Topic: ANTMINER S2 Discussion and Support Thread - page 204. (Read 355730 times)
So its pretty much Dragon Miner vs Antminer s2 !! The one thing I wonder is if Bitmain will be able to keep up with china on manufacturing these things. You can get a 1 t/hs dragon miner right now and have it at your door like the sold out batch one S2 orders by April 1st for 3600$ !! I just hope Bitmain gets some stock going and stops doing Pre order batch orders. 1 or 2 batches is cool but once you go past that people are paying for a Pre order and getting it months later.. Anything longer then 2 weeks of time after you pay is too long .. People need to start getting the clue there is no reason to do Pre-orders for any type of mining hardware !! Those days are over there is way to much competetion for that crap !! And that goes for kncminer and any other manufacture!!
2x 30a, 120v - $1075/month. Full cabinet.
Typical datacenter limits are 10-20kw per rack. I've also seen this stated as watts per square foot. If you need more watts in a rack, they may be able to handle it, but you have to rent more datacenter space even if you aren't using it, so again you get to empty space. No real advantage to such high power densities unless there is an angle to it such as some usual situation such as extra available power capacity with little available space.
I have no doubt it is possible to design a non-commodity datacenter with >10-20kw/rack but then there will be additional costs, and the economics of those 1.25U miners which already aren't that good are even worse.
I'm also not aware of anyplace on earth with very low power costs that doesn't also have lots of available space.
The economics of 1 kw/u just don't make sense without some missing piece.
I have no doubt it is possible to design a non-commodity datacenter with >10-20kw/rack but then there will be additional costs, and the economics of those 1.25U miners which already aren't that good are even worse.
I'm also not aware of anyplace on earth with very low power costs that doesn't also have lots of available space.
The economics of 1 kw/u just don't make sense without some missing piece.
I had an electrician wire up 2x L6-30 sockets (30A 213V) and an L21-20 (20,20,20A 120V) for my space, giving me about 10kW of usable 213V and 6kW of 120V.
I PDU per outlet
I dont get the 20,20,20A 120v socket, I mean the whole three 20 thing. I PDU per outlet
That PDU doesn't take up very much space. If density required it, 4, 6 or even 8 is completely feasible, however if you're running a 40KW rack, you'll probably want to think about 3-phase.
Instead off say a 60a 208v 3ph PDU, couldn't someone just get 2 30a 220/240v PDU's, space permitting of course ?Might just mean an extra outlet / breaker etc.
I had an electrician wire up 2x L6-30 sockets (30A 213V) and an L21-20 (20,20,20A 120V) for my space, giving me about 10kW of usable 213V and 6kW of 120V.
I PDU per outlet
That PDU doesn't take up very much space. If density required it, 4, 6 or even 8 is completely feasible, however if you're running a 40KW rack, you'll probably want to think about 3-phase.
Instead off say a 60a 208v 3ph PDU, couldn't someone just get 2 30a 220/240v PDU's, space permitting of course ?Might just mean an extra outlet / breaker etc.
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
What sort of servers are used that have higher densities of power than the usual rack? (fitting with the scenario you suggested above).I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
there are examples of server racks that are 3 antminers/4U = >30 antminers or 12kW. I assume with enough airflow the high power demand can be handled. Most racks though are not often equipped with more than 1 or 2 6" PDU units, generally capable of 4-6kW each depending on the outlet style. However, adding another PDU or simply employing multiple shorter but equally powerful PDUs would at least deliver power to the rack.
Its also quite possible not many datacenters expect such power density, and may not have enough available outlets per rack even if airflow/cooling are not a limitation
The 2 DC that I'm in are completely modular, I can order multiple 60A 3-phase connections if I wanted, so power density isn't an issue. I currently have 2 30A 208v single phase per rack, which is enought for 27 S1's overclocked, and the plan will be for 10 S2's. Depending on the DC and their rules, you may be able to go above the 80%, at mine, the only thing I lose is the uptime guarantee if I trip my own breaker.
2 of these gives you a 10KW rack
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812120346
That PDU doesn't take up very much space. If density required it, 4, 6 or even 8 is completely feasible, however if you're running a 40KW rack, you'll probably want to think about 3-phase.
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
What sort of servers are used that have higher densities of power than the usual rack? (fitting with the scenario you suggested above).I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
there are examples of server racks that are 3 antminers/4U = >30 antminers or 12kW. I assume with enough airflow the high power demand can be handled. Most racks though are not often equipped with more than 1 or 2 6" PDU units, generally capable of 4-6kW each depending on the outlet style. However, adding another PDU or simply employing multiple shorter but equally powerful PDUs would at least deliver power to the rack.
Its also quite possible not many datacenters expect such power density, and may not have enough available outlets per rack even if airflow/cooling are not a limitation
The 2 DC that I'm in are completely modular, I can order multiple 60A 3-phase connections if I wanted, so power density isn't an issue. I currently have 2 30A 208v single phase per rack, which is enought for 27 S1's overclocked, and the plan will be for 10 S2's. Depending on the DC and their rules, you may be able to go above the 80%, at mine, the only thing I lose is the uptime guarantee if I trip my own breaker.
2 of these gives you a 10KW rack
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812120346
That PDU doesn't take up very much space. If density required it, 4, 6 or even 8 is completely feasible, however if you're running a 40KW rack, you'll probably want to think about 3-phase.
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
What sort of servers are used that have higher densities of power than the usual rack? (fitting with the scenario you suggested above).I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
there are examples of server racks that are 3 antminers/4U = >30 antminers or 12kW. I assume with enough airflow the high power demand can be handled. Most racks though are not often equipped with more than 1 or 2 6" PDU units, generally capable of 4-6kW each depending on the outlet style. However, adding another PDU or simply employing multiple shorter but equally powerful PDUs would at least deliver power to the rack.
Its also quite possible not many datacenters expect such power density, and may not have enough available outlets per rack even if airflow/cooling are not a limitation
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
What sort of servers are used that have higher densities of power than the usual rack? (fitting with the scenario you suggested above).The situation I described would have lower power density. Thus it would have excess power that could be balanced closer up to power density limits by putting some miners in the rack. An example would be servers that are usually idle, or large storage arrays. One might even speculate that "the Israelis" (I can't manage to get myself to memorize their name) have such a scenario in mind for their hosting produce, or a major customer who does.
BITMAIN can you tell us when you will start taking orders for batch 3?
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
What sort of servers are used that have higher densities of power than the usual rack? (fitting with the scenario you suggested above). I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
Yes I had previously done that calculation as well. The only thing I can think of is if you are (or maybe your employer is) already paying for a rack that is underutilized power-wise but has a little space left you can add a few of the miners.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
Capitalism at its finest right here boys. China comin' in and doin' it for cheaper 
hehehehe.
But what you didn't expect, is them having better customer service to boot. US and Eurozone just got doubly fucked there
hehehehe.But what you didn't expect, is them having better customer service to boot. US and Eurozone just got doubly fucked there
I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.
Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.
In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.
I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
I agree, but I would add one more thing. Size, if two machines are equal in everything, but one is twice as big as the other, I will take the small one, please.
how did you snag a bitmain shirt? I have ordered ~15 S1 units this year and no shirt lol
A dozen Antminers and no T-Shirt
I'll have to ask for one when I order one of these fancy new 1THs rigs next month Shouldn't they say more instead of less ? Running 100%load with 42% less failure than running 70% load ?
Doesnt feel right ?
Doesnt feel right ?
Time to failure is 42% less, meaning that it will fail a lot sooner than if running at 70% load.
42% of what 1 minute or 1 century, or the time it takes for....
If it is 1 century then I would not care as I would most likely be dead, if it is 42% of minute then I would be a bit pissed.
I couldn't give a rats ass about nanometers or "sexy" miners (seriously you guys need to get out more). All I care about is price, delivery, reliability, hash rate, and power usage.
Have to agree. "Sexy" looking miners that don't ROI aren't going to pay the bills. And women don't pull their clothes off because your server looks "cool". They pull their clothes off because your miner is filling your wallet with BTC.
Exactly. This guy is doing it right:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5769874
1. Exposed circuit boards and fans? Check.
2. Repurposed ATX power supplies? Check.
3. Miners that ship when ordered and ROI? Check.
4. Rat's nest of power and ethernet cables? Check
5. Girl taking off her clothes? Check.
i knew i bought the right miners!! they are running great .. now i am just waiting on all the hot babes to show up!
Shouldn't they say more instead of less ? Running 100%load with 42% less failure than running 70% load ?
Doesnt feel right ?
Doesnt feel right ?
Time to failure is 42% less, meaning that it will fail a lot sooner than if running at 70% load.
Jump to: