so this is a bat file?
Unix shell file, but shy the ./ you should be able to put that in a .bat file - would save typing.
Topic: OLD: BFGMiner 3.10.0: modular ASIC+FPGA, GBT+Strtm, RPC, Mac/Lnx/W64, AntU1, DRB - page 26. (Read 1193271 times)
March 01, 2014, 08:56:07 PM
Unix shell file, but shy the ./ you should be able to put that in a .bat file - would save typing.
March 01, 2014, 08:50:27 PM
so this is a bat file?
March 01, 2014, 08:09:18 PM
I cant get bfg to find antminer u1 says "no devices found" any help with this one. also when running cgminer 4.0.1 what should the bat file say when overclocking ?
1st) Make sure your running bfgminer 3.10.0 - prior releases don't have antminer support.
2nd)9Should do it for you, overclocking them up to about 2 GH, where most are reasonably stable without mods (make sure you have enough power)
3rd) This is a bfgminer thread, don't expect much cgminer support
./bfgminer -S antminer:all --set-device antminer:clock=x0981 --balance -o stratum+tcp://us-east.multipool.us:8888 -O Cassey.miner2am:x -o stratum+tcp://multicoin.zapto.org:3320 -O Cassey.miner2am:x
That is all you should need for antminer U1s. The above is my complete command line, with no config file. Feel free to use it exactly (I'll appreciate the extra hash credits
March 01, 2014, 07:56:05 PM
I cant get bfg to find antminer u1 says "no devices found" any help with this one. also when running cgminer 4.0.1 what should the bat file say when overclocking ?
1st) Make sure your running bfgminer 3.10.0 - prior releases don't have antminer support.
2nd)9Should do it for you, overclocking them up to about 2 GH, where most are reasonably stable without mods (make sure you have enough power)
3rd) This is a bfgminer thread, don't expect much cgminer support
March 01, 2014, 07:39:05 PM
I cant get bfg to find antminer u1 says "no devices found" any help with this one. also when running cgminer 4.0.1 what should the bat file say when overclocking ?
1st) Make sure your running bfgminer 3.10.0 - prior releases don't have antminer support.
2nd) ./bfgminer -S antminer:all --set-device antminer:clock=x0981 Should do it for you, overclocking them up to about 2 GH, where most are reasonably stable without mods (make sure you have enough power)
3rd) This is a bfgminer thread, don't expect much cgminer support
March 01, 2014, 07:16:34 PM
I cant get bfg to find antminer u1 says "no devices found" any help with this one. also when running cgminer 4.0.1 what should the bat file say when overclocking ?
February 28, 2014, 11:57:15 PM
I may be way off but, have you checked the port speed setting? Mine were set at 9600 bps, I changed them to 115200 bps and the problem I was having diminished greatly if not totally disappeared.
Stale shares stat was too high and ideally should be 0. Now they are. That's the online side of it,anyway. I can't monitor local hash rates via cpuminer's dos screens. ;( Why didn't they build that feature in?
Hope this helps.
Wolfey2014
Stale shares stat was too high and ideally should be 0. Now they are. That's the online side of it,anyway. I can't monitor local hash rates via cpuminer's dos screens. ;( Why didn't they build that feature in?
Hope this helps.
Wolfey2014
GPU --scrypt mining. The only difference in the startup scripts is the balance option chosen. But I appreciate the thought!
February 28, 2014, 11:55:05 PM
Hi all. I seem to be having an issue when I use --load-balance with quotas vs --balance. I've tested this on 4 different machines and am getting similar results...
Here are the key stats, using --load-balance between 5 pools, with quotas at 70, 10, 10, 10, & 5 with respect to each pool.
OCL 0: 50.0C | 290.0/ 77.9/ 70.1kh/s | A: 52 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 40.0C | 182.0/ 49.4/ 57.2kh/s | A: 40 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 96.1/ 25.5/ 16.7kh/s | A: 12 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
vs. starting with the same script that just changes --load-balance to --balance and all the "--quota xx;" to "-o"
OCL 0: 77.0C | 437.4/408.7/327.0kh/s | A: 54 R: 6+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 60.0C | 273.1/265.0/257.4kh/s | A: 41 R: 7+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 140.6/140.0/107.5kh/s | A: 14 R: 3+0(none) HW:0/none
Obviously, this is only after 10 minutes or so of running, but the difference is clear.
Any thoughts? Maybe its just a reporting difference? Like its just reporting on the last pool or something? Hope so, because I love the --load-balance/quote feature!
Cassey
I may be way off but, have you checked the port speed setting? Mine were set at 9600 bps, I changed them to 115200 bps and the problem I was having diminished greatly if not totally disappeared.Here are the key stats, using --load-balance between 5 pools, with quotas at 70, 10, 10, 10, & 5 with respect to each pool.
OCL 0: 50.0C | 290.0/ 77.9/ 70.1kh/s | A: 52 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 40.0C | 182.0/ 49.4/ 57.2kh/s | A: 40 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 96.1/ 25.5/ 16.7kh/s | A: 12 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
vs. starting with the same script that just changes --load-balance to --balance and all the "--quota xx;" to "-o"
OCL 0: 77.0C | 437.4/408.7/327.0kh/s | A: 54 R: 6+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 60.0C | 273.1/265.0/257.4kh/s | A: 41 R: 7+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 140.6/140.0/107.5kh/s | A: 14 R: 3+0(none) HW:0/none
Obviously, this is only after 10 minutes or so of running, but the difference is clear.
Any thoughts? Maybe its just a reporting difference? Like its just reporting on the last pool or something? Hope so, because I love the --load-balance/quote feature!
Cassey
Stale shares stat was too high and ideally should be 0. Now they are. That's the online side of it,anyway. I can't monitor local hash rates via cpuminer's dos screens. ;( Why didn't they build that feature in?
Hope this helps.
Wolfey2014
February 28, 2014, 09:35:44 PM
Hi all. I seem to be having an issue when I use --load-balance with quotas vs --balance. I've tested this on 4 different machines and am getting similar results...
Here are the key stats, using --load-balance between 5 pools, with quotas at 70, 10, 10, 10, & 5 with respect to each pool.
OCL 0: 50.0C | 290.0/ 77.9/ 70.1kh/s | A: 52 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 40.0C | 182.0/ 49.4/ 57.2kh/s | A: 40 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 96.1/ 25.5/ 16.7kh/s | A: 12 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
vs. starting with the same script that just changes --load-balance to --balance and all the "--quota xx;" to "-o"
OCL 0: 77.0C | 437.4/408.7/327.0kh/s | A: 54 R: 6+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 60.0C | 273.1/265.0/257.4kh/s | A: 41 R: 7+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 140.6/140.0/107.5kh/s | A: 14 R: 3+0(none) HW:0/none
Obviously, this is only after 10 minutes or so of running, but the difference is clear.
Any thoughts? Maybe its just a reporting difference? Like its just reporting on the last pool or something? Hope so, because I love the --load-balance/quote feature!
Cassey
Here are the key stats, using --load-balance between 5 pools, with quotas at 70, 10, 10, 10, & 5 with respect to each pool.
OCL 0: 50.0C | 290.0/ 77.9/ 70.1kh/s | A: 52 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 40.0C | 182.0/ 49.4/ 57.2kh/s | A: 40 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 96.1/ 25.5/ 16.7kh/s | A: 12 R:0+0(none) HW:0/none
vs. starting with the same script that just changes --load-balance to --balance and all the "--quota xx;" to "-o"
OCL 0: 77.0C | 437.4/408.7/327.0kh/s | A: 54 R: 6+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 1: 60.0C | 273.1/265.0/257.4kh/s | A: 41 R: 7+0(none) HW:0/none
OCL 2: | 140.6/140.0/107.5kh/s | A: 14 R: 3+0(none) HW:0/none
Obviously, this is only after 10 minutes or so of running, but the difference is clear.
Any thoughts? Maybe its just a reporting difference? Like its just reporting on the last pool or something? Hope so, because I love the --load-balance/quote feature!
Cassey
February 28, 2014, 08:57:50 PM
Looking forward to the 5 chip gridseed support...current cpu miner is insanely unreliable...
Is this actually in the works?
I thought I read that it existed. I guess I was wrong
February 28, 2014, 08:42:11 PM
Support for the single-chip thumbs is completed and submitted to Luke as a pull-request for 4.0:
https://github.com/nwoolls/bfgminer/tree/feature/dualminer-support
Support for the 5-chip miners is under way as well.
+1 for this. I'm not a fan of using CPUMiner for this. I do like CPUminer but for my CPU, not for this ASIC.
I also would like to get rid of using the DualMiner GUI software. I currently have 3 miners running. BFGMiner for SHA256, DualMiner GUI for my Dualminers, and CPUMiner for my 5chip gridseed.
All these updates to BFGMiner would be awesome to help eliminate the other 2 miners and just use 2 instances of BFGMiner.
February 28, 2014, 06:19:31 PM
Looking forward to the 5 chip gridseed support...current cpu miner is insanely unreliable...
Really? In what way? Mine is working great! I'd like to see more adjustable perimeters and detection like hash rate and temperature, intensity, etc.
But it's working very stably. I have no complaints there. Are you using version 2.3.2?
There is a 2.3.3 release too but it's only for CPU mining, evidently.....
Wolfey2014
Yes, I am using 2.3.2. The miner will stop accepting shares after a while to the point where I need to unplug the usb and restart.
Okay, well that sounds like a USB comm problem, not a software issue. 2.3.2 works fine and very stably for me, at least
You should start looking at other possible causes i.e. hardware issues or perhaps configuration problems or comm port problems etc....
good luck!
February 28, 2014, 05:36:29 PM
Looking forward to the 5 chip gridseed support...current cpu miner is insanely unreliable...
Really? In what way? Mine is working great! I'd like to see more adjustable perimeters and detection like hash rate and temperature, intensity, etc.
But it's working very stably. I have no complaints there. Are you using version 2.3.2?
There is a 2.3.3 release too but it's only for CPU mining, evidently.....
Wolfey2014
Yes, I am using 2.3.2. The miner will stop accepting shares after a while to the point where I need to unplug the usb and restart.
February 28, 2014, 05:01:21 PM
Looking forward to the 5 chip gridseed support...current cpu miner is insanely unreliable...
Really? In what way? Mine is working great! I'd like to see more adjustable perimeters and detection like hash rate and temperature, intensity, etc.
But it's working very stably. I have no complaints there. Are you using version 2.3.2?
There is a 2.3.3 release too but it's only for CPU mining, evidently.....
Wolfey2014
February 28, 2014, 04:55:31 PM
Looking forward to the 5 chip gridseed support...current cpu miner is insanely unreliable...
February 27, 2014, 08:33:56 PM
Edit: I sent marto another PM requesting a sample.
Good luck.
February 27, 2014, 01:06:40 PM
Edit: I sent marto another PM requesting a sample.
Good luck.
February 27, 2014, 12:18:18 PM
Oh, I thought it was a HEX16A2 you had. 
I thought so too - I've tried bugging the TechnoBit folks for samples but didn't get anywhere. If you want to try getting in touch with them that would probably help. I'm fairly certain the reason we got the Scrypt ASIC samples is due to users requesting them more than us.
Edit: I sent marto another PM requesting a sample.
February 27, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Oh, I thought it was a HEX16A2 you had.
February 27, 2014, 11:49:34 AM
nwoolls, any updates on the HEX16A2 drivers for bfgminer? I would LOVE to get these working with bfg - if I could, it'd mean running 1 PC for everything rather than 1 PC and two little ARM routers that aren't the most stable devices.
No not really - I just got a HEX16A from Luke. I got it up and going but only at 4-5 Gh/s. Still trying to figure out what's up there.
From there I will work on a BFGMiner driver for the HEX16A but I'm not sure how far that goes for supporting the HEX16A2 (which is Avalon 2 based instead of the first-gen chips).
Jump to: