I plugged a lamp into where I have my 2 Antminer S3+ running. Every minute or so the light flickers slightly.
Anyway to solve this? I am assuming this is inrush current with the mining cores changing clock rates or fans adjusting their speeds.
Topic: ANTMINER S3+ Discussion and Support Thread - page 66. (Read 710164 times)
your s3 has a TON of hwe.. it might be worth a repaste.
plus i dont see your difficulty..
update to the 12/19 firmware and see how that works..
if the difficulty is low on the s3 the shares will be low..
plus i dont see your difficulty..
update to the 12/19 firmware and see how that works..
if the difficulty is low on the s3 the shares will be low..
Oh, come on!.. According to this formula:
HW / (diffA + diffR + HW) * 100
he has very few HW error rate. 0.00035% if I counted correctly.
^^^ You are mixing up numbers, the amperage quoted is at 12v DC (twelve volts direct current) but neither 120v AC nor 240v AC.
Thanks Doh
over-complicate things for myself I did.
Thank you pekatete. You have given me a heaping of great information in your threads.
Dogie, I appreciate you coming in to confirm my mishap. I can still claim n00bness though eh'
Special thanks on search too, that is a huge boon!
You are more than welcome .... I try to answer as concisely as I can, whenever I can (without waffling).
^^^ You are mixing up numbers, the amperage quoted is at 12v DC (twelve volts direct current) but neither 120v AC nor 240v AC.
Thanks Doh
over-complicate things for myself I did.
Thank you pekatete. You have given me a heaping of great information in your threads.
Dogie, I appreciate you coming in to confirm my mishap. I can still claim n00bness though eh'
Special thanks on search too, that is a huge boon!
I know this has previously been discussed but the lack of search is killing my time looking for a refresher. I appreciate your patience when explaining these things. If you know of a page in this thread or another thread where I can find these answers please point me in the right direction.
All of my discussion is 'US residential" 240vAC (2 wires each measuring 120vAC and a ground) and not what I normally see in Industrial locations 240 / 480 3 phase. The same which runs most dryers in your home.
I am moving some miners over to a new 240vAC circuit and before actually pulling the plug so to speak I wanted to re check my numbers.
I remember being told and I think it was this thread that each blade has the potential to pull 13.8 amps. When I start running my own numbers based off the product specifications at BITMAIN I see 366 watts 'at the wall' being specified.
Re-reading page 1 of this thread does indeed quote both numbers. This leaves me confused.
I assume the 13.83 number is quoted at 120vAC. Which if I run 366w at 120vAC I expect 3.05 AMPS.
At 240vAC and 366w I expect 1.525a and so on.
Please help me understand this point. I do have a licensed electrician who approves my work, but, I must give him the correct information for his approval to be worth something.
I am wondering if this is the difference between a quoted nominal voltage - 240vac 1.525 Amps and the number thrown out of 13.83 at 120vAC being 1659.6 watts and respectively 240vAC at 6.915 Amps being the same wattage as only amperage draw would be affected with the voltage change.
Is the quoted 366 watts a nominal draw where 1660 watts is similar to the inrush from a motor starting and that is what the S3 or S3+ would draw at Max load during startup?
Some breakers have inrush protection to handle the additional load / draw at power up. A timer which can be set, usually a dial you turn to adjust the amount of time the inrush is allowed. Is this type of thing the difference in the quoted numbers or is it something else I am missing entirely?
I appreciate your help and hope anyone reading this knows I am doing everything possible to be safe and so should you. I double, triple, and quadruple check my breaker type and size, wire size and length, psu specifications and ratings, the wire size going to the miner and connection points, ie the connectors themselves where the wire attaches to the miner or any other components.
Noise levels are not a concern to me at this time. I love the noise. It blocks out other distractions.
Thanks for your time.
super tldr, the referred 13.8A will be at 12V (twelve), from the PSU = 165W. Its not a discussion about 120V or 240V. Form search is back up and upgraded now.
^^^ You are mixing up numbers, the amperage quoted is at 12v DC (twelve volts direct current) but neither 120v AC nor 240v AC.
I know this has previously been discussed but the lack of search is killing my time looking for a refresher. I appreciate your patience when explaining these things. If you know of a page in this thread or another thread where I can find these answers please point me in the right direction.
All of my discussion is 'US residential" 240vAC (2 wires each measuring 120vAC and a ground) and not what I normally see in Industrial locations 240 / 480 3 phase. The same which runs most dryers in your home.
I am moving some miners over to a new 240vAC circuit and before actually pulling the plug so to speak I wanted to re check my numbers.
I remember being told and I think it was this thread that each blade has the potential to pull 13.8 amps. When I start running my own numbers based off the product specifications at BITMAIN I see 366 watts 'at the wall' being specified.
Re-reading page 1 of this thread does indeed quote both numbers. This leaves me confused.
I assume the 13.83 number is quoted at 120vAC. Which if I run 366w at 120vAC I expect 3.05 AMPS.
At 240vAC and 366w I expect 1.525a and so on.
Please help me understand this point. I do have a licensed electrician who approves my work, but, I must give him the correct information for his approval to be worth something.
I am wondering if this is the difference between a quoted nominal voltage - 240vac 1.525 Amps and the number thrown out of 13.83 at 120vAC being 1659.6 watts and respectively 240vAC at 6.915 Amps being the same wattage as only amperage draw would be affected with the voltage change.
Is the quoted 366 watts a nominal draw where 1660 watts is similar to the inrush from a motor starting and that is what the S3 or S3+ would draw at Max load during startup?
Some breakers have inrush protection to handle the additional load / draw at power up. A timer which can be set, usually a dial you turn to adjust the amount of time the inrush is allowed. Is this type of thing the difference in the quoted numbers or is it something else I am missing entirely?
I appreciate your help and hope anyone reading this knows I am doing everything possible to be safe and so should you. I double, triple, and quadruple check my breaker type and size, wire size and length, psu specifications and ratings, the wire size going to the miner and connection points, ie the connectors themselves where the wire attaches to the miner or any other components.
Noise levels are not a concern to me at this time. I love the noise. It blocks out other distractions.
Thanks for your time.
Maybe someone here can explain these strange issues I am having between an antminer S1 (works like it should) and antminer S3 (doesn't work right to me)...
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k?
WTF???
So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
Antminer S3
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k?
WTF???So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
Antminer S3
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
your s3 has a TON of hwe.. it might be worth a repaste.
plus i dont see your difficulty..
update to the 12/19 firmware and see how that works..
if the difficulty is low on the s3 the shares will be low..
12-19 and 10-24 should be identical performance wise, but 12-19 includes the extremely important reset button fix.
Identical is no where near accurate .... have you any guidance as to what versions of cgminer ship with either?
Thanks! Did you got any replay?
No reply unfortunately. I'm sure this has been asked about the S1 and someone came up with an ebay listing but with forum search down I was unable to locate it. I've found listings on globalsources which just refer to similar looking cables as X pin flat ribbon cables, that's the closest I can get.
Same on my end. In most cases I get fast respond but not this time... S1 cable will not work. It is different... I looked...
I think a lot of people were travelling this week, so hopefully back to normal and some replies on Monday.
Dogie, you have a copy of the 10/24 firmware I can download?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10170014
1219 (the fixed version of 1024) is below
Download link is here. Rolls back to the last good patch in Oct (1024), but fixes voltage adjustment and the important reset button. MD5: 7DF1B12D28B25E10AAC37E2EAFC7397B
[This is 1219 = 19th Dec 2014 firmware]
[This is 1219 = 19th Dec 2014 firmware]
And 1024 is rehosted on mega here. Couldn't find the MD5 though.
Are both of these from BITMAIN?
I have been running some on 10-24 and 12-19. The better overclockers I run on the strongest PSUs since the voltage does have an effect. The poorer performers I have been running 12-19 with until I get to whichever unit and figure out why it is hashing slower than the others.
In my experience it has been the unit which decides which firmware is better. Or there is a possibility I'm not doing something right.
I set the poor performers to 218 / 0720
12-19 and 10-24 should be identical performance wise, but 12-19 includes the extremely important reset button fix. Please upgrade to that, you'll be grateful when a unit soft bricks and you don't have to send it in for repair.
Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k? WTF???
So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
WTF???So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
Best share doesn't really mean anything when you're pool mining, as you're getting paid to attempt to find a block, not when you find a block. Even then, best share is just a representation of the luck a miner receives.
In this case as well, best share's coding has been a bit weird on the last few miners so it shouldn't be looked at in any detail. I'm surprised you're seeing any number in there at all when you're difficulty is 2^n [which usually makes it display 0].
Then if that is true the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday as far as solo or p2pool mining would go where best share is what gets you paid. Now regular pool mining that's different and goes by submitted number of shares
You can draw your own conclusions from your observations of best share found, but the fact will remain that it is pure luck that the S1 finds a higher size share than the S3 in your "tests". Maybe someone here can explain these strange issues I am having between an antminer S1 (works like it should) and antminer S3 (doesn't work right to me)...
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k? WTF???
So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k?
WTF???So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
The guy who told you it was simply luck that your S1 had a better best share than your S3, I am afraid to say, is right.
Then if that is true the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday as far as solo or p2pool mining would go where best share is what gets you paid. Now regular pool mining that's different and goes by submitted number of shares
Maybe someone here can explain these strange issues I am having between an antminer S1 (works like it should) and antminer S3 (doesn't work right to me)...
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k? WTF???
So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k?
WTF???So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
The guy who told you it was simply luck that your S1 had a better best share than your S3, I am afraid to say, is right.
Maybe someone here can explain these strange issues I am having between an antminer S1 (works like it should) and antminer S3 (doesn't work right to me)...
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k? WTF???
So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
This is my problem tried all firmware versions and have found the same issues and I recognize it as a problem because my S3 is not working as it should. Let me explain as you can see from the images below the S1 has a best share of 5.5 million, but the S3 is still sitting around the 1k?
WTF???So does this mean that the S1 is truly better then the S3 even though the S3 have 4-5 times the hashrate or is there actually something wrong with the firmware yet again. IDK if anyone has this same problem but me myself I think that S3 should be around 20-30 million by now after 12 hours of runtime. I don't believe this is "luck" as it is on a pool and yes have tried others with the same results.
Antminer S1
https://i.imgur.com/hXv9p9g.png
Antminer S3
https://i.imgur.com/k8AHDDh.png
I have posted this issue before on a different thread and someone told me it was a "luck" issue and if so then that means the S1 is FAR better then the S3 anyday and I don't believe that believe this is a firmware or maybe CGminer software related issue. Because I still don't think the S1 should have such a high best share reported and the S3 be so low and no the miner does not act strange in anyway. It runs fine and is on a EVGA 750 B2 PSU (brand new) also have tried it on the CX 500 PSU the S1 is on and same problem.
Also ran both of them for 3 days on p2pool and the S1 had a BS of 14 million + but the S3 didn't even hit 8 million so therefore the S1 was finding all the shares and the S3 didn't do a thing.
seems bitmain no longer updates antminer s3 +? 
Dogie, you have a copy of the 10/24 firmware I can download?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10170014
1219 (the fixed version of 1024) is below
Download link is here. Rolls back to the last good patch in Oct (1024), but fixes voltage adjustment and the important reset button. MD5: 7DF1B12D28B25E10AAC37E2EAFC7397B
[This is 1219 = 19th Dec 2014 firmware]
[This is 1219 = 19th Dec 2014 firmware]
And 1024 is rehosted on mega here. Couldn't find the MD5 though.
Are both of these from BITMAIN?
I have been running some on 10-24 and 12-19. The better overclockers I run on the strongest PSUs since the voltage does have an effect. The poorer performers I have been running 12-19 with until I get to whichever unit and figure out why it is hashing slower than the others.
In my experience it has been the unit which decides which firmware is better. Or there is a possibility I'm not doing something right.
I set the poor performers to 218 / 0720
Hi Guys,
I need to change default API port on couple of S3's but cant find any config. When I add --api-port 4030 to cgminer, my miner is not starting.
My cgminer line is like this:
PARAMS="$AOPTIONS $POOL1 $POOL2 $POOL3 $_pb $_ow $_bec --api-listen --api-allow $_aa --api-port 4030 --bitmain-checkn2diff --bitmain-hwerror --queue 4096"
So where do I change API port?
Thank in advance
I need to change default API port on couple of S3's but cant find any config. When I add --api-port 4030 to cgminer, my miner is not starting.
My cgminer line is like this:
PARAMS="$AOPTIONS $POOL1 $POOL2 $POOL3 $_pb $_ow $_bec --api-listen --api-allow $_aa --api-port 4030 --bitmain-checkn2diff --bitmain-hwerror --queue 4096"
So where do I change API port?
Thank in advance
Thanks! Did you got any replay?
No reply unfortunately. I'm sure this has been asked about the S1 and someone came up with an ebay listing but with forum search down I was unable to locate it. I've found listings on globalsources which just refer to similar looking cables as X pin flat ribbon cables, that's the closest I can get.
Same on my end. In most cases I get fast respond but not this time... S1 cable will not work. It is different... I looked...
Its the same... 'type'... though, so I was hoping it would give us a name we could follow and look for a double row 20 pin.
Hi!
I ordered replacement control board for S3+ with cables to be send together with my S5. Just got the board. Is there a EU suppler where I can find the cables? What do I need to put to google to find this cable?
Thanks
I ordered replacement control board for S3+ with cables to be send together with my S5. Just got the board. Is there a EU suppler where I can find the cables? What do I need to put to google to find this cable?
Thanks
This is mail communication from a moment they told me that unit is no longer in warranty(there is also some communication of a failed blade). mail addresses removed:
Quote
Hi!
There was special requirement! I asked for it. In mail and in the order. Can you just tell me where do you buy it(so I can see name of this part) or tell me the name of this part. I can look for it in EU. Or do I have to use soldering iron?
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
If one customer orders one control board, there would be no cable shipped out if no special requirement.
May you know more details what's the issue?
If you have new order, we may ship out an extra cable to you together with it.
Thanks.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-30 15:32 GMT+08:00
Hi!
Well
Since the warranty was over I bought that. So I didn't return anything. I bought 2 controller boards. One as a spare since I already have 2 of them failed.
Cables for S3 are also spares. I did damage one when testing what was wrong so I would like to replace that one and have one as spare.
You can read back in this mail or look at the order
This is what I order when you told me that unit is no longer in warranty
»So if I would like to order 2 controllers(one with cables just in case) and one S5.«
And this is a comment in order for S5 [removed] (where I paid for 2 S3 controller boards):
Order Notes:
I need 2 additional S3 control boards(one with cables). I was told over the mail that I need to make an order and I will be told how much I need to add to payment later.
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
generally, we ship out the good replacement the same as the parts you return to us.
may you confirm whether you returned it?
the cables for S3+ and S5 are different.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-29 20:17 GMT+08:00
Hi!
I got S5 and 2 S3 controler boards. But cables were missing…
This is from this mail:
»So if I would like to order 2 controlers(one with cables just in case) and one S5.«
Video of me opening a pacage
[removed]
Where can I get them?
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Thanks, please wait for tracking number in your account patiently.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-14 20:15 GMT+08:00
Paid:
https://blockchain.info/tx/[removed]
I'm sorry it took so long but I was sleeping…
Regards
________________________________________
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
Please continue to pay for 0.3542btc to this order for 2 S3 control board.
Inform us after you pay for it and we'll add some comment in it.
Thanks.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-14 7:13 GMT+08:00
This is the order
1.787 BTC Pay:1.787 BTC
Confirm:1.787 BTC Paid
Unshipped
Valid 2015-01-13 22:49:22.0 View
Edit
Regards
________________________________________
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
In that case, please inform us the order id after you place the S5, I'll provide the amount that you need to pay more for this order for the 2 control boards.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-12 20:18 GMT+08:00 :
Hi!
Just got the blade. So all I need now is a controler… So if I would like to order 2 controlers(one with cables just in case) and one S5. How do I go fowerd.
Regards
There was special requirement! I asked for it. In mail and in the order. Can you just tell me where do you buy it(so I can see name of this part) or tell me the name of this part. I can look for it in EU. Or do I have to use soldering iron?
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
If one customer orders one control board, there would be no cable shipped out if no special requirement.
May you know more details what's the issue?
If you have new order, we may ship out an extra cable to you together with it.
Thanks.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-30 15:32 GMT+08:00
Hi!
Well
Since the warranty was over I bought that. So I didn't return anything. I bought 2 controller boards. One as a spare since I already have 2 of them failed.
Cables for S3 are also spares. I did damage one when testing what was wrong so I would like to replace that one and have one as spare.
You can read back in this mail or look at the order
This is what I order when you told me that unit is no longer in warranty
»So if I would like to order 2 controllers(one with cables just in case) and one S5.«
And this is a comment in order for S5 [removed] (where I paid for 2 S3 controller boards):
Order Notes:
I need 2 additional S3 control boards(one with cables). I was told over the mail that I need to make an order and I will be told how much I need to add to payment later.
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
generally, we ship out the good replacement the same as the parts you return to us.
may you confirm whether you returned it?
the cables for S3+ and S5 are different.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-29 20:17 GMT+08:00
Hi!
I got S5 and 2 S3 controler boards. But cables were missing…
This is from this mail:
»So if I would like to order 2 controlers(one with cables just in case) and one S5.«
Video of me opening a pacage
[removed]
Where can I get them?
Regards
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Thanks, please wait for tracking number in your account patiently.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-14 20:15 GMT+08:00
Paid:
https://blockchain.info/tx/[removed]
I'm sorry it took so long but I was sleeping…
Regards
________________________________________
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
Please continue to pay for 0.3542btc to this order for 2 S3 control board.
Inform us after you pay for it and we'll add some comment in it.
Thanks.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-14 7:13 GMT+08:00
This is the order
1.787 BTC Pay:1.787 BTC
Confirm:1.787 BTC Paid
Unshipped
Valid 2015-01-13 22:49:22.0 View
Edit
Regards
________________________________________
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Odg: Re: Odg: Re: Failed blade
Hi,
In that case, please inform us the order id after you place the S5, I'll provide the amount that you need to pay more for this order for the 2 control boards.
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2015-01-12 20:18 GMT+08:00 :
Hi!
Just got the blade. So all I need now is a controler… So if I would like to order 2 controlers(one with cables just in case) and one S5. How do I go fowerd.
Regards
And this is a start of this conversation of a failed blade... So you can see how long it took...
Quote
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: 'Bitmain Tech'
Subject: RE: Failed blade
Hi!
Screenshot:[removed]
Regards
________________________________________
From: Bitmain Tech
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 8:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Failed blade
HI,
Please provide us the screenshot of Miner status as reference.
Please refer to below trouble shooting guide as reference and connect the blade one by one to confirm whether each one can work well.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7598229
Best Regards
BITMAIN
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
2014-11-30 2:21 GMT+08:00:
Hi!
I have failed blade on one of the S3+. When I tested if there is something I can do I did replace controller and cables but that had no effect. And controller from failed unit worked on working one. So I'm pretty sure it is the blade. Below you can find a startup log.
This is order:
[removed] 1.16 BTC Pay:1.16 BTC
Confirm:1.16 BTC Paid
Shipped
Valid 2014-08-18 16:00:27.0 View
If you would like I can give you access to the unit…
If that makes any difference. Blade is green and have shiny voltage controllers(some of my S3+ have blue and voltage controller is not shiny).
Regards
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x00000000-0x03ffffff]
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] On node 0 totalpages: 16384
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] free_area_init_node: node 0, pgdat 803005b0, node_mem_map 81000000
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] Normal zone: 128 pages used for memmap
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] Normal zone: 0 pages reserved
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] Normal zone: 16384 pages, LIFO batch:3
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.000000] Primary instruction cache 64kB, VIPT, 4-way, linesize 32 bytes.
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.000000] Primary data cache 32kB, 4-way, VIPT, cache aliases, linesize 32 bytes
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: s0 r0 d32768 u32768 alloc=1*32768
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc:
- 0
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: board=TL-WR741ND-v4 console=ttyATH0,115200 rootfstype=squashfs,jffs2 noinitrd
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] PID hash table entries: 256 (order: -2, 1024 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] Dentry cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] Inode-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 2, 16384 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] Writing ErrCtl register=00000000
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] Readback ErrCtl register=00000000
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] Memory: 61336k/65536k available (2187k kernel code, 4200k reserved, 588k data, 232k init, 0k highmem)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] SLUB: HWalign=32, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=1, Nodes=1
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.000000] NR_IRQS:51
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.080000] Calibrating delay loop... 265.42 BogoMIPS (lpj=1327104)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.080000] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.080000] Mount-cache hash table entries: 512
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.090000] NET: Registered protocol family 16
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.100000] MIPS: machine is TP-LINK TL-WR741ND v4
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.100000] MAC FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.100000] MAC 20:59:a0:c8:69:bf
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.560000] bio: create slab
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.560000] Switching to clocksource MIPS
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.570000] NET: Registered protocol family 2
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.570000] TCP established hash table entries: 512 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.580000] TCP bind hash table entries: 512 (order: -1, 2048 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.580000] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 512 bind 512)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.590000] TCP: reno registered
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.590000] UDP hash table entries: 256 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.600000] UDP-Lite hash table entries: 256 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.610000] NET: Registered protocol family 1
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.debug kernel: [ 0.610000] PCI: CLS 0 bytes, default 32
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.630000] squashfs: version 4.0 (2009/01/31) Phillip Lougher
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.630000] jffs2: version 2.2 (NAND) (SUMMARY) (LZMA) (RTIME) (CMODE_PRIORITY) (c) 2001-2006 Red Hat, Inc.
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.640000] msgmni has been set to 119
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.650000] io scheduler noop registered
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.650000] io scheduler deadline registered (default)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.650000] Serial: 8250/16550 driver, 1 ports, IRQ sharing disabled
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.660000] ar933x-uart: ttyATH0 at MMIO 0x18020000 (irq = 11) is a AR933X UART
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.670000] console [ttyATH0] enabled, bootconsole disabled
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.680000] ath79-spi ath79-spi: master is unqueued, this is deprecated
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.690000] m25p80 spi0.0: found gd25q64, expected m25p80
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.690000] m25p80 spi0.0: gd25q64 (8192 Kbytes)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.700000] 5 tp-link partitions found on MTD device spi0.0
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.700000] Creating 5 MTD partitions on "spi0.0":
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.710000] 0x000000000000-0x000000020000 : "u-boot"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.710000] 0x000000020000-0x000000117d60 : "kernel"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.720000] mtd: partition "kernel" must either start or end on erase block boundary or be smaller than an erase block -- forcing read-only
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.730000] 0x000000117d60-0x0000007f0000 : "rootfs"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 0.730000] mtd: partition "rootfs" must either start or end on erase block boundary or be smaller than an erase block -- forcing read-only
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.750000] mtd: partition "rootfs" set to be root filesystem
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.750000] mtd: partition "rootfs_data" created automatically, ofs=0x370000, len=0x480000
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.760000] 0x000000370000-0x0000007f0000 : "rootfs_data"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.770000] 0x000000020000-0x0000007f0000 : "firmware"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 0.770000] 0x0000007f0000-0x000000800000 : "art"
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.790000] libphy: ag71xx_mdio: probed
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 0.800000] eth0: Atheros AG71xx at 0xba000000, irq 5, mode:GMII
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 1.350000] eth0: Found an AR7240/AR9330 built-in switch
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.390000] eth1: Atheros AG71xx at 0xb9000000, irq 4, mode:MII
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.940000] ag71xx ag71xx.0 eth1: connected to PHY at ag71xx-mdio.1:04 [uid=004dd041, driver=Generic PHY]
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.950000] TCP: cubic registered
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.950000] NET: Registered protocol family 17
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.960000] 8021q: 802.1Q VLAN Support v1.8
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.970000] VFS: Mounted root (squashfs filesystem) readonly on device 31:2.
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 2.980000] Freeing unused kernel memory: 232K (80316000 - 80350000)
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.740000] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbfs
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.740000] usbcore: registered new interface driver hub
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.750000] usbcore: registered new device driver usb
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.760000] usbcore: registered new interface driver bitmain
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 5.760000] hash ok
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 5.760000] hashtest OK
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.err kernel: [ 5.770000] bitmain-asic: success to register device
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.770000] usbcore: registered new interface driver bitmainbl
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.780000] ehci_hcd: USB 2.0 'Enhanced' Host Controller (EHCI) Driver
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.790000] ehci-platform: EHCI generic platform driver
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.790000] ehci-platform ehci-platform: EHCI Host Controller
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.800000] ehci-platform ehci-platform: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.810000] ehci-platform ehci-platform: irq 3, io mem 0x1b000000
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.830000] ehci-platform ehci-platform: USB 2.0 started, EHCI 1.00
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.830000] hub 1-0:1.0: USB hub found
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 5.830000] hub 1-0:1.0: 1 port detected
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 6.190000] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-platform
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 6.340000] hub 1-1:1.0: USB hub found
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 6.340000] hub 1-1:1.0: 2 ports detected
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 6.630000] usb 1-1.1: new full-speed USB device number 3 using ehci-platform
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.info kernel: [ 6.760000] bitmainbl 1-1.1:1.0: USB Bitmain bootloader device now attached to USB Bitmain bootloader-0
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.warn kernel: [ 6.770000] PIC microchip bootloader usb OK
Thu Jan 1 08:00:11 1970 kern.notice kernel: [ 10.510000] jffs2: notice: (327) jffs2_build_xattr_subsystem: complete building xattr subsystem, 1 of xdatum (0 unchecked, 0 orphan) and 16 of xref (0 dead, 1 orphan) found.
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 daemon.info sysinit: Sat Nov 29 17:15:00 UTC 2014
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 user.emerg syslog: kmodloader: loading kernel modules from /etc/modules.d/**
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.040000] hidraw: raw HID events driver (C) Jiri Kosina
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.050000] Loading modules backported from Linux version master-2013-06-27-0-gdcfa6d5
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.050000] Backport generated by backports.git backports-20130617-4-ge3220f5
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.070000] nf_conntrack version 0.5.0 (962 buckets, 3848 max)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.090000] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbhid
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.100000] usbhid: USB HID core driver
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.110000] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbserial
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.110000] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbserial_generic
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.120000] usbserial: USB Serial support registered for generic
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.150000] xt_time: kernel timezone is -0000
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.170000] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.170000] cfg80211: World regulatory domain updated:
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.180000] cfg80211: (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth), (max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.190000] cfg80211: (2402000 KHz - 2472000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.200000] cfg80211: (2457000 KHz - 2482000 KHz @ 20000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.200000] cfg80211: (2474000 KHz - 2494000 KHz @ 20000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.210000] cfg80211: (5170000 KHz - 5250000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.220000] cfg80211: (5735000 KHz - 5835000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.230000] ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: EEPROM regdomain: 0x0
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: EEPROM indicates default country code should be used
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: doing EEPROM country->regdmn map search
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: country maps to regdmn code: 0x3a
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: Country alpha2 being used: US
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.370000] ath: Regpair used: 0x3a
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.debug kernel: [ 13.380000] ieee80211 phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'minstrel_ht'
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.400000] cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: US
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.400000] cfg80211: Regulatory domain changed to country: US
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.410000] cfg80211: (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth), (max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.420000] cfg80211: (2402000 KHz - 2472000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2700 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.420000] cfg80211: (5170000 KHz - 5250000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 1700 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.430000] cfg80211: (5250000 KHz - 5330000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.440000] cfg80211: (5490000 KHz - 5600000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.450000] cfg80211: (5650000 KHz - 5710000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.460000] cfg80211: (5735000 KHz - 5835000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 3000 mBm)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 13.460000] ieee80211 phy0: Atheros AR9330 Rev:1 mem=0xb8100000, irq=2
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 user.info syslog: ran 16 iterations
Sun Nov 30 01:15:00 2014 daemon.info sysinit: kmod: ran 16 iterations
Sun Nov 30 01:15:04 2014 cron.info crond[574]: crond: crond (busybox 1.19.4) started, log level 5
Sun Nov 30 01:15:05 2014 authpriv.info dropbear[585]: Not backgrounding
Sun Nov 30 01:15:05 2014 daemon.notice netifd: Interface 'loopback' is now up
Sun Nov 30 01:15:05 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 18.550000] device eth0 entered promiscuous mode
Sun Nov 30 01:15:05 2014 daemon.notice netifd: Interface 'wan' is now up
Sun Nov 30 01:15:06 2014 daemon.notice netifd: lan (636): udhcpc (v1.19.4) started
Sun Nov 30 01:15:06 2014 daemon.notice netifd: lan (636): Sending discover...
Sun Nov 30 01:15:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due to ifup of wan (eth1)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 user.notice dnsmasq: DNS rebinding protection is active, will discard upstream RFC1918 responses!
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 user.notice dnsmasq: Allowing 127.0.0.0/8 responses
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: /etc/config/miner_pic.hex
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: started, version 2.66 cachesize 150
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: compile time options: IPv6 GNU-getopt no-DBus no-i18n no-IDN DHCP no-DHCPv6 no-Lua TFTP no-conntrack no-ipset no-auth
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: using local addresses only for domain lan
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: reading /tmp/resolv.conf.auto
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: using nameserver 192.168.3.1#53
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: using local addresses only for domain lan
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq[693]: read /etc/hosts - 1 addresses
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 kern.warn kernel: [ 21.570000] no int in filled
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: pic update
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: open /dev/bitmainbl0 ok fd = 0x3
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: read data
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit:
- {0x1}, [1]{0x10}, [2]{0x1}, [3]{0x10}, [4]{0x1}, [5]{0}, [6]{0x10}, [7]{0x1}, [8]{0x10}, [9]{0x4}, [10]{0x4},
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: open pic update file fail
Sun Nov 30 01:15:08 2014 daemon.info sysinit: Control bootloader to app
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led WAN
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led WANL
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led LAN1
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led LAN2
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led LAN3
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led LAN4
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.info sysinit: setting up led WLAN
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 22.050000] eth1: link up (100Mbps/Full duplex)
Sun Nov 30 01:15:09 2014 daemon.notice netifd: lan (636): Sending discover...
Sun Nov 30 01:15:10 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 22.970000] usb 1-1.1: USB disconnect, device number 3
Sun Nov 30 01:15:10 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 22.970000] bitmainbl 1-1.1:1.0: USB Bitmain asic #0 now disconnected
Sun Nov 30 01:15:10 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 23.460000] usb 1-1.1: new full-speed USB device number 4 using ehci-platform
Sun Nov 30 01:15:11 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 23.990000] bitmain 1-1.1:1.0: USB Bitmain asic device now attached to USB Bitmain asic-0
Sun Nov 30 01:15:11 2014 kern.warn kernel: [ 24.000000] PIC microchip usb OK
Sun Nov 30 01:15:11 2014 kern.info kernel: [ 24.410000] bitmain 1-1.1:1.0: USB Bitmain asic #0 now disconnected
Sun Nov 30 01:15:12 2014 daemon.notice netifd: lan (636): Sending discover...
Sun Nov 30 01:15:15 2014 daemon.info sysinit: --bitmain-options 115200:32:8:18:225:0882 [removed]
hwerror --version-file /usr/bin/compile_time --queue 4096
Sun Nov 30 01:15:15 2014 daemon.info sysinit: - init complete -
Jump to: