Blue Fury Support Thread. - page 26.

FrontLineFodder

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: kabopar on November 10, 2013, 05:06:35 AM

Thanks for the info. I tried but the in-circuit resistance stays at 0.97K, no matter how many HB lines I make. So there was no difference in hashing either....
Did you need to remove any coating from the resistor? (I don't think that they would apply conformal coating to a USB miner).

Cheers

nope, I did not remove any coating. I didnt draw lines, more like a child coloring in, scribble style :-)

kabopar

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: FrontLineFodder on November 10, 2013, 01:20:58 AM

Quote from: kabopar on November 10, 2013, 01:03:26 AM

FrontLineFodder - nice work. It looks like it is hotter after the mod, as you'd expect...

Can you please clarify which resistor was 'pencil modded' and any other hints/pics?

Cheers

As Before:
All warranties void perform at your own risk.
My view: these are a toy, I dont care much if I break them, do you ?

R15 was modded, I used what I had around, looked like HB lead in a pacer automatic pencil.
Not sure if it means anything, I threw the multimeter to measure the resistance across the resistor 'in circuit'. measured 0.97K ohms, after the mod it measures about 0.86Kohms.

It's been running for over 13 hours with the same speeds and error rate as I posted last night.
As my pics above show, make sure you have adequate cooling.

I'd like to get a USB current meter (like: http://gizmodo.com/usb-power-meter-tells-you-which-devices-will-kill-your-514285397 ) to see if there is an increase in power draw from the hub. anybody got reccommendations ?

Thanks for the info. I tried but the in-circuit resistance stays at 0.97K, no matter how many HB lines I make. So there was no difference in hashing either....
Did you need to remove any coating from the resistor? (I don't think that they would apply conformal coating to a USB miner).

Cheers

FrontLineFodder

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: kabopar on November 10, 2013, 01:03:26 AM

FrontLineFodder - nice work. It looks like it is hotter after the mod, as you'd expect...

Can you please clarify which resistor was 'pencil modded' and any other hints/pics?

Cheers

As Before:
All warranties void perform at your own risk.
My view: these are a toy, I dont care much if I break them, do you ?

R15 was modded, I used what I had around, looked like HB lead in a pacer automatic pencil.
Not sure if it means anything, I threw the multimeter to measure the resistance across the resistor 'in circuit'. measured 0.97K ohms, after the mod it measures about 0.86Kohms.

It's been running for over 13 hours with the same speeds and error rate as I posted last night.
As my pics above show, make sure you have adequate cooling.

I'd like to get a USB current meter (like: http://gizmodo.com/usb-power-meter-tells-you-which-devices-will-kill-your-514285397 ) to see if there is an increase in power draw from the hub. anybody got reccommendations ?

kabopar

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

FrontLineFodder - nice work. It looks like it is hotter after the mod, as you'd expect...

Can you please clarify which resistor was 'pencil modded' and any other hints/pics?

Cheers

FrontLineFodder

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Picture 1: Rear view
http://i.imgur.com/7bdjaDe.jpg
Rightmost BF was pencil modded, also furthest from the fan. my estimate was pretty good, middle fury was 39^oC, right fury was 49^oC.

Picture 2: Front View
http://i.imgur.com/uPqtihr.jpg
Left most BF was pencil modded, Chip definatly gets hot on this side too, forgot the temp, notice the difference the distance from the fan has.

Picture 6: overall view
http://i.imgur.com/2fWu6bW.jpg
sensor on the erupters, significant difference the fans have, i'll have to re-arrance the fan layout.
Eruptors were exceeding 60^oC

alignment was a litle bit out

I have some small heatshinks, might put one on the front of the pencil modded fury.

btljuice

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

I wonder if I have a bad unit. I've read through this thread, and I've never seen anything better than 1.2GH/s. Different setups, always powered. Screen shot below shows bfgminer 3.5.1, but I've tried cgminer 3.7.2 and bfgminer 3.2.0. Linux and windows.

If this is a bad unit, can I send it in for a replacement/repair?

wzl

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Haha

Thanks for all your hard work on cgminer, btw.
I remember using your -ck patches for 2.4 kernel when I was a little dude. So thanks for those too Cheesy

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: wzl on November 09, 2013, 10:31:58 PM

Oh, I'm not worried about the HW errors.

I was just hoping to get the "2.2-2.7GH/s" that was advertised for this thing.

Alas software can only do so much Lips sealed

wzl

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Oh, I'm not worried about the HW errors.

I was just hoping to get the "2.2-2.7GH/s" that was advertised for this thing.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: wzl on November 09, 2013, 10:16:40 PM

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares to try it, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

I'm not on Windows so I can't try that - checked out what's on git right now and didn't seem to make much difference (except now I am getting HW errors).

Before:
BF1 0: | 2.089G/2.037Gh/s | A:1538 R:2 HW:0 WU:29.4/m

After:
BF1 0: | 1.991G/1.973Gh/s | A:273 R:0 HW:114 WU:27.7/m

Anyone have any suggestions?

It just wasn't reporting them before. Any difference there is purely luck related and the performance is, presumably, identical otherwise. I wasn't expecting performance advantages which is why I was surprised anyone noticed any. However there may be some usb devices out there that benefited from the flushing code I added, and they were previously performing really bad (1.3GH). 2-2.2GH seems about normal for these devices.

Interesting how scary actually seeing hardware errors is - it's probably going to be enough for droves of people to go "Oh my god it now has hardware errors, I'm downgrading". I've seen the pattern enough by now Undecided

brioche

full member

Activity: 192

Merit: 100

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 08:46:00 PM

Quote from: brioche on November 09, 2013, 08:33:45 PM

Hey I've got my red fury in the mail today. I tried and failed to get the bfgminer to work with them so i am trying with cgminer 3.7.2 . I have used the Zadig app to switch to the WINUSB driver on the BF1 but when I run CGminer-nogpu.exe it says it can't detect any devices. Any idea's on how to correct this?

USB3 slots can be problematic so try USB2 if you can, and sometimes you may need to reboot after changing the driver association to winusb. Also be 100% clear that you're doing the driver switch exactly as it says in the README file.

oh which README file is that?

EDIT: Whoops just noticed my power cord came out of the hub. it's all working fine now, Thanks.

wzl

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares to try it, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

I'm not on Windows so I can't try that - checked out what's on git right now and didn't seem to make much difference (except now I am getting HW errors).

Before:
BF1 0: | 2.089G/2.037Gh/s | A:1538 R:2 HW:0 WU:29.4/m

After:
BF1 0: | 1.991G/1.973Gh/s | A:273 R:0 HW:114 WU:27.7/m

Anyone have any suggestions?

Trongersoll

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

I've got 2 BlueFurys. the setup is the two are in an orecio hub(anker type) with artic breeze fan using a 12 year old laptop with winXP. Did the zadig thing. I'm using cgminer 3.7.2. Everything is running perfectly!!! Only nonissue is that very once in a while a bubble pops up saying that the USB device could run faster in a USB 2.0 port. nonissue because this machine only has 1.0 ports. heh. but it keeps reminding me just the same. Tongue

This setup works great, i got 2 more BlueFurys on the way.

uberdag

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Followed directions on front but it installed 3.3 bfgminer for ubuntu

can you give me directions for 3.5 or better bfgminer

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: brioche on November 09, 2013, 08:33:45 PM

Hey I've got my red fury in the mail today. I tried and failed to get the bfgminer to work with them so i am trying with cgminer 3.7.2 . I have used the Zadig app to switch to the WINUSB driver on the BF1 but when I run CGminer-nogpu.exe it says it can't detect any devices. Any idea's on how to correct this?

USB3 slots can be problematic so try USB2 if you can, and sometimes you may need to reboot after changing the driver association to winusb. Also be 100% clear that you're doing the driver switch exactly as it says in the README file.

brioche

full member

Activity: 192

Merit: 100

Hey I've got my red fury in the mail today. I tried and failed to get the bfgminer to work with them so i am trying with cgminer 3.7.2 . I have used the Zadig app to switch to the WINUSB driver on the BF1 but when I run CGminer-nogpu.exe it says it can't detect any devices. Any idea's on how to correct this?

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 07:44:49 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 06:59:19 PM

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

Seems to be helping my numbers a bit, on two different ubuntu boxes. Recompiling now on a beagle-board xm... will post results after a soak in.

Early Results from the beagleboard-xm

Before

After

Well that looks quite significant then. It's probably a minor USB change I made to the code rather than a change to the bitfury driver itself.

expalpo

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 06:59:19 PM

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

Seems to be helping my numbers a bit, on two different ubuntu boxes. Recompiling now on a beagle-board xm... will post results after a soak in.

Early Results from the beagleboard-xm

Before
http://i.imgur.com/lPEGKZ2.png

After
http://i.imgur.com/vQWsTQn.png

expalpo

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: -ck on November 09, 2013, 06:54:34 PM

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

Seems to be helping my numbers a bit, on two different ubuntu boxes. Recompiling now on a beagle-board xm... will post results after a soak in.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: expalpo on November 09, 2013, 05:47:08 PM

Just noticed that ckolivas commited a changeset a few hours ago with an update to the bitfury driver. Re-compiling from source, with those changes, made a difference in the numbers I was seeing in cgminer. Cgminer reported hash rate went from around 1.7-1.8Gh/s to around 2.2 - 2.5Gh/s.

I didn't think the changes would make such a difference, but there will be hardware errors reported now.

Anyway in case someone cares to try it, here's an updated windows binary with the changes:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/cgminer/temp/cgminer-nogpu.exe

Topic: Blue Fury Support Thread. - page 26. (Read 89624 times)