Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1157.

FeedbackLoop

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: edgar on November 03, 2013, 09:59:55 PM

keep trying to up your game mouthpiece, your diversionary tactics don't go un-noticed. Nor your stalking..

now you are 'we' ?

Pray for you to give it a rest like you said you would, about 4 times.

Yeah! 'We' be stalking you. We're just the mouthpiece for the voices in your head. You are our reason of existence in this forum. Everything else was just a diversion. You got us uncovered now. All this buying a Jupiter and posting here and there... a FARCE!

Guess precious little packages like these come with all the features don't they! Holy *&^! I thought you were just a little over-sensitive brat! lol! Did I say holy crap yet? Shocked

And now I have to defend both what I say and what the imaginary person you think I am says. I never thought I would meet such a precious little character like you, not even online. You were definitely the cherry on top of the cake of this weekend's trolling (quite a fruitcake it turned out to be).

Ignored for a while for me not to fall to the temptation of replying again, for the sake of the poor thread, even though it would actually be pretty funny to follow you.*

* But deep down you know me saying ignored is just a "diversionary tactic" right? So post away. "We" will keep tracking you down!

Quote from: edgar on November 03, 2013, 10:21:42 PM

Bizarrely mine did the same thing...

** This was also 'us'

edgar

legendary

Activity: 1858

Merit: 1001

Bizarrely mine did the same thing...

Recovered immediately at 702Gh/s for about 3 seconds.

'Pow'..etc

Bogart

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: xyzzy099 on November 03, 2013, 07:27:36 PM

Quote from: timmmers on November 03, 2013, 07:21:09 PM

Quote from: Bogart on November 03, 2013, 06:04:53 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:52:07 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 04:51:20 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:16:39 PM

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

thats what i thought too man, but its made a big difference for me!

My Saturn's currently running 0.98 with 1.2% hw errors, and only one core that keeps getting toggled on and off.

cgminer reports a long term average of 283.8Ghps. Darned near the theoretical maximum of 284. I'm not gonna touch it.

I must have missed something but where did that theorectical max info come from ? I was wondering what that was.

Basically, each hash module has 192 cores that hash at 750MH/s each, so 144 GH/s per module.

Oops, I mathed wrong.

On top of that, I jinxed myself posting that. Shortly after, the unit crashed in some way where it became inaccessible IP-wise.

Mercifully, off-then-on-again was all it took to make it happy again.

edgar

legendary

Activity: 1858

Merit: 1001

keep trying to up your game mouthpiece, your diversionary tactics don't go un-noticed. Nor your stalking..

now you are 'we' ?

Pray for you to give it a rest like you said you would, about 4 times.

FeedbackLoop

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: DimensionsOfHell on November 03, 2013, 09:13:16 PM

Okay... update...

After two hours of messing about... I got the board that needs to be hot at a stable 73c, but it now shows 'FAULT' on one of the VRMs.
Even with the fault, the miner is showing 260GH/s average on CGMINER and 244GH/s on the pools side, both of which are slowly climbing. My 5s averages at around 271gh/s - 302gh/s.
I'm much happier with the speed now, but worried about that 'FAULT' on one of the VRMs.

What do you guys think?

Also, my Device Rejected rate and Pool Rejected rate has shot up from around 0.27% to now over 5%.

https://i.imgur.com/kYxaZxSl.jpg

EDIT: Thanks Searing for the suggestion, but that is the first thing I did when I got my Miner. Keeping the temp cool isn't my problem. My problem was to actually heat it up. My miner normally ran at around 45c on one board, ad 48c on the other board. Now I have them at 65.5c on one board, and 73.5c on the other board. Never seen it run better then now. Just hoping to keep that stable.

For all it's worth:

According to the datasheet (http://www.lineagepower.com/oem/pdf/MDT040A0X.pdf) I would guess FAULT 4 just refers to the "IO Overcurrent" fault on bit 4 of the lower byte on page 20.

We see it at a higher current than it's brothers in the same board. Maybe a tiny improvised cooler on just that vrm to make it go away? Copper coins? Old motherboard coolers? Pray for no magic smoke?

DimensionsOfHell

full member

Activity: 346

Merit: 100

Okay... update...

After two hours of messing about... I got the board that needs to be hot at a stable 73c, but it now shows 'FAULT' on one of the VRMs.
Even with the fault, the miner is showing 260GH/s average on CGMINER and 244GH/s on the pools side, both of which are slowly climbing. My 5s averages at around 271gh/s - 302gh/s.
I'm much happier with the speed now, but worried about that 'FAULT' on one of the VRMs.

What do you guys think?

Also, my Device Rejected rate and Pool Rejected rate has shot up from around 0.27% to now over 5%.

EDIT: Thanks Searing for the suggestion, but that is the first thing I did when I got my Miner. Keeping the temp cool isn't my problem. My problem was to actually heat it up. My miner normally ran at around 45c on one board, ad 48c on the other board. Now I have them at 65.5c on one board, and 73.5c on the other board. Never seen it run better then now. Just hoping to keep that stable.

Searing

copper member

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1465

Clueless!

Quote from: DimensionsOfHell on November 03, 2013, 07:38:20 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 06:57:44 PM

to what temp?

I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right?
Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in.

As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A.

So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference.

you did check for the plastic between the heatsink was taken off right..if not you should see clear piece of plastic if you look close over the edges of the heatsink/chip area?

i'm running my unit all my stuff is like below 42c with 1 20c and 1 32c other 2 now at 42c...i'm in a winter coming basement kinda thing with low humidity

cover off fans in front blowing crosswise

anyway just in case someone missed the memo on the plastic being left on heatsink and not peeled off before thermal grease added..easy fix....take off plastic re apply some new thermal paste *unsure of best one*

hope it helps all I got

Searing

FeedbackLoop

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: edgar on November 03, 2013, 08:14:03 PM

showing the immediate ratings after reflashing is hardly 'BOOM, PoW' Etc

you know full well that these rates will fluctuate, so why go ON & ON & ON & ON?

do you really want to show you have the bestest in the barn 15 times a week, only to have to review the 'new truth' 15 more times.

you and feedback loop would do us all a great service by giving it a rest.. even a short one...

BooMM!!

Nice way to squeeze Feedbackloop there for a well timed cheap shot dipshit!

Feedbackloop has barely been posting stats. I understand that you need to mix accusations there to actually get some flame going my way though. The only thing I have been posting way too much these two days are replies to useless trolls like you. And you are not even a good one. Go flame the newbie forum.

Quote from: edgar on October 25, 2013, 10:06:44 PM

i removed an external room fan and raised GH/s by 0.8.

'BOOM, PoW' Etc

edgar

legendary

Activity: 1858

Merit: 1001

showing the immediate ratings after reflashing is hardly 'BOOM, PoW' Etc

you know full well that these rates will fluctuate, so why go ON & ON & ON & ON?

do you really want to show you have the bestest in the barn 15 times a week, only to have to review the 'new truth' 15 more times.

you and feedback loop would do us all a great service by giving it a rest.. even a short one...

BooMM!!

timmmers

sr. member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 265

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 08:00:14 PM

Well, this time 'round, I decided to try just 0.98, straight up...

There went the "Theoretical limit"...
Oyeah.

Where? 288 is the theoretical limit.
Not to mention all the messing you've been doing probably reduced the ave hash rate over time by some margin Wink

timmmers

sr. member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 265

Quote from: Meizirkki on November 03, 2013, 07:58:46 PM

In KnC were smart they'd have shipped the boxes 400Gh as promised and later provide an overclocking FW for everyone to play with. This way they'd never had to do RMA on all the slightly underperforming units Grin

Too busy bragging about what ORSOC did. It pains me to call these things KNC when the lion's share of what KNC did, they did badly and ORSOC actually were the ones delivering the goods.

They did miss a trick there, and compounded that by not being able to update the specs on their site too.
A cock crows on it's own dunghill as my granny used to say.

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Well, this time 'round, I decided to try just 0.98, straight up...

There went the "Theoretical limit"...
Oyeah.

Just kidding... thats the first 5 mins, they always go back to 283, 284, 283

Meizirkki

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

In KnC were smart they'd have shipped the boxes 400Gh as promised and later provide an overclocking FW for everyone to play with. This way they'd never had to do RMA on all the slightly underperforming units Grin

timmmers

sr. member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 265

Quote from: xyzzy099 on November 03, 2013, 07:27:36 PM

Quote from: timmmers on November 03, 2013, 07:21:09 PM

Quote from: Bogart on November 03, 2013, 06:04:53 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:52:07 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 04:51:20 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:16:39 PM

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

thats what i thought too man, but its made a big difference for me!

My Saturn's currently running 0.98 with 1.2% hw errors, and only one core that keeps getting toggled on and off.

cgminer reports a long term average of 283.8Ghps. Darned near the theoretical maximum of 284. I'm not gonna touch it.

I must have missed something but where did that theorectical max info come from ? I was wondering what that was.

Basically, each hash module has 192 cores that hash at 750MH/s each, so 144 GH/s per module.

From http://forum.kncminer.com/forum/main-category/hardware/13049-read-me-first-known-issues-slow-performance-dc-dc-problem-bad-core-map-etc :

What kind of performance should I expect from each model?

Each ASIC module is made up up 4 dies, of 48 cores per die, each die connected and powered by unique power and connectivity. See a good picture of the ASIC module here: https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-30

MERCURY

Made up of (1) ASIC modules, 192 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 144GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 108GH

SATURN

Made up of (2) ASIC modules, 384 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 288GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 216GH

JUPITER

Made up of (4) ASIC modules, 768 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 576GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 432GH

Cheers mate.

I did miss that.
Mine a hair off that 142-143Gh . 39 degrees.
Been lucky

CYPER

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 502

Quote from: DimensionsOfHell on November 03, 2013, 07:38:20 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 06:57:44 PM

to what temp?

I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right?
Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in.

As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A.

So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference.

I would suggest waiting for the next firmware, which should hopefully fix all problems.
I mean we shouldn't make our own fixes, right?

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Quote from: DimensionsOfHell on November 03, 2013, 07:38:20 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 06:57:44 PM

to what temp?

I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right?
Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in.

As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A.

So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference.

Roger that... 80 should have been enough I would think...

DimensionsOfHell

full member

Activity: 346

Merit: 100

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 06:57:44 PM

to what temp?

I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right?
Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in.

As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A.

So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference.

xyzzy099

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1098

Quote from: timmmers on November 03, 2013, 07:21:09 PM

Quote from: Bogart on November 03, 2013, 06:04:53 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:52:07 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 04:51:20 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:16:39 PM

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

thats what i thought too man, but its made a big difference for me!

My Saturn's currently running 0.98 with 1.2% hw errors, and only one core that keeps getting toggled on and off.

cgminer reports a long term average of 283.8Ghps. Darned near the theoretical maximum of 284. I'm not gonna touch it.

I must have missed something but where did that theorectical max info come from ? I was wondering what that was.

Basically, each hash module has 192 cores that hash at 750MH/s each, so 144 GH/s per module.

From http://forum.kncminer.com/forum/main-category/hardware/13049-read-me-first-known-issues-slow-performance-dc-dc-problem-bad-core-map-etc :

What kind of performance should I expect from each model?

Each ASIC module is made up up 4 dies, of 48 cores per die, each die connected and powered by unique power and connectivity. See a good picture of the ASIC module here: https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-30

MERCURY

Made up of (1) ASIC modules, 192 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 144GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 108GH

SATURN

Made up of (2) ASIC modules, 384 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 288GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 216GH

JUPITER

Made up of (4) ASIC modules, 768 cores
100% of cores functional, expected performance up to 576GH.
75% of cores functional, expected performance up to 432GH

timmmers

sr. member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 265

Quote from: Bogart on November 03, 2013, 06:04:53 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:52:07 PM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on November 03, 2013, 04:51:20 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on November 03, 2013, 04:16:39 PM

just updated my mercury from .98 to .98.1 and HW errors went from 6.9% to around 1.5%. also, rejected was 3% to 0% now!

definitely a good upgrade. all cores functioning as well. none are off.

UPDATE: been running .98.1 for 30 mins now, hw errors down to 1.1% and dropping. still no duplicate shares!

0.98.1 was intended for those with a dead die; die 0
There is no other difference as far as I know.

thats what i thought too man, but its made a big difference for me!

My Saturn's currently running 0.98 with 1.2% hw errors, and only one core that keeps getting toggled on and off.

cgminer reports a long term average of 283.8Ghps. Darned near the theoretical maximum of 284. I'm not gonna touch it.

I must have missed something but where did that theorectical max info come from ? I was wondering what that was.

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Quote from: DimensionsOfHell on November 03, 2013, 06:30:19 PM

Tried to raise the temp on the unit that's showing two bad VRMs. Made no difference.

[
And to RoadStress:

If you have nothing of value to input, please keep that to your self. You don't seem to comprehend the whole situation.

I've asked KnC to issue an RMA LAST TUESDAY. They have not yet replied to me in regards to it. I origianally asked them when I received my unit. They told me to wait for FW 0.9.8, because that would fix it. I emailed them back saying it didn't fix the problem, and they haven't replied yet.
So again, if you don't want to be helpful, please keep it to your self, otherwise you are just one of the "whiners." Stop whining about other people. This is a forum, designed for discussion, what we are doing here is discussing.

to what temp?

Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1157. (Read 3049528 times)