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

[Grkboy439]

thank you!!! (:

[efudd]

Folk,

If you do happen to uninstall my firmware during the contest period for some reason, please take a screenshot of your Summary page in full, including the 'Support ID', and then check this post and the contest post after the contest is complete. That 'Support ID' is how I'm going to identify winners.

Thank you,

Jason

[spoonwzd]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

[efudd]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

Please pm me your Support IDs from your miner summary page.

This simply cannot happen without a failure in your primary pool and even that potential is fixed in 2.1c.

With your support ID, if I find my system was telling your units to mine out of the dev pool for that duration, I will gladly reimburse you for that mined time directly.

If you can provide the system logs also, that would be ideal, but the support IDs should be enough.

Thank you,

Jason

[salvo2002]

Can I use your firmware with HiveOS integration? https://github.com/minershive/hiveos-asic

[efudd]

Can I use your firmware with HiveOS integration? https://github.com/minershive/hiveos-asic

My understanding from others is that it does work. Just that once you have it set up, you will have to set the per board frequencies via the web interface instead of hive.

-Jason

[lceman11]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

Hmmm 1% ?  not even close - I use awesome miner to run my miners and what its reports show me  that zec-bj.poolin.com (I do not mine on that pool so I assume that is a dev fee pool) in the last 7 days was mined on  5.98%  and 6.7%  in last 24 hours.

I will provide more details on it later. There is something really strange that is going on with 2.1c. I am not 100% sure if that has to do with new awesome miner update or 2.1c I have dedicated 5 minis and 5 bigies to run some tests and get to the bottom of it and will provide mining history reports shortly. But so far I definitely noticed increased traffic to poolin.com on the firewall; Slush poll mining became really unpredictable - meaning some miners will be reported on the pool side some will not even though awesome miner and miners web gui will show them mining with 0 rejects on Slush.  (may be it is what spoonwzd described- I will check on this) Also miners started to get disconnected more often due to socket error and even though they haven't been rebooted  when they re-connecte they will start dev cycle again... On the side note: Sorry Jason, I am not trying to bash your work and definitely not trying to accuse you in being dishonest about 1%. For all I know it might be just my set up and I apologies in advance if it is  - I will post an update with reports shortly

[efudd]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

Hmmm 1% ?  not even close - I use awesome miner to run my miners and what its reports show me  that zec-bj.poolin.com (I do not mine on that pool so I assume that is a dev fee pool) in the last 7 days was mined on  5.98%  and 6.7%  in last 24 hours.

I will provide more details on it later. There is something really strange that is going on with 2.1c. I am not 100% sure if that has to do with new awesome miner update or 2.1c I have dedicated 5 minis and 5 bigies to run some tests and get to the bottom of it and will provide mining history reports shortly. But so far I definitely noticed increased traffic to poolin.com on the firewall; Slush poll mining became really unpredictable - meaning some miners will be reported on the pool side some will not even though awesome miner and miners web gui will show them mining with 0 rejects on Slush.  (may be it is what spoonwzd described- I will check on this) Also miners started to get disconnected more often due to socket error and even though they haven't been rebooted  when they re-connecte they will start dev cycle again... On the side note: Sorry Jason, I am not trying to bash your work and definitely not trying to accuse you in being dishonest about 1%. For all I know it might be just my set up and I apologies in advance if it is  - I will post an update with reports shortly

For the record, 10 minutes dev and 280 minutes normal is 3.4%, not 1%. I never claimed 1%. I’m just getting home now and will look to investigate this shortly. It is 49.6 minutes a day.

Iceman, if you can PM me your supportID it would be great also. What 2.1c primarily changes is simply to ensure that it returns to the proper pool after the dev-fee. There were circumstances where it could return to one of your other pools instead. It was literally a one line change for that since I had some logic reversed accidentally.

Nothing else was changed that would match what you are seeing, for what it is is worth.

-jason

[efudd]

I will also turn awesomeminer in against my loaner machines so I can see how it is reporting.

Jason

[efudd]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

spoonwzd - Thank you for sending me your support IDs. Can you confirm you were running the 2.1(c) release and the previous 2.1 release? I unfortunately don't really have that logged to tell, at least not quickly.

As a point of clarification, I'm not sure where 1% came from - the fee is 10 minutes of dev pool time for every 280 minutes of miner time with the exception being the first 20 minute start up sequence. That sequence is 10 minutes for you so you can tune, then 10 minutes to the dev pool once you have it tuned and leave it running... then 280 minutes, then 10, etc.

That is roughly 49.6 minutes out of every 24 hours.

I will PM you what I've been able to pull together from your support ID(s), but what I'm currently thinking may have happened requires me to know if you were on 2.1(c) or not. I'm not quite able to confirm yet whether you are on on 2.1(c).

Thank you,

Jason

[chipless]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

Hmmm 1% ?  not even close - I use awesome miner to run my miners and what its reports show me  that zec-bj.poolin.com (I do not mine on that pool so I assume that is a dev fee pool) in the last 7 days was mined on  5.98%  and 6.7%  in last 24 hours.

I will provide more details on it later. There is something really strange that is going on with 2.1c. I am not 100% sure if that has to do with new awesome miner update or 2.1c I have dedicated 5 minis and 5 bigies to run some tests and get to the bottom of it and will provide mining history reports shortly. But so far I definitely noticed increased traffic to poolin.com on the firewall; Slush poll mining became really unpredictable - meaning some miners will be reported on the pool side some will not even though awesome miner and miners web gui will show them mining with 0 rejects on Slush.  (may be it is what spoonwzd described- I will check on this) Also miners started to get disconnected more often due to socket error and even though they haven't been rebooted  when they re-connecte they will start dev cycle again... On the side note: Sorry Jason, I am not trying to bash your work and definitely not trying to accuse you in being dishonest about 1%. For all I know it might be just my set up and I apologies in advance if it is  - I will post an update with reports shortly

I had a similar issue and notified Jason a few weeks ago. The miner was connecting to his callback server and dev server more then it should. I was using the netstat on the machine to monitor its connections.

[efudd]

I mine on zPool and noticed that a couple of my Z9 Mini's were missing from the pool. When I checked the miners, they were stuck mining on the dev pool and had been doing that for over 12 hours and not flicked back! How do I stop this from happening again? This is way more than the stated 1%.

Hmmm 1% ?  not even close - I use awesome miner to run my miners and what its reports show me  that zec-bj.poolin.com (I do not mine on that pool so I assume that is a dev fee pool) in the last 7 days was mined on  5.98%  and 6.7%  in last 24 hours.

I will provide more details on it later. There is something really strange that is going on with 2.1c. I am not 100% sure if that has to do with new awesome miner update or 2.1c I have dedicated 5 minis and 5 bigies to run some tests and get to the bottom of it and will provide mining history reports shortly. But so far I definitely noticed increased traffic to poolin.com on the firewall; Slush poll mining became really unpredictable - meaning some miners will be reported on the pool side some will not even though awesome miner and miners web gui will show them mining with 0 rejects on Slush.  (may be it is what spoonwzd described- I will check on this) Also miners started to get disconnected more often due to socket error and even though they haven't been rebooted  when they re-connecte they will start dev cycle again... On the side note: Sorry Jason, I am not trying to bash your work and definitely not trying to accuse you in being dishonest about 1%. For all I know it might be just my set up and I apologies in advance if it is  - I will post an update with reports shortly

I had a similar issue and notified Jason a few weeks ago. The miner was connecting to his callback server and dev server more then it should. I was using the netstat on the machine to monitor its connections.

Thank you for your feedback and assumptions on methodology and similarities. When you tried to test it was when dev fee disabled other than the startup sequence. There were other status callbacks for testing and simulation but did not change the miner to a dev pool. That is what you were seeing. A single problem was found where an accidental dev fee happened after 12 hours before it was officially turned on. That was resolved and the user who found it compensated.

A second bug was found where the wrong pool could be returned to, which led to 2.1c.

I would ask you to also provide your supportID.

I’ll let spoonwzd post of his own accord if he desires as to the status and any potential resolutions, but he provided a supportID and we are working through the conditions in his environment.

Jason

[dtawom]

Anyone else experiencing major differences between reported hashrate in miner status and reported hashrate on pool sites.  I've been seeing 10-12k differences at least 2 or 3 times a day on my Z9 for a while now and this comes out to more like a 20% dev fee than a 1% dev fee.  I installed the firmware on two of my z9 mini's and I frequently see hashrates 1-4K below what is reported in the miner status.
I've attached some screenshots.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eC8Rtr2yN2LFYf2wqVOX_RBktnRkf8jj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1G046dJOZKtAdRK1wlGFbxS93qF9Q3nrQ

**Update:  I'm trying 2.1c firmware on the Z9 now after reading some recent posts, but I already have 2.1c on the Z9 mini where I'm noticing up to 20% dependencies.***
**Update2: Nevermind I definitely had 2.1c firmware on Z9 already, it just doesn't list it at the top of the page in System Summary it just says 2.1**

I asked about this in a PM, but got no response.  Is the option still available to be a paid user?  I would rather pay a lump sum and avoid the dev fee and possible bugs making it larger than the 3.67%.  People have 1% in mind because at one point in this post or in the firmware notes it did say 1%.  I don't know when that changed, but somewhere in some description you definitely listed 1% as the dev fee.

[efudd]

Anyone else experiencing major differences between reported hashrate in miner status and reported hashrate on pool sites.  I've been seeing 10-12k differences at least 2 or 3 times a day on my Z9 for a while now and this comes out to more like a 20% dev fee than a 1% dev fee.  I installed the firmware on two of my z9 mini's and I frequently see hashrates 1-4K below what is reported in the miner status.
I've attached some screenshots.




**Update:  I'm trying 2.1c firmware on the Z9 now after reading some recent posts, but I already have 2.1c on the Z9 mini where I'm noticing up to 20% dependencies.***
**Update2: Nevermind I definitely had 2.1c firmware on Z9 already, it just doesn't list it at the top of the page in System Summary it just says 2.1**

I asked about this in a PM, but got no response.  Is the option still available to be a paid user?  I would rather pay a lump sum and avoid the dev fee and possible bugs making it larger than the 3.67%.  People have 1% in mind because at one point in this post or in the firmware notes it did say 1%.  I don't know when that changed, but somewhere in some description you definitely listed 1% as the dev fee.

dtawom, you PMd me on 11/08/2018 asking if I would sell you firmware and if I had a mini version available. I apologize, I did not respond, that was an oversight on my part. At that point in time, I did not have a mini version available and I have not sold a version for minis.

The only mention, ever, of 1% was very early on when I asked about sold vs. dev. This was months back.

As far as pool differences go, I use flypool for some machines -- their averages are calculated over 15 minutes if memory serves. It doesn't always show correctly. That said, mine end up matching on long averages.

What do you mean "up to 20% dependencies" -- if you think I am taking 20% from you, please uninstall immediately. Simple as that.

If you are having issues or otherwise think I'm taking something from you that I have not disclosed, please uninstall the firmware. Simple as that. From the very moment I posted a "dev fee" supported release, I described  *exactly* the sequence of events and  *exactly* the timing. I've been clear on the calculations and have not hidden anything.

The firmware is *NOT* mining more than 10 minutes out of every 290 minutes total. It is *NOT* mining more than 49.65 minutes a day in the dev pool. It is *NOT* 1%, and it is *NOT* 3.6%. 49.65/1440 = 3.44%. How do I know this? I'm running the exact same firmware on test machines and am watching this like a hawk -- it's possible I have made mistakes, but every time someone has stated the timing is more than I've stated, I've been able to show timestamps +/- 10 seconds from what I've stated are the calculations.

I'm ok with pitchforks, but please contact me with your  *SUPPORT ID* from your summary page. If you don't, there is simply no way that I can help.

Jason

[efudd]

Effective immediately, the dev fee has been dropped from 3.4% to 3%. The miner will now mine for 10 minutes out of every 330 minutes.

10 for dev, 320 for you, repeat.

1440 minutes per day / 330 minutes (320+10 minute cycle) = 4.36. 4.36*10 minute cycle = 43.6 minutes. 43.6/1440 = 3.02% dev fee.

This change will occur automatically after the next dev cycle on your systems.

I will also be updating the firmware soon(tm) to very clearly tell you when the dev fee starts and when it ends in the messages file, along with the duration, so there is no question.

thank you,

jason

[chipless]

Jason

I have some concern about your firmware that should have some answers to. The big questions are ….

How much control do you have over the miners with your firmware?

If the miner cant reach your callback server does it still stop the miner from starting?

You have the ability to change dev mode on the fly as well as some other features so I am sure you have the ability to do other things with the miner.

What features are implemented that the user does not know about yet that could take control of the miner or its settings.

We know you are collecting data from the miners or you wouldn't be able to look at your logs and see what is going on.

What information are you gathering from the miners during the callbacks?

Lastly it was nice of you to reduce the dev fee but with my rate here at home that is about 3.50 a day going to you, making it over 100 a month going to you, but you were willing to sell the license for 1 zec. Don't you think the dev fee is still a little high since you were willing to sell a license for 1 zec. When you got everyone hooked on your firmware you said you were gonna offer a license then once you seen the volume of people you decided to go dev mode only right now. So if you have a 1000 miners with your fw you are making about 3000+ dollars a day. Don't you think reducing the dev fee to 1 or 1.5% is a little more fair,  I realize you need to recover the cost of ida and a z9 but at this rate you have recovered that cost in a few days and even the best coders don't make 20k a week for their work.

[lceman11]

For the record, 10 minutes dev and 280 minutes normal is 3.4%, not 1%. I never claimed 1%. I’m just getting home now and will look to investigate this shortly. It is 49.6 minutes a day.

Iceman, if you can PM me your supportID it would be great also. What 2.1c primarily changes is simply to ensure that it returns to the proper pool after the dev-fee. There were circumstances where it could return to one of your other pools instead. It was literally a one line change for that since I had some logic reversed accidentally.

Nothing else was changed that would match what you are seeing, for what it is is worth.

-jason

and I never said you did - I actually wasn't even paying attention to what it was supposed to be I just simply noticed the oddities on the z-farm and started looking into whats going on. When I mentioned 1% I simply wanted to say that I am not accusing you in dishonesty - my apologies if that didn't come out right. So..... like I mentioned in my post I set 5 big ones and 5 small ones on 2.1c to run on equihash overnight- disabled all custom scripts, rules etc. on awesome miner side. The only one I left running was a script that checks the pool after disconnect and if it is not correct one it switches it via SSH. I choose equihash just for the reason that it is the most screwy one with a lot of disconnects and rejects. The dev fee came out to be 4.11% http://www.u-ok.net/images1/miningrep1.png Looking through  some of the logs I can see that a few times miners got socket error and when reconcted they came to the pool that is specified in the first row of the set up thats is the reason you see a few other pools beside nicehash. One thing I can say for sure that the issue with not returning to the last pool mined on after dev cycle is definitely fixed and it doesn't matter if last pool was switched to using SSH command or it was just a default set up. Now it works the way it should. I will set the same bunch to run 24 hours on the luckpool mining hash this time - that should be much more stable compare to nicehash and will post results again tomorrow.  I know you guys talked about temps and hash rate so here are a few graphs (2 big ones and 2 small ones on 2.1.c) that displays hash rate vs temperature. If anyone is interested i can post a larger sample which will have less spikes and easier to see correlation between two.http://www.u-ok.net/images1/perf1.png http://www.u-ok.net/images1/perf2.png http://www.u-ok.net/images1/perf3.png http://www.u-ok.net/images1/perf4.png

[efudd]

Jason

I have some concern about your firmware that should have some answers to. The big questions are ….

How much control do you have over the miners with your firmware?

If the miner cant reach your callback server does it still stop the miner from starting?

You have the ability to change dev mode on the fly as well as some other features so I am sure you have the ability to do other things with the miner.

What features are implemented that the user does not know about yet that could take control of the miner or its settings.

We know you are collecting data from the miners or you wouldn't be able to look at your logs and see what is going on.

What information are you gathering from the miners during the callbacks?

Lastly it was nice of you to reduce the dev fee but with my rate here at home that is about 3.50 a day going to you, making it over 100 a month going to you, but you were willing to sell the license for 1 zec. Don't you think the dev fee is still a little high since you were willing to sell a license for 1 zec. When you got everyone hooked on your firmware you said you were gonna offer a license then once you seen the volume of people you decided to go dev mode only right now. So if you have a 1000 miners with your fw you are making about 3000+ dollars a day. Don't you think reducing the dev fee to 1 or 1.5% is a little more fair,  I realize you need to recover the cost of ida and a z9 but at this rate you have recovered that cost in a few days and even the best coders don't make 20k a week for their work.

Chipless, thank you for voicing your concerns. Please use your own firmware and not mine. If you would like to buy a license, the price is one beeeelioon dollars. Special, just for you. Also, all other firmware features are designed to spy on your toaster. Not everyone else’s, just yours.

The rest of your math is just wrong, again, by a lot.

Jason

[efudd]

For the record, 10 minutes dev and 280 minutes normal is 3.4%, not 1%. I never claimed 1%. I’m just getting home now and will look to investigate this shortly. It is 49.6 minutes a day.

Iceman, if you can PM me your supportID it would be great also. What 2.1c primarily changes is simply to ensure that it returns to the proper pool after the dev-fee. There were circumstances where it could return to one of your other pools instead. It was literally a one line change for that since I had some logic reversed accidentally.

Nothing else was changed that would match what you are seeing, for what it is is worth.

-jason

and I never said you did - I actually wasn't even paying attention to what it was supposed to be I just simply noticed the oddities on the z-farm and started looking into whats going on. When I mentioned 1% I simply wanted to say that I am not accusing you in dishonesty - my apologies if that didn't come out right. So..... like I mentioned in my post I set 5 big ones and 5 small ones on 2.1c to run on equihash overnight- disabled all custom scripts, rules etc. on awesome miner side. The only one I left running was a script that checks the pool after disconnect and if it is not correct one it switches it via SSH. I choose equihash just for the reason that it is the most screwy one with a lot of disconnects and rejects. The dev fee came out to be 4.11%  Looking through  some of the logs I can see that a few times miners got socket error and when reconcted they came to the pool that is specified in the first row of the set up thats is the reason you see a few other pools beside nicehash. One thing I can say for sure that the issue with not returning to the last pool mined on after dev cycle is definitely fixed and it doesn't matter if last pool was switched to using SSH command or it was just a default set up. Now it works the way it should. I will set the same bunch to run 24 hours on the luckpool mining hash this time - that should be much more stable compare to nicehash and will post results again tomorrow.  I know you guys talked about temps and hash rate so here are a few graphs (2 big ones and 2 small ones on 2.1.c) that displays hash rate vs temperature. If anyone is interested i can post a larger sample which will have less spikes and easier to see correlation between two.

Is “usage” there based on time or shares submitted? Also, are you using Nicehash and Z units? If so, that will be a significant waste of your shares. I’m on my mobile and don’t really want to try to type up the explanation on the small keyboard.

Also, can you please provide a support Id and your logs so I can understand these socket errors? (Hey chip, see how I keep asking for logs? Hint, I don’t have them).

Jason

[rpg101]

Have you converted jstefanop voltage regulator to z9? I looked at the driver and is not the sam (I also don't have ARM gear to compile the code)