Topic: Bounty[PAID OUT] : a bitstream for better utilizing the Cairnsmore1 157-294.5btc - page 7. (Read 21992 times)

i didn't send to the bounty wallet because I don't stick with the rules. For me the winner was the first one that got my boards faster then the twin_test, even if it would become chrisp with the TML bitstream, i had send my BTC to him.

But the first was Makomk and he got 10 BTC so far from me, the first 5 with the 140Mh bitstream.

Sorry for the bounty winner, my donation is already done.

eb

I got a couple of these, working pretty well, a little cheaper too.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=103&cp_id=10303&cs_id=1030302&p_id=5447&seq=1&format=2

As of now just 12 of us have sent some coins.

https://blockchain.info/address/1CM1bj7jxVskkvKE2kcw6L16rHMXL38aFm

spiccioli

I would once again like to urge more people who own cm1's to contribute to this bounty, you know there are a handfull of brillian individuals workin very hard at the moment to provide us a more efficient tool for earning. Most of you are allready benefitting from this. Im not saying it's only because of this bounty.. but Im fairly sure the pace things have been progressing for the last week or so has much to do with this bounty and as any well-informed virtual miner knows time is everything in this game.

I have now got the shortfin190 bitstream by Makomk working on 2 of my boards (~2 hours).

It seems to perform well, early days but I appear to be getting 650-700Mhash/s out of each board according to my pool.
It's U rating in cgminer seems to indicate this is fairly accurate averaging about 10 per board.

As the starting party of the bounty...dare we say "Supreme holder of the terms"...we must bow to your view on the completion rate of the bounty before an award is given...

THE GAME IS STILL AFOOT!!! Tally ho  chaps...tweak those bit streams

Weird. Unless I'm missing something - which I might well be - the only thing that would cause that to happen would be the USB serial device disappearing out from underneath CGminer. While that has been happening to a lot of people, it shouldn't be affected by which bitstream you use. Then again, nothing's impossible, particularly with the CM1.

Now that's more common unfortunately. I don't suppose you have the numbers it reported?

Until I can get it to work on my machine, which has been happy and stable on the standard v1.3 version from enterpoint for almost 2 weeks now uninterupted, I can't consider it a valid bounty payout. I'm still in the process of getting Makomk bitstream working via my linux machine, which proving harder than I expected it to be.

I'm sure it could be bounty worthy, but give a few days, until more people can say it definitely lasts long enough to be a stable release.

On the 160 Version CGminer reports an Icarus failure and changes the board status to 'off'.

For the 190 version, it fails Icarus detect.  'get 000000 should...'  I tried the 190 on a couple different boards with the same result.  The best I ever got was one half of the array detecting successfully.  This hashed for about 6 hours before failing in the same manner as the 160.

I will try a couple different boards and USB cables later tonight and let you know how it goes.

I really appreciate all the work you have done.

You can plug in the fan to any position. Our safety feature looks for a minimum of one fan rotating. You can override this using SWITCH2 and run a fan totally independently powered.

I don't know, board kept hashing.

I think I should test it on board #8, but on that board I can't install makomk's bistreams and I have the old twin_test.bit running.

Yohan, on the other hand, should have the means to test if it is the power to the fan creating problems.

spiccioli.

Any noticeable difference in mining with any of the bitstreams that presented problems on that slot before?

I've just tested it on one board, controller 1.3, moving fan connector to the one beside FPGA0 does not stop the board, so it seems that it is not hard-coded.

spiccioli

You know, that's an interesting thought...

I believe on the default controller bitstreams it monitors fan rpm, and kills mining if the fan isn't turning, so it might be hardcoded right now for that port. But you could always try moving the fan to one of the other fan headers and see if it affects the noise.

Once I get a bit further with mine I'll test the same (if I still have problems with communications)

More important to me than 760 mh/s is stability. I work and go to school and I simply don't have time to be resetting my rig every day. I'm very grateful to Mamomk for all his work but I do agree with Glasswalker that the solution needs to be stable across a wide cross section of boards before it's deemed a winner. I also like the idea of having to hold the title for 7 days before claiming the prize, though I imagine some spirited competition may drive the claiming the bounty into sept/oct

All that being said, regardless of who wins the bounty, I will donate an additional 1btc per board (9 currently) to the runner up, whether it be glasswalker or mamomk or surprise competitor #3, as I appreciate both of them working on this, and hope it will motivate them to continue to improve on their respective bitstreams.

Can the noise that FPGA3 suffers come from the fan which in all my boards is connected to the pins beside FPGA3?

spiccioli

Regarding the Makomk's shortfin icarus 190mhs bitstream.

This is my opinnion of the state of the bounty, imho the race is still on, but we do have a clear leader.

Lol stop reading too much into things.

Do I want to claim the bounty? yes

Am I glad makomk built a working one, and would I be happy for him if he claimed the bounty? yes

Do I want to help the bitcoin community by solving the problems on the enterpoint boards? definitely

I'm not trying to steal his ideas. I'm already going in a completely different direction. But if he made a couple tiny tweaks (as he said on irc "2 minor tweaks to icarus") and that solved most of the stability problems, those 2 tweaks could go a long way to helping everyone here. (by identifying the root cause of at least the worst of the stability issues). The engineer in me is curious as hell how he did that (when I struggled for so long to achieve it). ie: "where did I go wrong?"

As for how he got to 190Mhash, I'm not concerned about that. My 175Mhz bitstream should run just as well at 190Mhash if I had clocked it that high (if not better), but my 175Mhz bitstream is closed to "Xilinx specified timing". For now I'm focusing on trying to win stability, then I'd push as much performance as possible. Makomk managed to get stability early, so he released "overclocked" versions which are outside spec (and run fine). Because my bitstream never overcame the communications problems it made no sense to push it further (yet).

My suggestion was to open the bounty up for competition beyond the "first one to reach point X wins" approach, because I thought it would be an interesting race, which could drive up performance quickly. And yes to some degree, that leaves the door open for me to win the bounty. It also means if I achieve the bounty, (and release the source to it) that someone else will come along and beat my performance within a week, requiring me to "defend my title" and so on. And through all this back and forth, the bitcoin community wins by seeing fpga hash rates go up and up and up...

Makomk has released the source to his bitstream.

I've released the source to mine.

This isn't a war of secrets

Oh and a clarification:
I don't believe makomk has claimed it YET, but I do think he's made an amazing breakthrough. Just because You believe that he has won it because you're having success, doesn't mean the majority is having stability with it yet (I see people posting it doesn't run at all on some boards, on others it's only 3 chips, and so on). But it's not my call. If the majority of the contributors agree, then great he wins! and I'm happy for him. I wanted to clarify in that post since you were claiming all over the place that he has won now, that we should wait and see if it's actually stable, reliable, documented, and so on as the requirements state. AND I posted a suggestion which I thought would make things more interesting.

Thats now really hard to read...

First you ask about changing the bounty rules to have the ability to claim it as Makomk already reached it...

and now you hoping for help from Makomk to get yours running and claim the bounty?  What is that please?

Explain this.

eb