ok. Everything makes sense now (almost 
) 
Topic: BTCMiner - Open Source Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX FPGA Boards, 215 MH/s on LX150 - page 24. (Read 161727 times)
December 10, 2011, 07:57:22 PM
ok. Everything makes sense now (almost ) 
December 10, 2011, 06:55:16 PM
Thanks for your explanations. So the number of submitted shares in time x defines the hashrate displayed ? Sometimes 4 nonces are submitted at the same time and sometimes there are zero new nonces up to six times in a row. Seems to be the reason why the rate "looks" not constant.
x in "submitted x new nonces" denotes the amount of shares found within the message interval (15s in single board mode). At 190 MH/s the probability of 4 shares within 15s is 0.42% (happens about one time per hour) and the probability of 0 shares within 90s is 1.86% (about 4.5 times per hour).
"submitted hash rate" is computed by
) December 10, 2011, 05:36:51 PM
Thanks for your explanations. So the number of submitted shares in time x defines the hashrate displayed ? Sometimes 4 nonces are submitted at the same time and sometimes there are zero new nonces up to six times in a row. Seems to be the reason why the rate "looks" not constant.
December 10, 2011, 04:34:13 PM
After running and observing the board for a while i have some questions. From time to time the connection times out or there are read (write) errors. The more backup pools i set up the more often that happens.
If no backup server is defined the pool server is disabled for 60s after 4 failed attempts. If a backup server is defined servers are disabled for 30s after 2 failed attempts. This is the reason why you see more warnings if you define backup pools.
Quote
The software disables then all backup pools for 30 or 60 seconds, even when they are up for sure. cgminer is running on the same machine and there is no indication that this is a network (bandwith) problem.
Probably cgminer tries it harder.
Unlike cgminer BTCMiner is optimized to run more than hundred FPGA boards per PC. Since connection errors block the whole thread a lot of counter overflows would occur in such a configuration if BTCMiner tries it as hard as cgminer.
I will modify the retry algorithm such that the retry effort is higher if only a small number of board is connected.
Quote
Is it possible to reset the hashrate counter after such a breakdown ? Or perhaps an auto restart function after a connection loss ? Hashrate seems fine 99% of the time. Sometimes it's stuck @160 or so MH/s... at less than 2% error rate @ 192 MHz. I have to restart the miner then and all works fine. Why is a FPGA hashrate less constant than a GPUs ? It goes from 160 to 220 sometimes.
Resetting counters (on todo list) is just cosmetics. The FPGA performance is constant and not influenced by connection errors. Only the rate of submitted hashes is influenced by network problems.
December 10, 2011, 11:57:12 AM
After running and observing the board for a while i have some questions. From time to time the connection times out or there are read (write) errors. The more backup pools i set up the more often that happens. The software disables then all backup pools for 30 or 60 seconds, even when they are up for sure. cgminer is running on the same machine and there is no indication that this is a network (bandwith) problem.
Is it possible to reset the hashrate counter after such a breakdown ? Or perhaps an auto restart function after a connection loss ? Hashrate seems fine 99% of the time. Sometimes it's stuck @160 or so MH/s... at less than 2% error rate @ 192 MHz. I have to restart the miner then and all works fine. Why is a FPGA hashrate less constant than a GPUs ? It goes from 160 to 220 sometimes.
Is it possible to reset the hashrate counter after such a breakdown ? Or perhaps an auto restart function after a connection loss ? Hashrate seems fine 99% of the time. Sometimes it's stuck @160 or so MH/s... at less than 2% error rate @ 192 MHz. I have to restart the miner then and all works fine. Why is a FPGA hashrate less constant than a GPUs ? It goes from 160 to 220 sometimes.
December 01, 2011, 10:05:56 PM
Is it possible that Gustie tries to get this thread locked?
Why I would like that kind of censorship ? Discussion is enlightening.
December 01, 2011, 03:50:38 PM
Freebie bigmouth. Have a nice life gusti ha ha ha
December 01, 2011, 03:49:09 PM
Is it possible that Gustie tries to get this thread locked?
December 01, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
Cisco have decades of superb design and customer service.
Your company sells boards with a crap design, that leads for having no protection at all.
Customers beware.
Your company sells boards with a crap design, that leads for having no protection at all.
Customers beware.
I really don't understand you logic: Cisco build superb designs, even if they are not be overvoltage protected. I develop crap designs, because they are not really over voltage protected.
A (almost) save overvoltage protection would be an voltage monitor and a transistor which swithes the power supply off if the voltage is not in range.
Another way is to use a voltage monitor and a power supply with power good signal, but I dont think that your power supply has a power good signal.
Both solutions costs money and I'm assuming that most customers prefer to met the specifications instead to pay a higher price.
December 01, 2011, 03:28:40 PM
Idk. You burn two boards and then you blame the board design. Sad that you choose to attack ztex instead of trying to find a fair solution for both with him. You played your cards bad imo. What do you expect him to do now ? Give you a full refund ? If i want something like that i would "blow sugar in his a$$" (being as polite as possible) to handle something out. I fear it's too late now. Sorry for your loss because the boards work very well with intact regulators...
I politely asked ztex for a solution, and he blamed me from day one.
btw, are you a ztex reseller or only a freebie bigmouth ?
December 01, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
Idk. You burn two boards and then you blame the board design. Sad that you choose to attack ztex instead of trying to find a fair solution for both with him. You played your cards bad imo. What do you expect him to do now ? Give you a full refund ? If i want something like that i would "blow sugar in his a$$" (being as polite as possible) to handle something out. I fear it's too late now. Sorry for your loss because the boards work very well with intact regulators...
December 01, 2011, 01:44:16 PM
From this statement, I may assume that the overvoltage protection of your boards, are the boards themselves.
Is this a good circuit design ?
Is this a good circuit design ?
The board cannot be considered as over voltage protected, as most consumer electronics. If you don't believe it, try out your switch with 24V. After that you can return it to Crisco and write them that the developed a bad design.
Quote
Can you really advise to use "supermarket power supplies" if you know that the slight overvoltage will damage the whole boards without chance to repair them ?
Due to that the recommended range is narrower the the absolute maximum range. If you run your board within the recommended range you have a margin of 2V.
Cisco have decades of superb design and customer service.
Your company sells boards with a crap design, that leads for having no protection at all.
Customers beware.
December 01, 2011, 01:26:02 PM
Btw, what kind of PS are you using ?
This... should be good enough for future boards
December 01, 2011, 01:15:20 PM
Ztex,
You should put this warning on packing:
You should put this warning on packing:
December 01, 2011, 12:52:36 PM
From this statement, I may assume that the overvoltage protection of your boards, are the boards themselves.
Is this a good circuit design ?
Is this a good circuit design ?
The board cannot be considered as over voltage protected, as most consumer electronics. If you don't believe it, try out your switch with 24V. After that you can return it to Crisco and write them that the developed a bad design.
Quote
Can you really advise to use "supermarket power supplies" if you know that the slight overvoltage will damage the whole boards without chance to repair them ?
Due to that the recommended range is narrower the the absolute maximum range. If you run your board within the recommended range you have a margin of 2V.
December 01, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
How much would you charge, Ztex, to replace just that regulator?
If on overvoltage occures the input voltage breaks through, i.e. the chance that FPGA and µC survived is almost zero.
I tested this on an Experimental Board 1.3 (same circuit) about a half year ago.
1.2 V regulators cannot be repalced by hand if lead free solder has to be used because bottom side pads have to be soldered.
From this statement, I may assume that the overvoltage protection of your boards, are the boards themselves.
Is this a good circuit design ?
Can you really advise to use "supermarket power supplies" if you know that the slight overvoltage will damage the whole boards without chance to repair them ?
December 01, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
3COM switch is rated from 6 to 16 vdc (if I remember correctly, I don´t have it here but I can check later).
But the PS is rated 12 VDC 1000 ma, and the further measures confirm that (11.3 with load and 13.5 idle)
But the PS is rated 12 VDC 1000 ma, and the further measures confirm that (11.3 with load and 13.5 idle)
Can you snap a pic of the label. I am curious.
If the label says 6V to 16V this does not need to mean that it does not survive 19V. Furthermore the router does not run in idle mode as the FPGA boards if they are unconfigured.
December 01, 2011, 12:03:41 PM
How much would you charge, Ztex, to replace just that regulator?
If on overvoltage occures the input voltage breaks through, i.e. the chance that FPGA and µC survived is almost zero.
I tested this on an Experimental Board 1.3 (same circuit) about a half year ago.
1.2 V regulators cannot be repalced by hand if lead free solder has to be used because bottom side pads have to be soldered.
December 01, 2011, 12:03:18 PM
Sorry but how can his product be such a failure as you state ? Mine is running 24h a day since about 2 weeks. I never had one issue with the hardware or software. First i used a bad thermal pad and the device clocked itself down for protection.
One failure can happen but two ? Talking trash won't help anyone.
Would be nice to hear what other board owners have to say. If someone is scaming, he needs to be taken down but as far as i see this that's not the case here. What happened to your boards was a bit more than just bad luck.
One failure can happen but two ? Talking trash won't help anyone.
Would be nice to hear what other board owners have to say. If someone is scaming, he needs to be taken down but as far as i see this that's not the case here. What happened to your boards was a bit more than just bad luck.
I expect a solution, and vendor was only blaming on me from day one that I told him boards were not working.
Btw, what kind of PS are you using ?
December 01, 2011, 11:58:29 AM
Sorry but how can his product be such a failure as you state ? Mine is running 24h a day since about 2 weeks. I never had one issue with the hardware or software. First i used a bad thermal pad and the device clocked itself down for protection.
One failure can happen but two ? Talking trash won't help anyone.
Would be nice to hear what other board owners have to say. If someone is scaming, he needs to be taken down but as far as i see this that's not the case here. What happened to your boards was a bit more than just bad luck.
One failure can happen but two ? Talking trash won't help anyone.
Would be nice to hear what other board owners have to say. If someone is scaming, he needs to be taken down but as far as i see this that's not the case here. What happened to your boards was a bit more than just bad luck.
Jump to: