Pages:
Author

Topic: Butterfly Labs - Bitforce Single and Mini Rig Box - page 30. (Read 186929 times)

legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx

Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862.
Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right?
As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once.
(so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also)

I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later.
I wonder... if it's a recurring problem and you confirm it every time, it is possible the device isn't actually hashing at that rate and is conveniently losing work...
Damn - looks like I gotta setup a windows USB boot and flash my BFL to see what's going on ...
Only available on Windows ... yeah that was a good idea ... NOT
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx

Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862.
Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right?
As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once.
(so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also)

I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later.
I wonder... if it's a recurring problem and you confirm it every time, it is possible the device isn't actually hashing at that rate and is conveniently losing work...
sr. member
Activity: 446
Merit: 250
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx

Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862.
Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right?
As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once.
(so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also)

I ran for 12 hours and it wasn't improving. I went back to 832 and U is back to what I expect. I will try the 862 again later.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx

Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862.
Um - you did run for a day and ensure that your U: was really lower right?
As I've mentioned in a few places already, I've had a >6% variance of U: last for 3.5 hours once.
(so a -6% variance over that length of time is obviously quite possible also)
sr. member
Activity: 446
Merit: 250
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx

Runs great on mine too. However, even though the Hash rate is increased, the performance is decreased. I can not figure out why but when I went back to 832 I am doing better than at 862.
sr. member
Activity: 438
Merit: 250
oh ignore the time on that pc it was less than an hour ago
sr. member
Activity: 438
Merit: 250
heres a screenshot of mine mining with the 862 firmware

http://i.imgur.com/dqOYX.jpg

runs great thx
hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
Sounds like your main pool does support nrolltime and you do that on the work you are given with the LP, but the pool is still too overloaded to give out work when you finish it.  Are you using --failover-only?  If you aren't, then maybe the work after the LP is for a different pool and your main pool is that far behind.  If you are, then the failover takes longer now, that's listed in the changelog, so that could explain the idle time.
hero member
Activity: 981
Merit: 500
DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize
Then I guess I am curious why it starts twiddling its tumbs more then 40 seconds after the LP from the pool. I see staged drop slightly after LP then about 40-45 seconds later I finally get a significant drop in speed. I had assumed it was working staged shares or it wouldn't keep busy immediately after but if it keeps up for the first at least 30 seconds I wonder why it slows down after that. I guess I get some shares early enough. that it coasts that long or something. At any rate the pools I have between the three should I had assumed keep up with one single. I have eclipseMC, bitclockers (I know people hate them), and bitpenny(kinda high fees but local work). Pool does not seem to change LP issues. Issue does not start at LP but after just far nearer LP then the next LP.
At any rate the more instant speed of the single stayed at 810-811 and now it stays above 850. It did not change because of any software changes. I put a new bitstream on it. My average went from 790 to 810ish now. I have had to adjust my queue up a bit hopefully the average will come up more.

Some LP times it does drop off instantly or close to it and stays down but most of the time it is later.
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
I understand how long polls work. New block is found everyone has to get new work. The pools get hammered with requests for work. How is it possible when I am working on previously cached work and requesting new and showing cached work that I am out of work? Even set to 2 seconds for my logging I show 1 unit que and 3-12 staged. How is that out of work?
You ARE out of work after a longpoll. The cached work is absolutely useless belonging to a now dead previous block height so you do NOT work on it no matter how much work is "cached". The only thing that is "cached" with submit-stale is SHARES, if they have been found at approximately the same point in time as the longpoll, not extra work. You cannot work again at maximum rate until you have received enough work from either the longpoll itself (since it provides one work unit), rolls work from that longpoll (if the pool supports rolltime), and/or you get enough new work units. The fact that the BFL device twiddles its thumbs for up to 5 seconds on the wrong block work after longpoll means up to 5 seconds of work is wasted. You can submit those shares, but most pools will just say "too late" and they'll be rejected.
hero member
Activity: 981
Merit: 500
DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize
Is Gave up a bad hing?
is run was 259 processed, 0 erors, 1 throttle. 1 seems high. I will keep an eye on it.
hero member
Activity: 2618
Merit: 548
SecureShift.io | Crypto-Exchange
......shipped with 3 fans total and a declocked bitstream....

The above statement along with a 6 month warranty make me happy that BFL took 2 days to answer my email in regards to a near $10,000 USD order that I was informed may be available in 6-8 weeks.

I will keep a candle burning for you all and pray that your 6 month warrantied miners don't end up being 7 month old paperweights.
full member
Activity: 227
Merit: 100
858 on the 862 firmware. 0 throttles and 0 errors light test. running on cgminer now to let it run all night. Will unplug and retry tests tomorrow.

Happy to know. It is best to run medium or heavy diagnostics to make sure unit will behave the same
way in the long run.


Regards,
BF Labs Inc.
hero member
Activity: 981
Merit: 500
DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize
858 on the 862 firmware. 0 throttles and 0 errors light test. running on cgminer now to let it run all night. Will unplug and retry tests tomorrow.

Edit:
Running 52.2C so cooler then the last firmware I had on it. CGMiner reports 857.7 over 50 minutes. I will have more accurate numbers later but so far this works about how I would expect given the firmware I know I flashed on it.

Edit 2:
After running 12 hours or a little more I have an average speed of 807Mhash, and the top speed I see is still 858. Rejects are a lower % as well.

Edit 3:
Tried medium test twice.
First result was disconnected at least 100 processed 0 errors, 0 throttles.
Second result was gave up. Unit reliable, processed 115 0 errors, 0 throttles.
full member
Activity: 227
Merit: 100
Yes I am I edited in that I was testing faster before I checked for new posts. I gave results then downloaded the new firmwares.

The 810 you see does not have the latency of 100ms included. 810 means 822MH/s total.
Could you please send me detailed information of how fast each firmware has operated?
To be sure, after each firmware upload, power-cycle the unit and run diagnostics.

Please send the results to [email protected].


Regards,
BF Labs Inc.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I heart thebaron
......shipped with 3 fans total and a declocked bitstream....

The above statement along with a 6 month warranty make me happy that BFL took 2 days to answer my email in regards to a near $10,000 USD order that I was informed may be available in 6-8 weeks.

I will keep a candle burning for you all and pray that your 6 month warrantied miners don't end up being 7 month old paperweights.
hero member
Activity: 981
Merit: 500
DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize
Yes I am I edited in that I was testing faster before I checked for new posts. I gave results then downloaded the new firmwares.
full member
Activity: 227
Merit: 100
Test shows average speed 810Mhash, 0 throttles, 0 errors and reliable. The 810 makes me a little upset. Had I known that it was shipped with 3 fans total and a declocked bitstream I would have expected the results I have gotten. Not the results that where stated plainly on the page when I paid for it.

Is it possible for your to upload a new firmware? We have them available on the site. Start with 864, then 832, etc.


Regards,
BF Labs Inc.
hero member
Activity: 981
Merit: 500
DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize
Test shows average speed 810Mhash, 0 throttles, 0 errors and reliable. The 810 makes me a little upset. Had I known that it was shipped with 3 fans total and a declocked bitstream I would have expected the results I have gotten. Not the results that where stated plainly on the page when I paid for it.

Edit:
After downloading firmware A Plenty I am testing the 864Mhash version. I hope it doesn't throttle. But I can always try something slower if it does.
full member
Activity: 227
Merit: 100
Well that would be truely accurate except I submit stale as 2 of my 3 pools accept all of the shares. It does not go idle or does not seem to slow down until the staged work runs out. I guess my quandry is why between LP is the unit never able to clear 811.1 with an average of 796 over this test has only been 10 hours. I understand that the lag after LP (if I dumped the queue) would delay a couple of work units. Even EclipseMC where RollNtime is working. I am able to run some work multiple times per request. Even if the first request was lagging the next 4 for sure submissions should be on time as the work is now local. While the next how ever many it completes are being run through CGminer queues more work. Up to 2 is the highest I have seen. But even with a queue of 2 and staged work of 5 I am seeing less then 800 listed periodically. The loss of hashrate comes about 1 minute into the new work after the LP.

On CGMiner how long is the per device speed averaged over. I am going to try changing the log information to see when the upper matches since I know of no faster way to find out(this was a bad plan as now the value I want to test and the value I am to test it against both change at the same time). I know the average seems to be the whole running time. I know the upper data I can set and it defaults to 5 seconds. I ask because I am having trouble figuring out if cgminer is failing to deliver work fast enough, if cgminer isn't checking close enough to when its done sometimes, if a minute after a LP I am unable to get shares in a timely fashion (I have queued work so that seems unlikely), or if my single is not for some reason  signaling it is done when it should(I am not saying this is the problem).

As a side note per the engineers information I have no way to actually diagnose this. There appears to be no status indication for a unit done with its processing but not yet working. Maybe I have misunderstood but the internal LED's only blink when new work is set so they  are nearly useless for me to tell if the device is finsihing early. This has my testing stuck with a blame the other guy answer. All that needs said is BFL its cgminer or your pools, cgminer its your pools or your single, your pools its your single or cgminer. HOW DO I KNOW?

I don't think 811 sounds right at all personally. My average of not even 800 seems horribly low. I understand that LP can cause some network delays after it happens. I guess to me it seems a bit glib to say that my unit is throttling when out fo the two of us I am pretty sure I am the only one capable of seeing the LED's, and that despite my being able to look into the running unit you know much better then I do what rate the internal LED's blink at. Possibly you have broken into my house and examined the unit without my knowledge or consent but far more likely you are guessing. I am looking at the unit in question. I am in proximity to the problem and so far I have gotten nothing from the BFL-Engineer to actually help figure this out. By all means pat yourself on the back for being so knowledgable that you just know everything is fine. Maybe just for a moment pretend that when I said I stared at it for an hour I ment 60 Minutes. When I said I timed the LED flashes I actually timed them, and when I said I counted that I am not so stupid as to actually look away during it.

I understand how long polls work. New block is found everyone has to get new work. The pools get hammered with requests for work. How is it possible when I am working on previously cached work and requesting new and showing cached work that I am out of work? Even set to 2 seconds for my logging I show 1 unit que and 3-12 staged. How is that out of work?



If possible, please download Easyminer from our website, and run a light-diagnosis on your unit.
The number given to you is very close to the hash-speed of the unit( there is some 80ms device
turnaround latency, which would translate some 10MH/s less than the units hash rate, but it will
give you the speed of the unit nonetheless).

Please report the number you get back to us, and we'll see if something is wrong.



Regards,
BF Labs Inc.

Pages:
Jump to: