Can you underclock bfl singles with bfgminer somehow?
So I guess that's a no!
Topic: OLD: BFGMiner 3.10.0: modular ASIC+FPGA, GBT+Strtm, RPC, Mac/Lnx/W64, AntU1, DRB - page 9. (Read 1193219 times)
April 13, 2014, 11:50:47 AM
So I guess that's a no!
April 12, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
I just happened to walk in and sit down to my computer and the bfgminer display was rolling up but said "reinitializing AMU 0" and went thru the list of all my devices... Any guess as to what would cause that?
April 12, 2014, 04:52:36 AM
I am so looking forward to support for them.
The three I have now run great at about 32 gh/s each with no overclock but I so miss MultiMiner that it drives me nuts.
Once per day cgminer drops them.
They are fun units.
The three I have now run great at about 32 gh/s each with no overclock but I so miss MultiMiner that it drives me nuts.
Once per day cgminer drops them.
They are fun units.
luke,
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
Yes, we're working on it.received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
idk if it will be work noting but ive noticed cgminer seems to segfault when the jobid field is exhausted, instead of rolling back to the beginning of the 32bit number. idk if its the version im running so :/ with a grain of salt i suppose
as well cant wait to have all my hardware condensed into 1 screen. running cg and bfg on the same BBB and setting up permissions was a pita.
id start bfg with my usbs and some k16s. then fire up cg which would try and grab my usbs and fu** em up when i only wanted it to get the OSM.
some fiddling with cg's udev rules did the trick.
April 12, 2014, 12:28:45 AM
I am so looking forward to support for them.
The three I have now run great at about 32 gh/s each with no overclock but I so miss MultiMiner that it drives me nuts.
Once per day cgminer drops them.
They are fun units.
The three I have now run great at about 32 gh/s each with no overclock but I so miss MultiMiner that it drives me nuts.
Once per day cgminer drops them.
They are fun units.
luke,
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
Yes, we're working on it.received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
April 11, 2014, 11:06:10 PM
luke,
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
Yes, we're working on it.received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
April 11, 2014, 11:04:37 PM
luke,
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
Yes, we're working on it. received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
April 11, 2014, 11:03:18 PM
luke,
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
received your OneStringMiner dev stack yet from @benturas?
April 10, 2014, 12:15:10 PM
my hahsra image with bfgminer only shows me the following messages all the time:
anyone an idea?
another problem is the missing ssh-logindata to the hashra-pi-image
Quote
Apr 10 10:15:40 bfgminer[28211]: Stratum authorisation success for pool 0
Apr 10 10:15:40 bfgminer[28211]: Closing socket for stratum pool 0
Apr 10 10:15:40 bfgminer[28211]: Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
Apr 10 10:15:40 bfgminer[28211]: Closing socket for stratum pool 0
Apr 10 10:15:40 bfgminer[28211]: Stratum connection to pool 0 interrupted
anyone an idea?
another problem is the missing ssh-logindata to the hashra-pi-image
April 09, 2014, 10:15:48 PM
I'm not worried about the hardware error itself, I usually get one or two near the beginning, but it stabilizes over time. I just noticed that the shares are 2, with one HW error on both miners, but the % of hardware errors is different. How are the percentages calculated if two miners with the same accepted and hardware error have different percentages?
I guess hardware errors HW % are calculated among all usefull results (diff 1 up) so they may be compared to different totals for different erupters. If they were related to accepted shares, 1 versus 2 would be 33 or 50%...
Your numbers must be saying something like:
1 = 1.8% of 56, 2 of which above 16
1 = 2.4% of 42, 2 of which above 16
April 09, 2014, 09:11:44 PM
Here's a question. I have two Block Erupter Sapphires amidst 7 antminer u2+ and 3 nanofury. I just noticed when I restarted that the two BEs have the same stats as far as their shares, but the percentage at the end was different. Here's a screenshot:
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
Because the block erupters run at 333 mh/s you'll have very little chance of getting a diff 16 share. Try running those on their own instance with a pool the will do diff 1. Otherwise you'll have to sit around for a while before they add up...As for the Hardware Errors percentage, it's probably because one is running warmer than the other...generally heat has a very detrimental effect on performance.
I'm not worried about the hardware error itself, I usually get one or two near the beginning, but it stabilizes over time. I just noticed that the shares are 2, with one HW error on both miners, but the % of hardware errors is different. How are the percentages calculated if two miners with the same accepted and hardware error have different percentages?
April 09, 2014, 08:05:29 PM
Here's a question. I have two Block Erupter Sapphires amidst 7 antminer u2+ and 3 nanofury. I just noticed when I restarted that the two BEs have the same stats as far as their shares, but the percentage at the end was different. Here's a screenshot:
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
Because the block erupters run at 333 mh/s you'll have very little chance of getting a diff 16 share. Try running those on their own instance with a pool the will do diff 1. Otherwise you'll have to sit around for a while before they add up...As for the Hardware Errors percentage, it's probably because one is running warmer than the other...generally heat has a very detrimental effect on performance.
April 09, 2014, 07:56:21 PM
I would like it to be replaced by the old "accepted shares per minute", a good measure of miners performance.
Accepted shares per minute is absolutely useless information... it tells nothing about performance.Oh yes?!? My ignorance then... but how come that?
Is there something I should study or read about this? I thought it was what I should look after for each miner...
Ah yes... That s right no doubt. I m alleviated.
But I was meaning something like shares/minute*diff or even "shares"/minute and we calculate diff. Main target here would be to have some usual number to see and check at any moment. I guess you ve elaborated that a lot more and sure, we have there "I: 143uBTC/hr" Maybe I should just get used to that 143u... Is this the (new, better) way?
PS and BTW: about that doubt of me of sometimes BFGMiner showing, at [M] menu, erupter data (serial# and description) and sometimes not... Any recomendations? Solutions? Just live with that?
Thanks again Luke-Jr and congrats.
April 09, 2014, 06:51:50 PM
I would like it to be replaced by the old "accepted shares per minute", a good measure of miners performance.
Accepted shares per minute is absolutely useless information... it tells nothing about performance.Oh yes?!? My ignorance then... but how come that?
Is there something I should study or read about this? I thought it was what I should look after for each miner...
April 09, 2014, 06:44:56 PM
Here's a question. I have two Block Erupter Sapphires amidst 7 antminer u2+ and 3 nanofury. I just noticed when I restarted that the two BEs have the same stats as far as their shares, but the percentage at the end was different. Here's a screenshot:
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
Is there something I'm missing? Why are they different?
April 09, 2014, 05:25:49 PM
I would like it to be replaced by the old "accepted shares per minute", a good measure of miners performance.
Accepted shares per minute is absolutely useless information... it tells nothing about performance.Oh yes?!? My ignorance then... but how come that?
Is there something I should study or read about this? I thought it was what I should look after for each miner...
April 09, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
I would like it to be replaced by the old "accepted shares per minute", a good measure of miners performance.
Accepted shares per minute is absolutely useless information... it tells nothing about performance. April 09, 2014, 04:57:17 PM
Does anyone use the E(fficiency) displayed on the TUI? Any other options I can deprecate to make more room for new ones? :p
I would like it to be replaced by the old "accepted shares per minute", a good measure of miners performance.
BTW [H]elp says U = shares per minute, but it s not displayed nor I can find how or where to turn it on...
Thanks!
April 09, 2014, 03:20:57 PM
Does anyone use the E(fficiency) displayed on the TUI? Any other options I can deprecate to make more room for new ones? :p
I don't pay much attention to it but I would add that with BTC mining you are not likely to find the PPS value "I" relevant much these days either. Even BTCGuild has abandoned PPS completely. April 09, 2014, 10:32:34 AM
Can you underclock bfl singles with bfgminer somehow?
April 08, 2014, 06:44:13 PM
Does anyone use the E(fficiency) displayed on the TUI? Any other options I can deprecate to make more room for new ones? :p
Jump to: