Efudd Z-Series Fuddware 2.3 -Z11/Z11e/Z11j/Z9/Mini

[efudd]

Folk,

Quick update;

1) Fan controls -- I am making headway on this, but not quite there yet. These units do not handle fan controls like past antminers.

2) Z9 Mini -- loaner Z9 arrived today. Initial modifications to the firmware have been made and are being tested - they will run at least overnight to observe and identify any potential issues that need to be resolved.

3) Z9 pre-paid users: I'm hoping to complete the work this weekend and get that release out.
Once it has been done, Z9 prepaid, dev-fee, and mini users will all be on equivalent functionality. Future updates/features will be a lot quicker across the releases once I get things figured out on one platform.


Thank you,

Jason

[Xazax310]

eagerly awaiting the Z9 mini software change! get these baby to ROI and make some income before it's a doorstop next year!

[efudd]

eagerly awaiting the Z9 mini software change! get these baby to ROI and make some income before it's a doorstop next year!

I'm doing some testing with a batch 2 mini now. I need to return more than 3% improvement at a minimum, and if I can do that on the "batch 2" units, things should be good on the other batches as they are less finicky.

Z9 paid release is still on target for this weekend.

Thank you,

Jason

[chipless]

Does anyone know the difference between a rev 1.0.11 and rev 2x acic hashboard  between the batch 1 and batch 2 z9 minis. Some batch 2 and 3 have a revision 2.x while the batch 1 has a rev 1.0.11

something else is the minis have a 1 to 3 ratio of accepted vs discarded while the z9 has a 2 to 1 or so ratio less discarded on the z9 compared to the mini

[efudd]

Does anyone know the difference between a rev 1.0.11 and rev 2x acic hashboard  between the batch 1 and batch 2 z9 minis. Some batch 2 and 3 have a revision 2.x while the batch 1 has a rev 1.0.11

something else is the minis have a 1 to 3 ratio of accepted vs discarded while the z9 has a 2 to 1 or so ratio less discarded on the z9 compared to the mini

mini: 2716 accepted, 840 discarded
Z9: 2567 accepted, 4380 discarded

random sampling.

-j

[chipless]

Does anyone know the difference between a rev 1.0.11 and rev 2x acic hashboard  between the batch 1 and batch 2 z9 minis. Some batch 2 and 3 have a revision 2.x while the batch 1 has a rev 1.0.11

something else is the minis have a 1 to 3 ratio of accepted vs discarded while the z9 has a 2 to 1 or so ratio less discarded on the z9 compared to the mini

mini: 2716 accepted, 840 discarded
Z9: 2567 accepted, 4380 discarded

random sampling.

-j

my z9 has 34k accepted and 23k discarded where 1 mini has 1390 accepted and 3470 discarded other mini is similar. I am running my minis at 756mhz have rand the one as high as 800 but I board falls out the z9 is at 656mhz. My biggest curiosity is what did they change between the batch 1 and 2 boards revisions.

[efudd]

Does anyone know the difference between a rev 1.0.11 and rev 2x acic hashboard  between the batch 1 and batch 2 z9 minis. Some batch 2 and 3 have a revision 2.x while the batch 1 has a rev 1.0.11

something else is the minis have a 1 to 3 ratio of accepted vs discarded while the z9 has a 2 to 1 or so ratio less discarded on the z9 compared to the mini

mini: 2716 accepted, 840 discarded
Z9: 2567 accepted, 4380 discarded

random sampling.

-j

my z9 has 34k accepted and 23k discarded where 1 mini has 1390 accepted and 3470 discarded other mini is similar. I am running my minis at 756mhz have rand the one as high as 800 but I board falls out the z9 is at 656mhz. My biggest curiosity is what did they change between the batch 1 and 2 boards revisions.

Are you sure you have your versions correct? Here are a couple of examples I have data for....

Batch1: Board BEZ10601_Hashboard-4 V1.1
Model# Z9 mini_V1.1010 - Production date 2018-06-11 / JF0018BB4 BIN1  AV32 TMP45 XXXX

Batch2: Board BEZ10601_Hashboard-4 V1.1
Model# Z9 mini_V1.1011 - Production date 2018-07-19 / SF0018BM1 BIN1  A03 TMP451 XXXX

High resolution pictures of the front and back of the boards would be very useful.

Thank you,

Jason

[badbart]

If I already paid for your software can I get this version without the fee?

[Antonio2018]

Already see the end of the week....
How is progress with the new firmware versions and how much will the version for the Z9 mini cost?

[efudd]

If I already paid for your software can I get this version without the fee?

Post #247

3) Z9 pre-paid users: I'm hoping to complete the work this weekend and get that release out.
Once it has been done, Z9 prepaid, dev-fee, and mini users will all be on equivalent functionality. Future updates/features will be a lot quicker across the releases once I get things figured out on one platform.

The weekend ends around 3am eastern Monday AM from my perspective. ;-)


-j

[efudd]

Already see the end of the week....
How is progress with the new firmware versions and how much will the version for the Z9 mini cost?

likely this will be dev-fee only going forward. options exist for volume customers, pm to discuss.

Jason

[chipless]

So are you saying the only version that will be released is the dev-fee version unless you have a certain amount of machines then you will do a non-dev fee version offered privately?

[efudd]

So are you saying the only version that will be released is the dev-fee version unless you have a certain amount of machines then you will do a non-dev fee version offered privately?

I'm willing to discuss options... I just simply haven't decided, however.

When I was selling, people said they preferred a dev fee, when I've released a dev fee, people have said they wanted to buy.

I may end up with a solution for all of these use cases.... coding on it all as quick as I my fingers and brain will work right now.

Jason

[efudd]

Update:

Much to my dismay, I am not going to hit my self imposed deadline of tonight for the next update (paid users included). I am continuing to work on it and will release as soon as I am able to get all of the pieces together. This next update is reasonably large in terms of infrastructure support and will unify the paid and dev-fee supported images, as well as the Z9 and Mini images into one (not 100% locked on the mini yet).

The mini image has been running for about 24 hours stable, although I am not yet happy with the results as it requires a lot of effort to manually tune the units at the moment.

From an "internals" point of view, I am making very good progress on gaining control of other components of the system.

I apologize for the (continued) delay.

Thank you,

Jason

[skylark_cash]

Thanks for the update Jason. I'm a paid Z9 customer and looking forward for the upcoming firmware.

[doZerilla]

Also keen for a Z9Mini Paid version (no dev fee)

[Marchcat2008]

Update:

Much to my dismay, I am not going to hit my self imposed deadline of tonight for the next update (paid users included). I am continuing to work on it and will release as soon as I am able to get all of the pieces together. This next update is reasonably large in terms of infrastructure support and will unify the paid and dev-fee supported images, as well as the Z9 and Mini images into one (not 100% locked on the mini yet).

The mini image has been running for about 24 hours stable, although I am not yet happy with the results as it requires a lot of effort to manually tune the units at the moment.

From an "internals" point of view, I am making very good progress on gaining control of other components of the system.

I apologize for the (continued) delay.

Thank you,

Jason

Hi, Jason.

Can you add the opportunity to work on Nicehash? Now the firmware is working, but there are a lot of rejects (((
Can you add xnsub support for ASIC?
Innosilicon Equihash A9 ZMaster added without problems.
Maybe you have a look at them, and you can get the code in our firmware?
https://www.nicehash.com/news/Innosilicon-A9-ZMaster-xnsub-support-for-improved-mining-performance?lang=en

Thank's.

[DJMinerOne]

I'm looking forward to the updated paid Z9 version also for us "kick starters"!   And I believe you are trying hard Jason.

[efudd]

Sorry folk, I've been trying to track down a bug and have been distracted the last couple of days.

Unfortunately the bug is with flypool -- rather, I hope it is a bug. There are conditions where flypool will acknowledge receipt of a valid share and never associate it with your wallet. I have no idea what wallet it goes to, but it isn't the one configured and accepted.

That is bad, very very bad.

I posted this on a zcash/flypool thread:
--snip--
Why does flypool not follow the stratum protocol when it comes to mining.authorize? Per the protocol, a single connection should allow multiple mining.authorize calls. Flypool does not follow this, and worse, with some finagling, it will provide a valid authorization for more than one wallet, but never pay out, all the while returning “true” to the submitted shares. Which leads to my next question…

Why does flypool accept shares for wallets and then never associate the shares with the wallet? The simplest case is one where you mining.authorize walletA but perform all of the mining.submits with walletB.

In that scenario, flypool acknowledges the share acceptance for walletB, but never pays walletB. Where do those shares go? Who is keeping them? Why does flypool respond with an acceptance of the shares?

I’ve been using flypool a while and recommending it strongly, but until I can understand this behavior, I can no longer make that recommendation.

This is how flypool responds to a mining.submit with an address it did not accept as authorized:
{“id”:2001,“result”:true,“error”:null}

This is how a proper pool should respond to a mining.submit with an address not authorized:
{“id”:6,“version”:“2.0”,“result”:false,“error”:[24,“Unauthorized User”,null],“Notification”:{“method”:"",“params”:null}}

The difference is in the first case, flypool seems to take the share. Are there other conditions where flypool silently takes shares?

While trying to investigate this, I was banned from the flypool API.
--snip--

I've tried to reach out to them, but for the time being I am personally going to remove work from flypool until I can get an explanation.

Thank you,

Jason

[Marchcat2008]

......
While trying to investigate this, I was banned from the flypool API.
--snip--

I've tried to reach out to them, but for the time being I am personally going to remove work from flypool until I can get an explanation.

Thank you,

Jason