I am more talking about the difference in actual expected failure rates...obviously if all things are the same, the little sc will run much cooler as it has half of the electricity to disparate over the same air intake, eh just curious if anyone looked into the difference in fans and heatsinks
There was a discussion about the different heatsinks HERE, and there will be a different, cheaper, and probably less efficient heatsink used in the Little Single. I expect that their temps will be pretty close to each other. 
Topic: BFL Little SC Vs SC (Read 1532 times)
Save space?
Yeah I wonder about that to...The dimensions seem to be ~4 in. x ~4 in. X ~3.5 in. for both 30 Gh and 60 Gh models.
I am more talking about the difference in actual expected failure rates...obviously if all things are the same, the little sc will run much cooler as it has half of the electricity to disparate over the same air intake, eh just curious if anyone looked into the difference in fans and heatsinks
Save space?
People have asked this question before, and some people seem to prefer one over the other. Here's a summary of the arguments:
Hardware failure:
- Assume all BFL units have a 5% chance of failing in some way within the first year. BFL will cover them under warranty, but you lose mining time.
- We're using sample numbers of either 200 Little Singles or 100 SC Singles.
- SC Single pro: It's only half as likely for you to get a defective product, or have one of the PSUs crap out on you.
- Little Single pro: You're twice as likely to have some sort of problem, but when you do, you're only out 30GH/s, not 60GH/s, so it doesn't affect your bottom line as much.
- Kind of a wash. If each warranty return takes 2 weeks, would you rather lose 60GH/s 5 times, or 30GH/s 10 times?
Maintenance:
- Twice the hardware requires more peripherals: twice the USB hubs, twice the power strips, etc.
- Again, twice the hardware introduces more points of failure.
- Also makes it harder to maintain.
I prefer a denser setup, with just SC Singles. Not that I would complain about a Little Single, tho. But when you're starting to think about managing dozens of them, it makes a difference.
Hardware failure:
- Assume all BFL units have a 5% chance of failing in some way within the first year. BFL will cover them under warranty, but you lose mining time.
- We're using sample numbers of either 200 Little Singles or 100 SC Singles.
- SC Single pro: It's only half as likely for you to get a defective product, or have one of the PSUs crap out on you.
- Little Single pro: You're twice as likely to have some sort of problem, but when you do, you're only out 30GH/s, not 60GH/s, so it doesn't affect your bottom line as much.
- Kind of a wash. If each warranty return takes 2 weeks, would you rather lose 60GH/s 5 times, or 30GH/s 10 times?
Maintenance:
- Twice the hardware requires more peripherals: twice the USB hubs, twice the power strips, etc.
- Again, twice the hardware introduces more points of failure.
- Also makes it harder to maintain.
I prefer a denser setup, with just SC Singles. Not that I would complain about a Little Single, tho. But when you're starting to think about managing dozens of them, it makes a difference.
Is there any real advantage to the larger SC compared to two singles...it seems to me like you are getting a better deal with two little singles b/c of the lower chip density in the same case
I suppose based on the advertised Specs it sure seems like both perform the same Gh/$ . So no huge advantage there. There is the failure argument, if one is down the other still going and finally if you have 2 then you can give me one and keep one
PS: personally, I opted for 2 little Vs single SC
The little single comes with a smaller heatsink from what I hear. Alternatively, with the larger one, you have half as many USB cables and power bricks to worry about, and half the space taken up wherever you are running them.
Is there any real advantage to the larger SC compared to two singles...it seems to me like you are getting a better deal with two little singles b/c of the lower chip density in the same case
Jump to: