ANTMINER S5: 1155GH(+OverClock Potential), In Stock $0.319/GH & 0.51W/GH

[Duce]

Yes, I wonder what the new firmware will fix.
After running over night, I notice a large increase in rejects from my pool, Westhash. Any idea what if anything can be done?

Rejects are the red tips. You can see where I turned on the S5 and then later decommissioned the S3s.

Did you load your S3s with the cgminer 4.7/extranonoce.subscribe patch found on their website? If you did then that explains why the reject rate was almost nonexistent with those units. Without the patch (indicated with the green check on your Westhash status page) your miner will have a higher reject rate. I do not see a patch for the S5 units yet.

Wasn't aware of that Westhash status page but now have it up.  I went through my S3s installing cgminer 4.7.0 aprox two weeks ago and yet the status page shows all red crosses.  I'm running the Tues Aug 26 firmware release in each (original S3+ version) and just used PuTTY to recheck cgminer version ("cgminer-api version") and each reports 4.7.0.  Any idea what the problem might be?

PS. Each S3 has had configuration modifications since then as well as having been rebooted, but normally the cgminer install isn't affected by that.

Did you append #xnsub at the end of your miner host configuration entry?

TrevorS it should look like this:

Code:

stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub

[TrevorS]

Wasn't aware of that Westhash status page but now have it up.  I went through my S3s installing cgminer 4.7.0 aprox two weeks ago and yet the status page shows all red crosses.  I'm running the Tues Aug 26 firmware release in each (original S3+ version) and just used PuTTY to recheck cgminer version ("cgminer-api version") and each reports 4.7.0.  Any idea what the problem might be?

PS. Each S3 has had configuration modifications since then as well as having been rebooted, but normally the cgminer install isn't affected by that.

Did you append #xnsub at the end of your miner host configuration entry?

TrevorS it should look like this:

Code:

stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub

Well, I'll be damned!  Thanks very much kind sirs!

[visdude]

Well they arrived today! Now we've got some work to do.


host images

Strato

Congrats!

This got me salivating...reminds me of sushi rolls.  Birdie Num Num!

[TrevorS]

Wasn't aware of that Westhash status page but now have it up.  I went through my S3s installing cgminer 4.7.0 aprox two weeks ago and yet the status page shows all red crosses.  I'm running the Tues Aug 26 firmware release in each (original S3+ version) and just used PuTTY to recheck cgminer version ("cgminer-api version") and each reports 4.7.0.  Any idea what the problem might be?

PS. Each S3 has had configuration modifications since then as well as having been rebooted, but normally the cgminer install isn't affected by that.

Did you append #xnsub at the end of your miner host configuration entry?

TrevorS it should look like this:

Code:

stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub

Well, I'll be damned!  Thanks very much kind sirs!

I see no apparent difference in behavior/performance.  So, am I right in suspecting the only difference is a green check vs a red cross?  Does using cgminer 4.7.0 solve the performance problem, whereas the #xnsub suffix merely provides visual acknowledgement?  Just a question!

[Duce]

Wasn't aware of that Westhash status page but now have it up.  I went through my S3s installing cgminer 4.7.0 aprox two weeks ago and yet the status page shows all red crosses.  I'm running the Tues Aug 26 firmware release in each (original S3+ version) and just used PuTTY to recheck cgminer version ("cgminer-api version") and each reports 4.7.0.  Any idea what the problem might be?

PS. Each S3 has had configuration modifications since then as well as having been rebooted, but normally the cgminer install isn't affected by that.

Did you append #xnsub at the end of your miner host configuration entry?

TrevorS it should look like this:

Code:

stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub

Well, I'll be damned!  Thanks very much kind sirs!

I see no apparent difference in behavior/performance.  So, am I right in suspecting the only difference is a green check vs a red cross?  Does using cgminer 4.7.0 solve the performance problem, whereas the #xnsub suffix merely provides visual acknowledgement?  Just a question!

The #xsub enables the extranonoce.subscribe subscription. That cgminer version from their website was compiled with this feature. The green check is there to indicate you have this feature enabled. I loaded it on my S3's and and enabled them, very little rejects. This is also supposed to help when they switch from using your miner or not (there is a blurb on the site about this). I no longer have my S3's or I would provide a screen shot. Are you getting a significant amount of rejects?

EDIT: you could try setting up a proxy server as well. Here is the link to all of their S/W and the proxy https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=software#cgminer. I hope this sheds some light.

[takagari]

Do you have a Canadian reseller with known stock?
Great price,  but importing one will kill me

[TrevorS]

Wasn't aware of that Westhash status page but now have it up.  I went through my S3s installing cgminer 4.7.0 aprox two weeks ago and yet the status page shows all red crosses.  I'm running the Tues Aug 26 firmware release in each (original S3+ version) and just used PuTTY to recheck cgminer version ("cgminer-api version") and each reports 4.7.0.  Any idea what the problem might be?

PS. Each S3 has had configuration modifications since then as well as having been rebooted, but normally the cgminer install isn't affected by that.

Did you append #xnsub at the end of your miner host configuration entry?

TrevorS it should look like this:

Code:

stratum+tcp://stratum.westhash.com:3334#xnsub

Well, I'll be damned!  Thanks very much kind sirs!

I see no apparent difference in behavior/performance.  So, am I right in suspecting the only difference is a green check vs a red cross?  Does using cgminer 4.7.0 solve the performance problem, whereas the #xnsub suffix merely provides visual acknowledgement?  Just a question!

The #xsub enables the extranonoce.subscribe subscription. That cgminer version from their website was compiled with this feature. The green check is there to indicate you have this feature enabled. I loaded it on my S3's and and enabled them, very little rejects. This is also supposed to help when they switch from using your miner or not (there is a blurb on the site about this). I no longer have my S3's or I would provide a screen shot. Are you getting a significant amount of rejects?

EDIT: you could try setting up a proxy server as well. Here is the link to all of their S/W and the proxy https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=software#cgminer. I hope this sheds some light.

A difficult question. Since installing the 4.7.0 cgminer from NiceHash, I haven't observed a significant number of rejects, mostly the count has been zero. Likewise the current count since adding the suffix. I don't mean to question either Westhash or current participants, just trying to evaluate my current return. This stuff tends to be obtuse!  I'm currently inclined to think whatever difference there is is associated with the change of miner, not the Configuration parameter.

[MrTeal]

Well, I can see why Bitmain struck the verbiage from their post about running on 9V. This is not authoritative by any stretch, as it's done on a single unit, but undervolting doesn't seem that effective here. I'll have to look into if I can share numbers (it wasn't one I bought for myself or was given as a review, they were purchased by someone for the sake of me testing them for them) but so far I've only gotten the S5 stable at 312.5 at 11.0V, and not stable much under that. If I start at 11V I can lower it to 10.75@300MHz, but I can't get it to fire up from being off at 10.75V at any frequency.

I wonder if Bitmain added that term based on chip efficiency and voltage in testing, and then just multiplied the voltage by 14 for their figures. Hopefully it's just balancing protections added in FW that can be solved later.

[MrTeal]

The test unit also seems to cut out at 9.45V @ 200MHz even if I start at a higher voltage, and 9.75V @ 250MHz.

If anyone else has had any luck starting these at 10V or under I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Duce]

@Ilan123, I put 2 delta fans on and it is rather quite now, running at 54-56c with an RPM at 2880 for both fans when I last looked. I don't have the P/N with me right now though. My SP20's are about 70db and the S5 about 60db with the new fans. It was louder than my other units before the change but I did not take a reading. Others have the stock db level from the S5 units here though. I will get particulars later like ambient room temp and the P/N for the fans later today.

Fan: Delta AFC1212DE, 12vdc, 1.6A, 3900 RPM, 192.96CFM, 51 dBA, 120mm x120mm x 38mm or equivalent. These came out of some old Dell desktops, Dell P/N: Y4574. Right now room temp 26.1C, blades at 57-55 with the fans at 3K and 3120.

Here is a video with the delta fans installed on the S5. I am using my SP20s for reference. This video was taken with my phone.http://vid1284.photobucket.com/albums/a568/rponce454/MINER%20SOUND-Small_zpsyi3zjhtk.mp4

[Stratobitz]

I would suggest that the first thing to do is by hearing protectors.

Haha, well we have the replacement fans ready to install. And these will be in a server room kept nice and chilly.
U
We will be selling off some of our B7 / B8 S3+ units to free up some PSUs.

Perfect condition, housed in Server Room at 64 F (approx) Hepa Air Handler. Clean and Like New.

I apologize if this is off topic but if there is any interest just shoot me a PM.

Strato

I am curious though. If these are in a server room, why tinker with the fans at all? Is there a noise concern in the room? I thought the issue with the S5 fan was strictly noise related.

The server room does have a high noise floor to begin with. But I was concerned these might be over the top db wise.

Strato

Also from what I have noticed with servers is that noise affects the performance of reading from and writing to the mechanical hard drives (SSD's are obviously unaffected by noise vibration as they have no moving parts). The noisier the environment, the slower they get.

BTW, is anyone able to compare the noise to an S4 please? I have an S4 and had to find another location for it. I had my neighbour knocking on my door asking what the hell the noise was and saying that he could not sleep with it (we both are in separate houses and his bedroom is about 50 meters away from my house). I have seen reports of the S4 between 70 and 90 db but not sure how accurate they were. It would be great if someone could do a test using the same metering device at the same distances for testing both.

Interesting Ive never heard that. All system critical drives were upgraded to SSD long ago. The only spinning drives left would be the large raid units, but they're housed in 8 FT Rack Cabinets, and the drives are all enterprise grade.

But yea SSDs are the way to go. I recently upgraded my workstation RAID to 16 Crucial 960 GB SSDs in two groups of 8, each on RAID 0. Im getting 5.50 GB/s read write performance between the two, and 2 GB/s transfers on our 10GBe Dual Network Cards.

Amazing how fast things have gotten.

I know this seems off topic, but just responding to your comments on drives... And thinking how in terms of speed and how fast the technology is getting... Bitcoin seems to be the lone ranger going in the opposite direction.

But perhaps thats the point.



Strato

[Sine(X)]

Is Bitmain already in USA?

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/01/09/leases-in-2014-up-37-in-north-american-data-center-market/

[coinits]

Can I run these using wifi or does net a direct connection to the router?

[mazedk]

Is Bitmain already in USA?

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/01/09/leases-in-2014-up-37-in-north-american-data-center-market/

Thats a good bet. Bitmain or s private operation backed by some serious $$'s ..

[Rabinovitch]

Can I run these using wifi or does net a direct connection to the router?

You can't.

[Biodom]

Can I run these using wifi or does net a direct connection to the router?

You can't.

You can run it in a place physically separated from your main router using a bridge.
For example, using airport extreme as a router, then bridge with airport express in another room. In this setup miner would be connected to the bridge either directly or through the ethernet hub, but you are effectively mining wirelessly. The advantage-you can do it pretty much anywhere in the house/apartment.

[dissolution]

If you have an older router load it with DDWRT      you can plug as many antminers into that router as there is ports.

Set up DDRWRT as a client bridge.... It will connect to your router. basically you could have a small farm run as far as the signal goes and not have to run a cable.

If the signal is good this works. if not you can increase the transmit signal on the router..

If I am too far I get drop outs but this is how I connect my S1 in the garage right now

[aurel57]

The test unit also seems to cut out at 9.45V @ 200MHz even if I start at a higher voltage, and 9.75V @ 250MHz.

If anyone else has had any luck starting these at 10V or under I'd be interested in hearing it.

This is a little disappointing.

[Xian01]

If you have an older router load it with DDWRT      you can plug as many antminers into that router as there is ports.
Set up DDRWRT as a client bridge.... It will connect to your router. basically you could have a small farm run as far as the signal goes and not have to run a cable.
If the signal is good this works. if not you can increase the transmit signal on the router..
If I am too far I get drop outs but this is how I connect my S1 in the garage right now

+1 for DDWRT. I use this on all of my Linksys routers as wireless bridges for all the miners running in various rooms and the garage.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index

[dogie]

Well, I can see why Bitmain struck the verbiage from their post about running on 9V. This is not authoritative by any stretch, as it's done on a single unit, but undervolting doesn't seem that effective here. I'll have to look into if I can share numbers (it wasn't one I bought for myself or was given as a review, they were purchased by someone for the sake of me testing them for them) but so far I've only gotten the S5 stable at 312.5 at 11.0V, and not stable much under that. If I start at 11V I can lower it to 10.75@300MHz, but I can't get it to fire up from being off at 10.75V at any frequency.

I wonder if Bitmain added that term based on chip efficiency and voltage in testing, and then just multiplied the voltage by 14 for their figures. Hopefully it's just balancing protections added in FW that can be solved later.

The test unit also seems to cut out at 9.45V @ 200MHz even if I start at a higher voltage, and 9.75V @ 250MHz.

If anyone else has had any luck starting these at 10V or under I'd be interested in hearing it.

I've poked the right people who can answer this, they'll be along shortly [after weekend]