Hi all,
I just received my jalapenos and they came with 1.2.9. I tried reflashing the firmware but it appears that it is not working. Any idea what I have missed? I merely change the source from singles setting to jalapeno by commenting line 26 and uncommenting line 24...
Topic: BFL BitForce SC Firmware source code (Read 28021 times)
I just received my Jalapeno. Its hashing at 5.1 mhash and stays around 43 degrees with 25 degrees environment.
Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
in cgminer:Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Please pardon my lack of knowledge, but where would we put these commands? I didn't realize CGMiner was capable of taking inputs like this?
API-README
I just received my Jalapeno. Its hashing at 5.1 mhash and stays around 43 degrees with 25 degrees environment.
Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
in cgminer:Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Please pardon my lack of knowledge, but where would we put these commands? I didn't realize CGMiner was capable of taking inputs like this?
hi guys,
Just got my 30gh bfl sc. Its hashing happily at 32 gh but was wondering if I could squeeze some more out of it. Its running 1.2. firmware so looks like is bit out of date. Which firmware should I flash? Do I do it the same way as Jalla?
Cheers,
GetInfo.....................
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC
FIRMWARE: 1.2.1
IAR Executed: NO
CHIP PARALLELIZATION: YES @ 8
QUEUE DEPTH:40
PROCESSOR 0: 15 engines @ 362 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 1: 15 engines @ 348 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 2: 15 engines @ 389 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 3: 15 engines @ 350 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 4: 15 engines @ 404 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 5: 14 engines @ 408 MHz -- MAP: BFFE
PROCESSOR 6: 15 engines @ 420 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 7: 15 engines @ 359 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
THEORETICAL MAX: 45192 MH/s
ENGINES: 119
FREQUENCY: 274 MHz
XLINK MODE: MASTER
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE: 0
XLINK PRESENT: NO
OK
0x00
Just got my 30gh bfl sc. Its hashing happily at 32 gh but was wondering if I could squeeze some more out of it. Its running 1.2. firmware so looks like is bit out of date. Which firmware should I flash? Do I do it the same way as Jalla?
Cheers,
GetInfo.....................
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC
FIRMWARE: 1.2.1
IAR Executed: NO
CHIP PARALLELIZATION: YES @ 8
QUEUE DEPTH:40
PROCESSOR 0: 15 engines @ 362 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 1: 15 engines @ 348 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 2: 15 engines @ 389 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 3: 15 engines @ 350 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 4: 15 engines @ 404 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 5: 14 engines @ 408 MHz -- MAP: BFFE
PROCESSOR 6: 15 engines @ 420 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
PROCESSOR 7: 15 engines @ 359 MHz -- MAP: FFFE
THEORETICAL MAX: 45192 MH/s
ENGINES: 119
FREQUENCY: 274 MHz
XLINK MODE: MASTER
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE: 0
XLINK PRESENT: NO
OK
0x00
thanks all you guys for the pointers.
I made some off-the-head calculations and determined I'm better off using my time elsewhere than to try squeeze the last coins out of that little single.
I made some off-the-head calculations and determined I'm better off using my time elsewhere than to try squeeze the last coins out of that little single.
In addition to setting the correct #define, you'll also want to choose the correct microcontroller (AT32UC3A1128 or AT32UC3A1256) in the project settings. Just to be safe you could start with the same version of the firmware that your device came with and go from there.
hmm, I don't even know how to read the firmware version from the device.
java API stats ... it's in there
hmm, I don't even know how to read the firmware version from the device.
See post #34 in this thread. This thread is a good read, I'd recommend it. In addition to setting the correct #define, you'll also want to choose the correct microcontroller (AT32UC3A1128 or AT32UC3A1256) in the project settings. Just to be safe you could start with the same version of the firmware that your device came with and go from there.
hmm, I don't even know how to read the firmware version from the device.
Anyone care to point me to another one that might exist?
Try the thread over at BFL forums.https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/3282-bitforce-sc-firmware-version-1-2-5-a.html
These other two threads deal mainly with jalapenos, but most of the information should also be relevant to singles, little singles, and perhaps even minirigs.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/howto-flash-your-jalapeno-to-8-ghs-244235
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/experimenting-with-jalapeno-firmware-236875
In addition to setting the correct #define, you'll also want to choose the correct microcontroller (AT32UC3A1128 or AT32UC3A1256) in the project settings. Just to be safe you could start with the same version of the firmware that your device came with and go from there.
first: thanks luke-jr for your work.
I'm looking to squeeze the last coins out of my little single by ways of overclocking and took a look at this thread and the stuff in firmware sources std_defs.h.
Can someone wrap this up for me? What exactly can I change in the sourcecode to try to get more speed?
Is it reasonably safe to flash a firmware from https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC.git as long as I set the Product Model correctly ("#define __PRODUCT_MODEL_LITTLE_SINGLE__" in my case)? Should that already automatically try to get the fastest speed for each chip?
I also googled around, but this is the most meaningful thread I found so far. Anyone care to point me to another one that might exist?
thanks for your help.
I'm looking to squeeze the last coins out of my little single by ways of overclocking and took a look at this thread and the stuff in firmware sources std_defs.h.
Can someone wrap this up for me? What exactly can I change in the sourcecode to try to get more speed?
Is it reasonably safe to flash a firmware from https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC.git as long as I set the Product Model correctly ("#define __PRODUCT_MODEL_LITTLE_SINGLE__" in my case)? Should that already automatically try to get the fastest speed for each chip?
I also googled around, but this is the most meaningful thread I found so far. Anyone care to point me to another one that might exist?
thanks for your help.
I am also interested in this. I have a bunch of early batch little singles and would like to get them running with 0 because I can keep them in stable +4 C ambient temperature after few days.
first: thanks luke-jr for your work.
I'm looking to squeeze the last coins out of my little single by ways of overclocking and took a look at this thread and the stuff in firmware sources std_defs.h.
Can someone wrap this up for me? What exactly can I change in the sourcecode to try to get more speed?
Is it reasonably safe to flash a firmware from https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC.git as long as I set the Product Model correctly ("#define __PRODUCT_MODEL_LITTLE_SINGLE__" in my case)? Should that already automatically try to get the fastest speed for each chip?
I also googled around, but this is the most meaningful thread I found so far. Anyone care to point me to another one that might exist?
thanks for your help.
I'm looking to squeeze the last coins out of my little single by ways of overclocking and took a look at this thread and the stuff in firmware sources std_defs.h.
Can someone wrap this up for me? What exactly can I change in the sourcecode to try to get more speed?
Is it reasonably safe to flash a firmware from https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC.git as long as I set the Product Model correctly ("#define __PRODUCT_MODEL_LITTLE_SINGLE__" in my case)? Should that already automatically try to get the fastest speed for each chip?
I also googled around, but this is the most meaningful thread I found so far. Anyone care to point me to another one that might exist?
thanks for your help.
Why is engine 0 always disabled?
It doesn't work on RevA chips.On RevB chips, they run 300 MHz faster, so with engine 0 they can get up to 71 Gh/s.
But due to the higher heat producted, this was damaging chips, so engine 0 is disabled.
I've received a new batch of singles. Now with firmware version 1.2.9. They have Rev. B chips.
I can not confirm that engine 0 is always disabled by default. Some, but not all, processors have 16 engines enabled.
I will spend now more time with playing with this new singles.
Why is engine 0 always disabled?
It doesn't work on RevA chips.On RevB chips, they run 300 MHz faster, so with engine 0 they can get up to 71 Gh/s.
But due to the higher heat producted, this was damaging chips, so engine 0 is disabled.
I've received a further order of singles (60GHs). The new singles have firmware version 1.2.9 and it looks like they have Rev. B chips on board.
The latest released firmware source code seems to be 1.2.8. ( see https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC )
Does anyone know were to find the 1.2.9 source-code, or when it will be released?
It looks like you, Luke-Jr, have a pretty good contact to BFL. Is it possible to ask BFL to use your git-hub repository or at least send you a package of every new released (version on delivered machines) firmware version?
The latest released firmware source code seems to be 1.2.8. ( see https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC )
Does anyone know were to find the 1.2.9 source-code, or when it will be released?
It looks like you, Luke-Jr, have a pretty good contact to BFL. Is it possible to ask BFL to use your git-hub repository or at least send you a package of every new released (version on delivered machines) firmware version?
Why is engine 0 always disabled?
Looking through the source code luke-jr posted I found this in std_defs.h:
Code:
// **** Change log Vs 1.2.6
// - Engine 0 operation supported
// - Auto detect if chip is Revision B or A (Revision B has engine 0 functional)
// - Engine 0 operation supported
// - Auto detect if chip is Revision B or A (Revision B has engine 0 functional)
So my guess is that there are two revisions of the hashing chips and in revision A engine 0 is broken, but this is just speculation. There are quite a few special cases in the code dealing specifically with engine 0.
By the way, the .atsuo file does not belong in the repository. It stores per-user settings like the set of open windows.
(See suo file source control.)
(See suo file source control.)
Is it safe to flash 1.2.6 to my Jaly? Im running 1.2.5 at the moment so do I flash it as per Kano guide?
I cannot support this.Luke, could you post compiled binary for Jaly?
I don't have a verified working compile procedure yet.Note that the 1.2.5 binary was for Little Singles only.
Hi,
Is it safe to flash 1.2.6 to my Jaly? Im running 1.2.5 at the moment so do I flash it as per Kano guide?
Luke, could you post compiled binary for Jaly?
Is it safe to flash 1.2.6 to my Jaly? Im running 1.2.5 at the moment so do I flash it as per Kano guide?
Luke, could you post compiled binary for Jaly?
Why is engine 0 always disabled?
Updated OP with 1.2.6.
Nasser informed me he plans to check this code into git this weekend.
Excellent. Thanks!
Apparently BFL is now shipping devices with firmware version 1.2.6.
Luke, do you think you could check with BFL about releasing the latest source code? I suspect you have better contacts than the typical customer.
Nasser informed me he plans to check this code into git this weekend. Luke, do you think you could check with BFL about releasing the latest source code? I suspect you have better contacts than the typical customer.
Apparently BFL is now shipping devices with firmware version 1.2.6.
Luke, do you think you could check with BFL about releasing the latest source code? I suspect you have better contacts than the typical customer.
Luke, do you think you could check with BFL about releasing the latest source code? I suspect you have better contacts than the typical customer.
I guess maybe people put three separate things that kept being said by BFL together. Lifetime warranty, overclocking and next month.....
I can get one of them.....
I guess I see the point on the phone rooting too. I am not sure I agree with it defaulting to a voided warranty. Usually in a legal sense it would have to be proven you did definitely cause the failure to void the warranty. BUT no one is going to hire a lawyer, spend a bunch of money trying to get a replacement maybe 300$ product (in case the price goes up again....). It would cost less to replace it ones self. Sadly its where the car stuff works out better. You spend 20K+ on a car you might actually fight for warranty work on a 6K part plus labor.
In theory my power supply that failed to last all of 2 hours should be covered regardless because even ancillary equipment is covered by the 90 day US warranty. Same with my maybe 7 hour fan. Sadly both won't add up to the cost of getting them shipped to me.
I really would have preferred the Power supply cables that non paying review units received but apparently paying customers are not good enough to get. I suppose having everything setup to use a Power supply was a bad idea. It cost me few hours. I really don't get why the "Marketing" versions got parts no one else did.
I can get one of them.....
I guess I see the point on the phone rooting too. I am not sure I agree with it defaulting to a voided warranty. Usually in a legal sense it would have to be proven you did definitely cause the failure to void the warranty. BUT no one is going to hire a lawyer, spend a bunch of money trying to get a replacement maybe 300$ product (in case the price goes up again....). It would cost less to replace it ones self. Sadly its where the car stuff works out better. You spend 20K+ on a car you might actually fight for warranty work on a 6K part plus labor.
In theory my power supply that failed to last all of 2 hours should be covered regardless because even ancillary equipment is covered by the 90 day US warranty. Same with my maybe 7 hour fan. Sadly both won't add up to the cost of getting them shipped to me.
I really would have preferred the Power supply cables that non paying review units received but apparently paying customers are not good enough to get. I suppose having everything setup to use a Power supply was a bad idea. It cost me few hours. I really don't get why the "Marketing" versions got parts no one else did.
It's like rooting phones. And being asked for a receipt. They will do anything possible to get out of warranty. Amd even put a switch on 6990 to void your warranty just by trying it and not knowing what it was. I had no clue it was an overclock switch. Did they do it for fun? No, they added a way for people to accidentally void their warranty and leaving an instant record.
If we flash to the new firmware are there any gains? Will it void the lifetime guarantee if we do flash it with stock 1.2.5?
At least under US law, it is illegal to void warranties unless you actually do damage to the device.Whether you're confident in your ability to modify firmware without damaging it or not, is up to you.
Also note that overclocking (I'm not sure how to define this with BFL ASICs!) generally always does damage, even when it works.
I guess we're talking Magnuson-Moss act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act
and the "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty" provision.
However, we're not quite talking about a "necessary" service part like an air filter or a belt, but some unnecessary change, like a hot camshaft.
But, since BFL has many times said that the process the ASIC was made on was good for 1 Ghz plus, and that the chips were originally specced for 8 or 9GHs, one could claim that the implied warranty is that you're not overclocking anything to bump them up a bit. Especially from jally speed to speed of chips chipped in singles.
and on the other hand the warranty given "This unit’s system board has a lifetime warranty from manufacture defect or component failure." implies that fans and PSUs are not covered.
Anyway, when all is said and done, it would not be very unusual for any digital equipment manufacturer to deny warranty based on overclocking or firmware modification. A manufacturer can make convincing arguments in court for denying claim, especially when it has not offered a "Full" warranty.
That is though, only the Federal situation, some states may have warranty statutes that differ wildly.
So this is all IMO and IANAL and YMMV and AFAIK this is MO of FTC and might be SNAFU, FUBAR, GTFO or LMFAO
That specific act also limited what they removed from warranty when non branded parts where used. They used to be able to avoid warranty work on suspension problems if someone changed their own oil. Now it didn't actually cause a suspension problem. But since they hadn't had all their work done at the factory shop the factory warranty need not apply before that act.
I was specifically talking about that act.
Lets go with a different example. Lets say I put on shiney new 1.2.5 firmware on my Jalapeno's. I set the clock to 7 (Nasser said it was safe) and have the test for speed and to de-clock the unit on. I have in 3 months a failure of my FTDI chip. Did the newer firmware break the USB coms? I would doubt it. Now I have no warranty because I upgraded the firmware. I would argue that some parts of the board would be un-affected by over clocking it. Could the mosfet/power system be damaged sure. The ASIC hashing chips too. Just I doubt that EVERYTHING would be damaged by it.
I also was pretty sure when I paid (September 2012) the warranty said it was full. Now I wish I had a way to check. I am likely wrong.
You forgot DTF
If we flash to the new firmware are there any gains? Will it void the lifetime guarantee if we do flash it with stock 1.2.5?
At least under US law, it is illegal to void warranties unless you actually do damage to the device.Whether you're confident in your ability to modify firmware without damaging it or not, is up to you.
Also note that overclocking (I'm not sure how to define this with BFL ASICs!) generally always does damage, even when it works.
I guess we're talking Magnuson-Moss act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act
and the "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty" provision.
However, we're not quite talking about a "necessary" service part like an air filter or a belt, but some unnecessary change, like a hot camshaft.
But, since BFL has many times said that the process the ASIC was made on was good for 1 Ghz plus, and that the chips were originally specced for 8 or 9GHs, one could claim that the implied warranty is that you're not overclocking anything to bump them up a bit. Especially from jally speed to speed of chips chipped in singles.
and on the other hand the warranty given "This unit’s system board has a lifetime warranty from manufacture defect or component failure." implies that fans and PSUs are not covered.
Anyway, when all is said and done, it would not be very unusual for any digital equipment manufacturer to deny warranty based on overclocking or firmware modification. A manufacturer can make convincing arguments in court for denying claim, especially when it has not offered a "Full" warranty.
That is though, only the Federal situation, some states may have warranty statutes that differ wildly.
So this is all IMO and IANAL and YMMV and AFAIK this is MO of FTC and might be SNAFU, FUBAR, GTFO or LMFAO
It does seem ironic that if I get a new mustang and put a blower on it the doors, windows, bumpers interior pieces are still warrantied Everything but the engine, transmission, clutch, driveshaft and rearend. Even those parts can have some protection but likely would be denied. If I put on a new firmware apparently power supplies, fans, and everything else is at a loss. I wonder if the same law applies to the ancillary equipment. Guarantee the only way to know would be to have a failure, try for warranty work, have it denied then sue.
I get the overclocking issue. I also get that if they say you can put on the new FW then you would likely if at all possible potentially re-flash to something that BFL would accept as safe. Making it look not overclocked but there has to be a better way to tell if the chips failed because of heat that was from overclocking or just went bad on their own.
The easiest way to guess is that no one would bother flashing to a slower setup so all flashed units are obviously overclocked. Thus all non factory firmware is warranty voiding.
Any Idea if the firmware would one day be available like the FPGA in a way that doesn't kill your warranty?
EDIT: At this point I have left messages about my failed Power supply and at that time failing fan on the voice mail, BFL's own forum and in an email. I have waited 10 days. I suppose that isn't so bad. I have my FPGA power supply and I can't really send it back until they get back to me. The fan header is built in making it moderately difficult to replace the fan. I suppose if it hits a month with no warranty work I can safely assume the warranty isn't worth worrying about as it isn't worth anything to me so far. Maybe I should just order the dragon now.
I get the overclocking issue. I also get that if they say you can put on the new FW then you would likely if at all possible potentially re-flash to something that BFL would accept as safe. Making it look not overclocked but there has to be a better way to tell if the chips failed because of heat that was from overclocking or just went bad on their own.
The easiest way to guess is that no one would bother flashing to a slower setup so all flashed units are obviously overclocked. Thus all non factory firmware is warranty voiding.
Any Idea if the firmware would one day be available like the FPGA in a way that doesn't kill your warranty?
EDIT: At this point I have left messages about my failed Power supply and at that time failing fan on the voice mail, BFL's own forum and in an email. I have waited 10 days. I suppose that isn't so bad. I have my FPGA power supply and I can't really send it back until they get back to me. The fan header is built in making it moderately difficult to replace the fan. I suppose if it hits a month with no warranty work I can safely assume the warranty isn't worth worrying about as it isn't worth anything to me so far. Maybe I should just order the dragon now.
Yes Kano I have read your entire blog and thread, thanks for your work BTW. Yours says will void warranty, but Luke is saying it will not. Did Josh/Inaba comment on this? I thought I recalled him saying it would.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/3282-bitforce-sc-firmware-version-1-2-5-a-3.html#post45157
Yes Kano I have read your entire blog and thread, thanks for your work BTW. Yours says will void warranty, but Luke is saying it will not. Did Josh/Inaba comment on this? I thought I recalled him saying it would.
My Jally is 1.0.0
Thanks Luke. Are there any gains from the new firmware?
Pretty sure this is the same firmware units have been shipping with for at least a month now.
Thanks Luke. Are there any gains from the new firmware?
If we flash to the new firmware are there any gains? Will it void the lifetime guarantee if we do flash it with stock 1.2.5?
At least under US law, it is illegal to void warranties unless you actually do damage to the device.Whether you're confident in your ability to modify firmware without damaging it or not, is up to you.
Also note that overclocking (I'm not sure how to define this with BFL ASICs!) generally always does damage, even when it works.
If we flash to the new firmware are there any gains? Will it void the lifetime guarantee if we do flash it with stock 1.2.5?
Is there any picture of a single board out there? Or little single?
Remember some may be dummy chips
Is there any picture of a single board out there? Or little single?
Jal use shortboard and LS and Single use doubleboard but LS use only half of doubleboard.
I would just like a good picture of it. I see Jal board as a problem and LS and S board as a solution... And I would like to be sure about the solution...
Jal use shortboard and LS and Single use doubleboard but LS use only half of doubleboard.
Little Single should be identical to jalapeno. Single is two of them.
Is there any picture of a single board out there? Or little single?
Thanks for being polite.
I saw that. Long term cryo is total bs when you need cost effective. Cryo unit itself is $7,500 to low of $2,500 if you buy $125M worth of them and only makes about 5W of cooling out of 100W of power. Compressor is cheaper, but doesn't get that cold.
I saw that. Long term cryo is total bs when you need cost effective. Cryo unit itself is $7,500 to low of $2,500 if you buy $125M worth of them and only makes about 5W of cooling out of 100W of power. Compressor is cheaper, but doesn't get that cold.
I know how to handle liquid nitrogen on electronics and using it for a test wasn't a point of a long term use, but a bit of hyperbole to emphasize that I can get it very cold.
Understood. I didn't mean to dis you; it's only that there was (is?) a hardware scam claiming cryo-cooling in production, which, after I stopped laughing, pissed me off as I'd read people who were actually buying into the notion.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the AC from the DC, if you know what I'm saying
Just sayin', here: IMO, you'll probably want to stick to water. Liquid nitrogen in 24/7 could have huge infrastructure and support issues, is potentially hazardous at 100 below zero to both silicon and carbon based life forms, and can crack or kill components on a circuit board that has a near 200 degree trough to peak temperature profile.
And, re overclocking in general. This isn't a game, where you want to get a little quicker action now and again. You're planning for a business with components which will ideally have very short and infrequent down times.
I know how to handle liquid nitrogen on electronics and using it for a test wasn't a point of a long term use, but a bit of hyperbole to emphasize that I can get it very cold.
Anyway, I think chip's 61 Vcc bumps are limited to 200-250mA, so 12.2W-15.25W Max before chip starts to quickly loose it's longevity. Unless packaging house gave different number on mA per bump. Question is how many power bumps are on the die itself and what is their max mA spec? Because on packaging there is only 61 for Vcc ?
I would like to see if voltage could be dropped and frequency increased.
If performance is the cooling issue consider it solved, if it's chips design and materials used limitations then there is not much that could be done unless redone.
If you blow your chips due to overclocking to ridiculous amounts or failure to cool your chips, there is no warranty.
On overclocking 50/60GH units,
lets say I cool the chips with a water block or liquid nitrogen so that heat is not an issue anymore and change the frequency, would power regulators will be the only issue left?
And, re overclocking in general. This isn't a game, where you want to get a little quicker action now and again. You're planning for a business with components which will ideally have very short and infrequent down times.
I guess I can make a water block for shortboard 5Gh board, but not sure if it will make financial scene in a long run with just 2 chips on it. Hay, anyone want to send me their miner to try to take accurate measurements in dimensions and temps, to see what else needs to be cooled?
You can still mine on your own account from my lab, I just want to see how well it could be cooled. And if you want it back, I can pay for evening shipping and overnight 10:30am delivery from you and back so each way you loose less than a day.
But it maybe possible to overclock 5Gh or put more chips on it and WB will help a lot in all cases.
I think 4 will not be a problem if you have new board, 6 might be but probably not, more I do not recommend. You need just to load last firmware to get 2GB upgrade... Overclocking is a bit more tricky... Some modification to firmware would be necessary since SetFrequency is not used. They determine best frequency at startup. Put it in cooler before start... That will "overclock" it You can still mine on your own account from my lab, I just want to see how well it could be cooled. And if you want it back, I can pay for evening shipping and overnight 10:30am delivery from you and back so each way you loose less than a day.
But it maybe possible to overclock 5Gh or put more chips on it and WB will help a lot in all cases.
I guess I can make a water block for shortboard 5Gh board, but not sure if it will make financial scene in a long run with just 2 chips on it. Hay, anyone want to send me their miner to try to take accurate measurements in dimensions and temps, to see what else needs to be cooled?
You can still mine on your own account from my lab, I just want to see how well it could be cooled. And if you want it back, I can pay for evening shipping and overnight 10:30am delivery from you and back so each way you loose less than a day.
But it maybe possible to overclock 5Gh or put more chips on it and WB will help a lot in all cases.
You can still mine on your own account from my lab, I just want to see how well it could be cooled. And if you want it back, I can pay for evening shipping and overnight 10:30am delivery from you and back so each way you loose less than a day.
But it maybe possible to overclock 5Gh or put more chips on it and WB will help a lot in all cases.
Is anyone working on a WB?
I am working on water block system to go on BFL long board. Packs units in a stack 16" deep
Now I am confused:
I can try it out on a 4 and 8 chip shortboard, although I'd need to swap out the mosfets on that board. All the 8 chip short boards we have are a couple revs behind... hmm, I wonder if I can get a couple current rev short boards in with more chips.
I thought that the full 50/60GH board has 16 chips? Edit: Ah, you were talking about shortboard
which mosfets are being used and to which are you planing to go? I want to see if they would be under powered for extreme cooling on the units that were already released.
I can have it ready in 2 weeks if I get exact board fitting.
Edit: Does long board also using PH7030L and PH3230S ?
I would be very interested to see a water block that covers chips, 1850 and mosfets. I think it would change the nature of performance quite a bit and it's been something I've been itching to try, but haven't had any time to even start on some sort of project like that.
I have cooled the mosfets and 1850 with a block of ice and it does increase stability, but it was pretty ghetto, so doing a proper coverage WB would probably yield even better results.
If someone comes up with a full coverage WB for a short board and wants to send it to me, I can try it out on a 4 and 8 chip shortboard, although I'd need to swap out the mosfets on that board. All the 8 chip short boards we have are a couple revs behind... hmm, I wonder if I can get a couple current rev short boards in with more chips.
Is anyone working on a WB?
I have cooled the mosfets and 1850 with a block of ice and it does increase stability, but it was pretty ghetto, so doing a proper coverage WB would probably yield even better results.
If someone comes up with a full coverage WB for a short board and wants to send it to me, I can try it out on a 4 and 8 chip shortboard, although I'd need to swap out the mosfets on that board. All the 8 chip short boards we have are a couple revs behind... hmm, I wonder if I can get a couple current rev short boards in with more chips.
Is anyone working on a WB?
I can cool MOSFET too with water block or nitrogen, which once does BFL 50/60GH unit is using?
Josh said :
Josh said :
Quote
The chips achieved 350 MHz hashing on 4 engines as well. We are going to have to wait until the chips are packaged to take the chips higher than that with more cores, as the test rig is not able to supply enough power and there are some wire bond issues that make it unstable beyond that.
If you blow your chips due to overclocking to ridiculous amounts or failure to cool your chips, there is no warranty.
On overclocking 50/60GH units,
lets say I cool the chips with a water block or liquid nitrogen so that heat is not an issue anymore and change the frequency, would power regulators will be the only issue left?
What is the maximum wattage that system can deliver to 16 chips?
Could I get to 500MHz or more with very advanced cooling?
Some PC overclockers have suffered MOSFET damage when watercooling a CPU or GPU due to the MOSFETs being arranged to take advantage of residual airflow from the air cooling solution. So IMO, providing some airflow for the MOSFETs would be wise.
My current mental model of the frequency/power situation, looks a lot like this...
Where we might consider the BFL ASIC as somewhat equivalent to a multicore CPU, due to the large number of engines on the die, all working at once.
So expect a graph that's about the same shape as the blue line above and expect that as shipped they are running in the crook of that curve. Depending how steep that increase is, they may need double the power to run 100Mhz faster, or even just 50 if it's really steep... When initially tested an engine at a time, I suspect they were in a situation similar to the purple line at the bottom, everything looked in spec and fine and dandy and fairly linear out to 500Mhz plus.
Anyway, that points to it being plausible, that with highly efficient cooling, that you could get a little single on a longboard to a bit over 40GH by overclocking, if you happened to get the best grade of chips on it, but by then it would be sucking as much power as the 60, and thus you'd burn the MOSFETs if you went much further... and by much further, I don't mean a lot, because of the steepness of the curve you would be on there, it would be very easy to go too far...
(BTW to spitball the numbers there on the graph to something in the ballpark of bitforce ASICs, mentally divide the watts by 20 on the left and the frequency by 10 on the bottom)
Now how to overclock/crack jalapenos?
How to fix p2pool?
How to fix p2pool?
Does that work with cgminer?
It says 1.0.0 but the GetInfo output contains 1.2.x information.
I hope it really is acting like a 1.0.0 otherwise you'll get errors galore with the work queue replies.
Well it wasnt working with 3.2.1 for some reason i cant remember. But when i switched to 3.2.2 it was mining right away without any errors (except for a bunch of hw errors).It says 1.0.0 but the GetInfo output contains 1.2.x information.
I hope it really is acting like a 1.0.0 otherwise you'll get errors galore with the work queue replies.
Currently at 14829 accepted shares diff 4 and 2006 hw errors. Think that translates to 3.3% hw errors?
If you blow your chips due to overclocking to ridiculous amounts or failure to cool your chips, there is no warranty.
On overclocking 50/60GH units,
lets say I cool the chips with a water block or liquid nitrogen so that heat is not an issue anymore and change the frequency, would power regulators will be the only issue left?
What is the maximum wattage that system can deliver to 16 chips?
Could I get to 500MHz or more with very advanced cooling?
in cgminer:
java API stats | egrep '\[Firm| BA' oops that's the next version
java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Wow whole new terrain for me there. Had to install Java on my Ubuntu machine and enable API in cgminer. But i did manage to get the info.java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Code:
[ID] => BAJ0
[GetInfo] =>
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC0x0a
FIRMWARE: 1.0.00x0a
MINIG SPEED: 5.22 GH/s0x0a
PROCESSOR 3: 13 engines @ 192 MHz0x0a
PROCESSOR 7: 15 engines @ 183 MHz0x0a
ENGINES: 280x0a
FREQUENCY: 189 MHz0x0a
XLINK MODE: MASTER0x0a
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE: 00x0a
XLINK PRESENT: NO0x0a
OK0x0a
0x00
So if im not mistaken my Jala has 2 full processors, but one is of better quality than the other?
It says 1.0.0 but the GetInfo output contains 1.2.x information.
I hope it really is acting like a 1.0.0 otherwise you'll get errors galore with the work queue replies.
in cgminer:
java API stats | egrep '\[Firm| BA' oops that's the next version
java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Wow whole new terrain for me there. Had to install Java on my Ubuntu machine and enable API in cgminer. But i did manage to get the info.java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
Code:
[ID] => BAJ0
[GetInfo] =>
DEVICE: BitFORCE SC0x0a
FIRMWARE: 1.0.00x0a
MINIG SPEED: 5.22 GH/s0x0a
PROCESSOR 3: 13 engines @ 192 MHz0x0a
PROCESSOR 7: 15 engines @ 183 MHz0x0a
ENGINES: 280x0a
FREQUENCY: 189 MHz0x0a
XLINK MODE: MASTER0x0a
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE: 00x0a
XLINK PRESENT: NO0x0a
OK0x0a
0x00
So if im not mistaken my Jala has 2 full processors, but one is of better quality than the other?
If you blow your chips due to overclocking to ridiculous amounts or failure to cool your chips, there is no warranty.
For that upgrade, you are really paying for three things, the different firmware, chips that are known to be capable of 7Gh/sec between them and factory lifetime warranty on those. Plus if you have an early order, at the present point in time, if you're just a few days messing around with it trying to achieve the extra 2Gh/sec, you will have lost the purchase price in lost earnings.
There will of course be customers boasting long and loud about how they are a genius and how they got theirs to 8 or even 9GH/sec "for free", but these will be the lottery winners, the lottery losers will be a somewhat silent majority, well they'll be there if you look, but won't be in your face, leading to a false perception. Though expect at least one example of in your face nerd rage from someone who lets the magic smoke out their jally by over-optimistic under-skilled hackery and is then surprised and outraged when BFL refuses to warranty it.
There will of course be customers boasting long and loud about how they are a genius and how they got theirs to 8 or even 9GH/sec "for free", but these will be the lottery winners, the lottery losers will be a somewhat silent majority, well they'll be there if you look, but won't be in your face, leading to a false perception. Though expect at least one example of in your face nerd rage from someone who lets the magic smoke out their jally by over-optimistic under-skilled hackery and is then surprised and outraged when BFL refuses to warranty it.
^^^^ Speaking the truth!!!
Did anybody figure out what is magic booster that cost 100$ and increase speed from 5,5 to 7. Can this be done at home or do I need to pay 100$?
There is nothing about it, the upgrade is a combination of higher chip quality (Class A chips w 16 engines) and firmware upgrade.
Awesome! Luke, you need any pizza deliveries, you let us know, OK? 
I doubt LJR has 10,000BTC just lying around. Maybe not "laying around" but I wouldn't be surprised if Luke has 10k or more BTc
I just received my Jalapeno. Its hashing at 5.1 mhash and stays around 43 degrees with 25 degrees environment.
Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
in cgminer:Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
java API stats | egrep '\[GetIn| BA'
[GetInfo] is the full dump of the GetInfo reply from the BFL ASIC
Being a Jalapeno it will most likely be 1.0.0
I just received my Jalapeno. Its hashing at 5.1 mhash and stays around 43 degrees with 25 degrees environment.
Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
Is there any way to know which firmware mine has without purchasing a JTAG adapter?
For that upgrade, you are really paying for three things, the different firmware, chips that are known to be capable of 7Gh/sec between them and factory lifetime warranty on those. Plus if you have an early order, at the present point in time, if you're just a few days messing around with it trying to achieve the extra 2Gh/sec, you will have lost the purchase price in lost earnings.
There will of course be customers boasting long and loud about how they are a genius and how they got theirs to 8 or even 9GH/sec "for free", but these will be the lottery winners, the lottery losers will be a somewhat silent majority, well they'll be there if you look, but won't be in your face, leading to a false perception. Though expect at least one example of in your face nerd rage from someone who lets the magic smoke out their jally by over-optimistic under-skilled hackery and is then surprised and outraged when BFL refuses to warranty it.
There will of course be customers boasting long and loud about how they are a genius and how they got theirs to 8 or even 9GH/sec "for free", but these will be the lottery winners, the lottery losers will be a somewhat silent majority, well they'll be there if you look, but won't be in your face, leading to a false perception. Though expect at least one example of in your face nerd rage from someone who lets the magic smoke out their jally by over-optimistic under-skilled hackery and is then surprised and outraged when BFL refuses to warranty it.
Did anybody figure out what is magic booster that cost 100$ and increase speed from 5,5 to 7. Can this be done at home or do I need to pay 100$?
I doubt that only a modified firmware will suffice.
Late edit: Wrong, apparently in most cases, it does.
Did anybody figure out what is magic booster that cost 100$ and increase speed from 5,5 to 7. Can this be done at home or do I need to pay 100$?
Within an ASIC, this would manifest as increased die area or power consumption. But I have no experience with ASIC design, so for all my ignorance it could be an insignificant 0.0001% increase or an embarassing 10% increase.
My gut isn't all that ASIC experienced, but FWIW it says fairly insignificant, few tens of extra gates for the few millions total.... I'd put a range of 0.01% to 0.001% on it.
"Interleaved works, but chips have a problem; proceeding with one-job-per-chip from this point"
https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC/commit/26984f0a5aeae68e0d164dc38934385f474c8d4f
https://github.com/luke-jr/BitForce_SC/commit/26984f0a5aeae68e0d164dc38934385f474c8d4f
BTW, if anyone wants to hack at something... I'd suggest going back in the git history to get at the interleaved works (or maybe it's still in the latest code too, just disabled?) before the change to one-job-per-chip. If you get that working, Little Singles and better should be fine on p2pool... (and lower stales mining normally too)
Sorry for the delay!
Git import is now complete on GitHub
Git import is now complete on GitHub
What do you think could be added to the block header?
Could you also explain what the effect of the chips being less-than-optimal.
I personally don't think anything will be added to the block header within 5 years, since that would have the effect of making lots of existing ASICs useless. Also, if anyone wants to "add" some extra data to a block, they can already do this (in a way that's compatible with all existing miners) by using the coinbase.Could you also explain what the effect of the chips being less-than-optimal.
What I mean by less-than-optimal is that since the SHA-256 constants are not hardcoded, some logic can't be optimised out at compile time. Within an ASIC, this would manifest as increased die area or power consumption. But I have no experience with ASIC design, so for all my ignorance it could be an insignificant 0.0001% increase or an embarassing 10% increase.
From reading the firmware source and looking at the released datasheet, the BFL chips interestingly do not have certain SHA-256 constants hardwired. The firmware is responsible for setting the SHA-256 initial hash value for the first hash, as well as the padding and length of both the first and second hashes.
What this means is that (for example) if an extra field were to be appended to the block header, the BFL chips could handle this change (via. a firmware upgrade), but the Avalon chips couldn't. This also means that the BFL chips are slightly less-than-optimal (I have no idea how much less than optimal), since some extra gates will be required to handle the possibility that those "constants" can change.
What this means is that (for example) if an extra field were to be appended to the block header, the BFL chips could handle this change (via. a firmware upgrade), but the Avalon chips couldn't. This also means that the BFL chips are slightly less-than-optimal (I have no idea how much less than optimal), since some extra gates will be required to handle the possibility that those "constants" can change.
What do you think could be added to the block header?
Could you also explain what the effect of the chips being less-than-optimal.
From reading the firmware source and looking at the released datasheet, the BFL chips interestingly do not have certain SHA-256 constants hardwired. The firmware is responsible for setting the SHA-256 initial hash value for the first hash, as well as the padding and length of both the first and second hashes.
What this means is that (for example) if an extra field were to be appended to the block header, the BFL chips could handle this change (via. a firmware upgrade), but the Avalon chips couldn't. This also means that the BFL chips are slightly less-than-optimal (I have no idea how much less than optimal), since some extra gates will be required to handle the possibility that those "constants" can change.
What this means is that (for example) if an extra field were to be appended to the block header, the BFL chips could handle this change (via. a firmware upgrade), but the Avalon chips couldn't. This also means that the BFL chips are slightly less-than-optimal (I have no idea how much less than optimal), since some extra gates will be required to handle the possibility that those "constants" can change.
Awesome! Luke, you need any pizza deliveries, you let us know, OK?
I doubt LJR has 10,000BTC just lying around. Those pizzas were quoted at 10Million BTC by a Google translated article in Russian. Ouch
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2213241
Quote
The path to the real world
Since the beginning of the year there are more messages that consumers often prefer to use a virtual currency, paying them for goods and services. The first known case of acquisition of goods for Bitcoins is buying pizza by one of the official forum - he paid 10 million Bitcoins.
Since the beginning of the year there are more messages that consumers often prefer to use a virtual currency, paying them for goods and services. The first known case of acquisition of goods for Bitcoins is buying pizza by one of the official forum - he paid 10 million Bitcoins.
Awesome! Luke, you need any pizza deliveries, you let us know, OK?
I doubt LJR has 10,000BTC just lying around. 
Does it matter what kind of JTAG programmer I get? Interested in overclocking my little single board.
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
How are you going to melt the solder?Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
Hot air reflow? Hot plate? Infrared reflow? Lots of ways to get it done...
So you want to unsolder all the components at once, what if one moves a tiny fraction or the heat kills it?
Does it matter what kind of JTAG programmer I get? Interested in overclocking my little single board.
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
How are you going to melt the solder?Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
Hot air reflow? Hot plate? Infrared reflow? Lots of ways to get it done...
Does it matter what kind of JTAG programmer I get? Interested in overclocking my little single board.
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
How are you going to melt the solder?Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
I guess if he has enough chips to spare he could just overclock it high enough
Does it matter what kind of JTAG programmer I get? Interested in overclocking my little single board.
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
How are you going to melt the solder?Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
Awesome! Luke, you need any pizza deliveries, you let us know, OK?
Does it matter what kind of JTAG programmer I get? Interested in overclocking my little single board.
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
Also, has anyone looked at the PCB designs? Is it possible to purchase BFL chips and manually add them to a Little Single board and up its chip count from 8 to 16?
With the speed of the community I wonder how many days until we have DYI projects with production ready mining PCB etc. exciting!
BFL have also released a PCB design, which was mighty quick and kind of them.
Unfortunately I can't read that file type, it was done in Altium DXP 2008.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/3295-bitforce-sc-pcb-schematics.html
Unfortunately I can't read that file type, it was done in Altium DXP 2008.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/3295-bitforce-sc-pcb-schematics.html
I thought this one looked interesting now that I've had a quick look through ...
PROTOCOL_REQ_SET_FREQ_FACTOR
ZVX
(and ZKX to get it)
HostInteractionProtocols.c
Protocol_set_freq_factor()
But it forces it on all chips, no option to choose which chip ...
So I wonder if it is an old command ... and is in the Jalapeno firmware 1.0.0 ...
Have to have a look later ...
PROTOCOL_REQ_SET_FREQ_FACTOR
ZVX
(and ZKX to get it)
HostInteractionProtocols.c
Protocol_set_freq_factor()
But it forces it on all chips, no option to choose which chip ...
So I wonder if it is an old command ... and is in the Jalapeno firmware 1.0.0 ...
Have to have a look later ...
Probably.
In my limited understanding of it so far, the firmware sets a target hashrate and then manages all cores wrt to error rate to maintain that. Sooooo... probably don't want to meddle too much for now and just try upping the target hashrate, and keep the cores cool so error rate minimised.
In my limited understanding of it so far, the firmware sets a target hashrate and then manages all cores wrt to error rate to maintain that. Sooooo... probably don't want to meddle too much for now and just try upping the target hashrate, and keep the cores cool so error rate minimised.
Yes the firmware performs diagnostics on start-up, determining chip frequency based on invalid/valid nonces generated by that chip.
Regards,
Hi Luke-Jr
On behalf of the BTC community starting up from South Africa, we are looking forward following your posts.
This is exciting work man! Keep it up.
Regards
dawie
On behalf of the BTC community starting up from South Africa, we are looking forward following your posts.
This is exciting work man! Keep it up.
Regards
dawie
Probably.
In my limited understanding of it so far, the firmware sets a target hashrate and then manages all cores wrt to error rate to maintain that. Sooooo... probably don't want to meddle too much for now and just try upping the target hashrate, and keep the cores cool so error rate minimised.
In my limited understanding of it so far, the firmware sets a target hashrate and then manages all cores wrt to error rate to maintain that. Sooooo... probably don't want to meddle too much for now and just try upping the target hashrate, and keep the cores cool so error rate minimised.
i got a xilinx jtag programmer, i have a couple of jalapenos i already open one i see the jtag connector, it is possible to do something like OC the miners?
does this mean we can flash our current miners? Overclock?
You'll need to disassemble it and connect a JTAG programmer, but other than that, I believe so...Step one when I get around to poking at this, will be to get it building with standard GCC (or at least free software).
does this mean we can flash our current miners? Overclock?
This is an Atmel Studio project solution.
Regards
Regards
What's with the weird extensions?
BitForce_SC.atsln - visual studio solution
BitForce_SC.atsuo - visual user options
BitForce_SC.atsln - visual studio solution
BitForce_SC.atsuo - visual user options
BFL has entrusted me with releasing the source code for their BitForce SC firmware, beginning with version 1.2.5.
Tomorrow, I will be organizing the historical code into a proper git repository to compliment this and aide in further open development.
Binary: hex (sigs)
Source: tbz2 | zip (sigs)
Tomorrow, I will be organizing the historical code into a proper git repository to compliment this and aide in further open development.
Binary: hex (sigs)
Source: tbz2 | zip (sigs)
Witnessed.
Code:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
These are the source code and binary provided to me by Butterfly Labs.
I have not (yet) reviewed or audited the code myself.
12a4f47100f2dc26bd278f0b1d96b62226d666e7de49b5a97e92242dac0504c9 BitForce_SC-1.2.5.hex
44d4100a36e408b8f6d4891897d4487f3e2aec846b945674c7fb7f8f60d517ba BitForce_SC-1.2.5.tbz2
235d28bb7c10e57a2dfcd90ce4d0572c8ad3e601b1bba205ba5d58a2ee84b897 BitForce_SC-1.2.5.zip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)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=
=3Yqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(reserved)
Jump to: