gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4172
Merit: 8419
|
|
March 28, 2013, 01:15:26 AM |
|
Be careful! If this (or anything else) bricks your Avalon's controller, you will need to attach a serial port to recover! I have no way to test this, so try it at your own risk. So everyone can expect this also with his BFL ASIC code also - written without testing ... expect it to brick your BFL ASIC also - so don't use it. Luke makes a best effort attempt to support third party hardware which he has no access to, posts the code with appropriate warnings and initial recovery instructions. How Luke's unrelated efforts which are in cooperation with another hardware vendor are related in anyone's guess. Good thing Kano's port of BFGMiner to avalon runs perfectly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the
core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
nathanrees19
|
|
March 28, 2013, 01:45:44 AM |
|
Be careful! If this (or anything else) bricks your Avalon's controller, you will need to attach a serial port to recover! I have no way to test this, so try it at your own risk. So everyone can expect this also with his BFL ASIC code also - written without testing ... expect it to brick your BFL ASIC also - so don't use it. Luke makes a best effort attempt to support third party hardware which he has no access to Yeah, it's impossible to get access to a WR703N and see if the image boots properly.
|
|
|
|
nathanrees19
|
|
March 28, 2013, 01:56:58 AM |
|
Be careful! If this (or anything else) bricks your Avalon's controller, you will need to attach a serial port to recover! I have no way to test this, so try it at your own risk. So everyone can expect this also with his BFL ASIC code also - written without testing ... expect it to brick your BFL ASIC also - so don't use it. Luke makes a best effort attempt
|
|
|
|
Aseras
|
|
March 28, 2013, 02:02:41 AM |
|
You all are ruthless...
Chill ,the avalons a prototype, and so is anything it's running. It could be as simple and one fat finger somewhere in the code or build config.
I'm just glad I didn't have to get out a EEPROM burner or hot swap flash chips or something weird.
Luke's the only one actually trying to help getting it doing things I'd like to do.
Everyone else just bitches about how they got left out.
No one is willing to test or brick their units. I don't mind. I'm in it for more than mega BTC. In trying to tinker and make it better. I'd really like to get it working well on p2pool.
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 1808
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
March 28, 2013, 02:12:25 AM |
|
Be careful! If this (or anything else) bricks your Avalon's controller, you will need to attach a serial port to recover! I have no way to test this, so try it at your own risk. So everyone can expect this also with his BFL ASIC code also - written without testing ... expect it to brick your BFL ASIC also - so don't use it. Luke makes a best effort attempt to support third party hardware which he has no access to, posts the code with appropriate warnings and initial recovery instructions. How Luke's unrelated efforts which are in cooperation with another hardware vendor are related in anyone's guess. Good thing Kano's port of BFGMiner to avalon runs perfectly... Joke fail ... there is no port of that rubbish. Lulz, no one in their right mind would port that piece of rubbish to anything. There's a reason we don't take code back to cgminer from him, but he attempts to copy copious amounts of the cgminer code to the clone ... The last biggest section of code from him that went into cgminer was the MMQ driver that didn't even work. I've rewritten it completely in every aspect of how it works and it of course works better and hashes faster than the MMQ code in the clone ... Interesting ... to use your words: Luke's best effort attempt ... ... is to brick the Avalon
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 1808
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
March 28, 2013, 02:16:23 AM |
|
You all are ruthless...
Chill ,the avalons a prototype, and so is anything it's running. It could be as simple and one fat finger somewhere in the code or build config.
I'm just glad I didn't have to get out a EEPROM burner or hot swap flash chips or something weird.
Luke's the only one actually trying to help getting it doing things I'd like to do.
Everyone else just bitches about how they got left out.
No one is willing to test or brick their units. I don't mind. I'm in it for more than mega BTC. In trying to tinker and make it better. I'd really like to get it working well on p2pool.
Xiangfu wrote the cgminer code changes in the Avalon and he's rewriting it to bring it up to speed with the current improved cgminer code ckolivas has written since then and the much better driver USB code that I've written to replace the rubbish that is still in the clone. Go discuss with Xiangfu if you want to get somewhere useful with it ...
|
|
|
|
CrazyGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1973
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 30, 2013, 03:05:25 AM Last edit: March 30, 2013, 03:24:54 AM by CrazyBlane |
|
How difficult would it be to implement the ability to tie a pool to a specific mining device?(Using backup pools as failiver only for each device)My current method is to run multiple instances with each device on its own instance. It appears I'll be receiving more devices from BFL than I had originally planned, and I'm not sure I want to be running that many instances at once.
My concern is the unreliable load distribution using the various load balancing switches. An unproportionate amount of hashing power given to a pool that's having issues or underperforming could result in a huge loss in mining profit for the day. With ASICs rolling out in mass quantities soon, I predict pool issues are going to climb dramatically.
Spawning another process in app would prob be the easiest way to go about it, but I'm not sure that would be any better than running multiple instances. I'm really looking for an even distribution of hashrate across pools, and I'm thinking the best way to do that with multiple devices is tie each device to its own pool.
Anyways, am I the only person concerned about even hashrate distribution and pool issues from ASIC rollout?
|
ASICPuppy.net ASIC Mining Hardware and Accessories - Compac F in stock!
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 30, 2013, 03:30:11 AM |
|
How difficult would it be to implement the ability to tie a pool to a specific mining device?(Using backup pools as failiver only for each device) Probably not too difficult, but it'll be a lot easier when I get to rewriting the work-fetching interfaces to be cleaner. My concern is the unreliable load distribution using the various load balancing switches. An unproportionate amount of hashing power given to a pool that's having issues or underperforming could result in a huge loss in mining profit for the day. With ASICs rolling out in mass quantities soon, I predict pool issues are going to climb dramatically. Hmm, you may be right about older pools suffering more from ASICs. Already Deepbit is having trouble keeping up with some faster FPGA farms. I would recommend picking a couple of pools known to manage with ASIC-like loads to use - pretty much anything with vardiff and (GBT or stratum) should do the job. Personally, I prefer and recommend Eligius. Besides having originally started the pool, I also maintain the software that keeps it going, and have seen it tested with plenty of hashrate.
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 1808
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
March 30, 2013, 08:01:11 AM |
|
... Anyways, am I the only person concerned about even hashrate distribution and pool issues from ASIC rollout?
You are asking in the wrong thread. The pool balancing options were written in cgminer - they were just copied to the clone here. If they aren't working correctly in the clone, then consider that yet another reason to not use a clone, but instead use the original cgminer.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 30, 2013, 01:54:52 PM |
|
Ignore the troll
|
|
|
|
crazyates
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 30, 2013, 03:51:29 PM |
|
The pool balancing options were written in cgminer - they were just copied to the clone here.
Ignore the troll
Were the pool balancing options written by you, or by the CGMiner team? If the latter, then he has a point, and he's not trolling.
|
|
|
|
CrazyGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1973
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 30, 2013, 03:53:38 PM |
|
... Anyways, am I the only person concerned about even hashrate distribution and pool issues from ASIC rollout?
You are asking in the wrong thread. The pool balancing options were written in cgminer - they were just copied to the clone here. If they aren't working correctly in the clone, then consider that yet another reason to not use a clone, but instead use the original cgminer. I primarily use cgminer but I switch back and forth from time to time. I switched to bfgminer when I found out you removed BFL serial-usb support, which broke my instance based load balancing script. Not that I see any problem with libusb, I just needed to change the syntax of my start-up command. This led me to my next issue, cgminer cannot access my bfl devices unless I run as super user. I'll spend some time figuring it out later as I think it's important to have both forks of cpuminer ready to go in the event that one doesn't work properly with BFL ASICs. Load-balancing options in both forks are uneven and leave much to be desired. I brought it up in September and November in the cgminer thread but I seem to be the only person concerned about even load distribution across pools with ASIC devices. This is what led me to write my script to provide device based load balancing, and I'm just suggesting this would be a good thing to have in the application. I'm not upset, these are open source projects and I appreciate the work you guys have put into them with little to no monetary compensation. You've both advanced mining tremendously over the python based miners I used in the beginning. On that note, I think it's detrimental to the community that you guys are arguing in each others release threads. Personally, I'd like to see you guys working on the same branch. If that's not going to happen, why don't you just leave each other alone?
|
ASICPuppy.net ASIC Mining Hardware and Accessories - Compac F in stock!
|
|
|
crazyates
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 952
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 30, 2013, 06:21:43 PM |
|
I primarily use cgminer but I switch back and forth from time to time. I switched to bfgminer when I found out you removed BFL serial-usb support, which broke my instance based load balancing script. Not that I see any problem with libusb, I just needed to change the syntax of my start-up command. This led me to my next issue, cgminer cannot access my bfl devices unless I run as super user. I'll spend some time figuring it out later as I think it's important to have both forks of cpuminer ready to go in the event that one doesn't work properly with BFL ASICs.
Load-balancing options in both forks are uneven and leave much to be desired. I brought it up in September and November in the cgminer thread but I seem to be the only person concerned about even load distribution across pools with ASIC devices. This is what led me to write my script to provide device based load balancing, and I'm just suggesting this would be a good thing to have in the application. I'm not upset, these are open source projects and I appreciate the work you guys have put into them with little to no monetary compensation. You've both advanced mining tremendously over the python based miners I used in the beginning.
On that note, I think it's detrimental to the community that you guys are arguing in each others release threads. Personally, I'd like to see you guys working on the same branch. If that's not going to happen, why don't you just leave each other alone?
For not running as superuser, see Here. Worked for me.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 30, 2013, 06:57:35 PM |
|
The pool balancing options were written in cgminer - they were just copied to the clone here.
Ignore the troll
Were the pool balancing options written by you, or by the CGMiner team? If the latter, then he has a point, and he's not trolling. Nice try removing the rest of kano's troll. The pool balancing stuff was written by Con Kolivas, including all the bugs which CrazyBlane is concerned about. On that note, I think it's detrimental to the community that you guys are arguing in each others release threads. Personally, I'd like to see you guys working on the same branch. If that's not going to happen, why don't you just leave each other alone? I proposed a truce to Kano a month or two ago, that if he stopped trolling and FUD all over BFGMiner, I'd just ignore cgminer. He flatly refused.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 30, 2013, 11:26:57 PM |
|
bfgminer version 2.99.2 - Started: [2013-03-30 23:37:17] - [ 0 days 00:01:57 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5s:17.85 avg:16.58 u:14.26 Gh/s | A:342 R:0 S:0 HW:0 U:179.6/m ST: 2 DW: 10 GW: 3 LW: 494 GF: 0 NB: 1 AS: 0 RF: 0 E: 2.08 Connected to 192.168.1.1 diff 8 with stratum as user test Block: ...ee2e8a72 #3123 Diff:153 Started: [23:37:17] Best share: 528 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [P]ool management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit BFL 0: 45.0C | 17.83/17.52/14.58Gh/s | A:343 R:0 HW:0 U:180.16/m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2013-03-30 23:38:52] Stratum from pool 0 requested work update [2013-03-30 23:38:52] Accepted 0ecf365f BFL 0 Diff 17/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:53] Accepted a91d942c BFL 0 Diff 1/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:53] Accepted 15d55ee2 BFL 0 Diff 11/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:53] Accepted be2972c6 BFL 0 Diff 1/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:53] Accepted 9e87d2fd BFL 0 Diff 1/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:53] Accepted 7f854200 BFL 0 Diff 2/1 [2013-03-30 23:38:54] Accepted 03c5d641 BFL 0 Diff 67/8 [2013-03-30 23:39:08] Accepted 040aab96 BFL 0 Diff 63/8 [2013-03-30 23:39:09] Accepted 14997fe3 BFL 0 Diff 12/8 [2013-03-30 23:39:10] Accepted 123ded4b BFL 0 Diff 14/8 [2013-03-30 23:39:11] Accepted 0453e37f BFL 0 Diff 59/8 [2013-03-30 23:39:14] Accepted 06bd2321 BFL 0 Diff 37/8
|
|
|
|
Epoch
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 922
Merit: 1003
|
|
March 30, 2013, 11:28:44 PM |
|
Nice to see the SC hashing with BFGMiner, Luke.
|
|
|
|
Unacceptable
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 30, 2013, 11:44:33 PM |
|
So,is that a BFL unit Are you still at BFL helping to sort out the miner software Thanks Luke
|
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day long, you are the asshole." -Raylan Givens Got GOXXED ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KiqRpPiJAU&feature=youtu.be"An ASIC being late is perfectly normal, predictable, and legal..."Hashfast & BFL slogan
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4172
Merit: 8419
|
|
March 30, 2013, 11:44:54 PM |
|
Wee!
|
|
|
|
willphase
|
|
March 31, 2013, 12:58:07 AM |
|
presumably remoted into a host somewhere in the bowels of BFL HQ - good to see it hashing Will
|
|
|
|
smracer
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1055
Merit: 1020
|
|
March 31, 2013, 01:16:12 AM |
|
How many ASIC's are on that PCB? 2?
|
|
|
|
|