCINT = (R12/R13+1)*0.8V

btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2011, 03:32:59 PM
 #110

This looks quite interesting (watching topic)

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
November 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM
 #111

 I noticed on the printed board it reads 1k2 for R12 but there is a 1k3 resistor in it, as you stated. I am curious if the 1k2 print is intended as a working, safe voltage.

1.23V is still save.

The core voltage is calculated by VCCINT = (R12/R13+1)*0.8V


   Thanks for the formula, that clears up everything. *slaps head*  I was bass ackwards and was thinking, for whatever dumb reason that lowering R12 resistance would raise the out voltage. doh. ;p  I got it now. Thank you again!!

  Any plan to test R13 with a 2k Ohm? Maybe just a 2k1 to be safer first.  Push it until it POPs, m8. ;p


    Cheers,
       Derek

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2011, 09:31:59 PM
 #112

Any plan to test R13 with a 2k Ohm? Maybe just a 2k1 to be safer first.  Pust it until it POPs, m8. ;p

I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.

ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2011, 02:20:18 PM
 #113

Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?

A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer

New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity.

trilby
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45


View Profile
November 14, 2011, 05:37:26 PM
 #114

Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?

A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer

New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity.


I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page

Have I helped you send me a donation - 1LaZmd9ZzpmjA4gkXxiQPsmfQ8zSc5mTZo
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2011, 05:41:14 PM
 #115

Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?

A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer

New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity.


I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page

Fixed. Try it again.

trilby
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45


View Profile
November 14, 2011, 05:46:32 PM
 #116

Is there a way to setup a way to setup a backup pool with BTCMiner?

A new release is available at http://www.ztex.de/btcminer

New features are backup pools an improved behavior at bad nework connectivity.


I cant seem to find the latest version on the BTCMiner page

Fixed. Try it again.

Just out of curiosity what is the command structure for using backup pools, Is it like this

Code:
-host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -host pool2 -u user2 -p pass2

How is the backup pool system working is it priority based e.g if pool 1 is down, does it switch to pool 2 untill pool 1 is active and switch back to it.

edit: Just read the -help file and seen the structure

Have I helped you send me a donation - 1LaZmd9ZzpmjA4gkXxiQPsmfQ8zSc5mTZo
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2011, 06:52:57 PM
 #117


Just out of curiosity what is the command structure for using backup pools, Is it like this

Code:
-host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -host host2 -u user2 -p pass2

How is the backup pool system working is it priority based e.g if pool 1 is down, does it switch to pool 2 untill pool 1 is active and switch back to it.

See the section "General usage". Backup pools are specified by -b.

Due to backward The syntax is a little bit strange:
Code:
-host pool1 -u user1 -p pass1 -b host2 user2 pass2 -b host3 user3 pass3 ...


ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2011, 02:28:33 PM
 #118

I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.

Here are the results of the 1.3V test: With the current BTCMiner version the test board achieved 208 MHz at an error rate of about 2%.

Due to the absolute maximum voltage of 1.32V and due to the voltage overshoots caused by the inductor at load removal I do not recommend more than 1.27V. I will switch the production from 1.23V to 1.25V.


DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 25, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
 #119

I plan to test it with 1.3V. But currently I have no suitable resistor values lying around. If this works I will switch the production to 1.25V.

Here are the results of the 1.3V test: With the current BTCMiner version the test board achieved 208 MHz at an error rate of about 2%.

Due to the absolute maximum voltage of 1.32V and due to the voltage overshoots caused by the inductor at load removal I do not recommend more than 1.27V. I will switch the production from 1.23V to 1.25V.

How much does the bump from 1.23V to 1.25V raise effective hashing rate.

So it is:
1.23V 192 MH/s w/ 0% error rate = 192 MH/s effective (old production)
1.25V ??                                                              (new production)
1.27V 200 MH/s w/ 0% error rate = 200MH/s effective (overvolting)
1.30V 208 MH/s w 2% error rate = 204MH/s effective  (not recommended)
ztex
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 367

ZTEX FPGA Boards


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2011, 07:28:23 PM
 #120

How much does the bump from 1.23V to 1.25V raise effective hashing rate.

Typical hash hate will be 194 MH/s. Some FPGA boards will achieve 200 MH/s at a small error rate and some Boards will achieve 192 MH/s at (almost) no errors.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!