Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1207. (Read 3049524 times)

These formulae were posted by Kano in a KNC thread, they merely allow you to compute your hashrate properly:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3309728

ElGabo has:

11213824*2^32/(25*3600+2.5*60)
   5.3425410e+11
534 GH/s in accepted shares.

420356*2^32/(25*3600+2.5*60)
   2.0026792e+10
20 GH/s in hardware errors for less than 5% HW

72191.*2^32/(25.*3600.+2.5*60)
   3.4393565e+09
3.4 GH/s in rejected shares (538 GH/s full hashrate).


Which are outstanding values compared with what many people here, including me, have. Unfortunately it's hard to figure out what factors affect the real hashrates as most people do not post the source of their numbers and some others, like edgar, will prefer to cover the thread in flame instead of making some effort to search the threads, understand and cooperate.

My other question was if temperatures affect the output in your machine ElGabo, and if that affects HW (positively or negatively) but your HW is so low that your machine doesn't seem good to test this. Unless when the temperature is high (seeing that your screenshot shows very low temperatures) your hardware error rate goes much higher  (which would be the opposite of what people including Phoenix and DigginDeep just above seem to be seeing). Then we could see if that VRM output correlates. Is that the case?


tunctioncloud: 0.97 is horrible for my machine and many others.

Have been for me. Not had a single problem yet .97 from the day after it was released (just to make sure if the latest version wasn't homicidal).
I don't get this .97 doesn't work stuff, how can that be the firmware for one rig and not for others?

Hopefully KNC latest drivers are always best.

Because it is hard to follow this discussion to have the best hashrate possible

Which is these formula?

What I must write at cgminer at Jupiter to have it solid run??

using above formula mine is 7.15% I'm running 565ss 555ave on .95 temps 27c 40.5c and two at 33.5c so a bit higher then the 5.4% I got just using HW values

Searing

exactly

Now I understand I think.

IF Hw counts in the hasrate, when the output drops a bit, maybe the hw rate goes up a bit and the real hasrate goes down.

It would be great if we could control the output of the DC-s.... (And maybe the clock)

Hi Feedbackloop!

Here is a picture. Everything is just the same. Only the vrm output changing nothing else. No hashrate drop, nothing. Ecerything is just fine...

KNC's cgminer includes hardware errors in the reported hashing rate. Something not done by the other versions of cgminer. From the maker:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/difference-in-what-cgminer-says-and-what-btc-guild-says-319533

Please compute your hashing rate from cgminer using:
2^32 * Accepted / Elapsed


What are your temps and HW in both circumstances?

Hi

Now after 24 hours my jup is going with 552ghs rock solid but I figured out something interesting.

If all my vrm output above 0.7 V the pool shows great 550-560Ghs, if just only 1 or 2 vrm output goes down under 0.7 V (for example 0.687V) the pool hashrate dorps down to 510-540. In cgminer still 552.

Any ideas?

Dumb questions:

1) Did you apply all those hw tricks withe the machine switched on?
2) a part from makes VRM clicks and check the heatsink screws thre's something else to do?

Unreleated to this just wanna share that BB sys load lowered to 1.5 from 1.9 when using bfgminer instead of cgminer (bfgminer compiled fro source doeas not include  dynamic cores enable/disable mechanism committed on the 25)

nice...Id be scared to touch it too, thats great!
on the 2nd pool, I think you can just use putty to do it in cgminer, just remember to save to /config/cgminer.conf, and not the root/default directory. your default pool is pool 0, the backup is 1...

BTW... error rates, 1%, 3%, 3%. wow.

mine is now running 565gh after 6 days up...5% error rate on .95...only thing I need is to find the thread on how to put in 2nd pool manually because not on .95....my core temps are 27c 31c 34c and 42c ...and I have once in a great while a core enable and unenable itself (maybe 1x ever 4hrs or so I'd guess)

so I HAVE TOUCHED NOTHING ..in fact I walk by the beastie and I look downward and away less it get p/o'd at me and make it go CLUNK!

I will however have to look at the screws above to see if they are tight the next time it is powered off of which I plan for it to be NEVER if possible

anyway if anyone trips over the trick to get a 2nd pool in on .95 ..still looking for the link..pm me or post it here....if power goes out I have lots to check out
but until then GO BABY GO!

off to check the unit in the bsmt.....(must avert eyes...i'm not worthy)

Searing

the crossbar screws seem to want to disintegrate despite needing a slight tightening.

most needed at least a 1/4 turn - no noticeable improvements yet

Ill bet you find the credentials are entered wrong, or something like that
was it running before?, or u just got it?

Indeed I did, thanks.

I was also letting it run for a long time and it didn't report a single share to my pool for over 7 minutes, so there is some kind of problem beyond just the web GUI not displaying CGIminer info.  I don't feel like SSH'ing to the thing tonight to muck about [and also haven't really read up on what I need to avoid doing so as to not void the warranty] so I've just flashed back to 0.95 which it came with.  So far I'm getting a report of ~80 Ghash/sec @ 42.0 C so I think I'll go relax and let it run overnight.  At least it won't just be sitting there doing nothing.

I haven't tried the 0.961 yet, maybe will see if that works tomorrow.

Thanks again,

_theJestre

actually, yes...the hot one came down 10c
Now they are ALL 3 offically over-spec!.. 279,283,284...BAM

Not that I know of. People have had bad luck with .96 too, I haven't. You did check the box in the mining page that say enable CGMiner API right?

Well I still am getting the "Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)" error from the web GUI.
Yes, I have cleared the cash on the browser, AND used a different browser.

More importantly I can tell it isn't doing anything because the pool isn't getting much work.

Looks like 0.96 isn't up to prime time for my Mercury.  Going back to 0.95 because at least that was hashing something.  Unless there is something else to do to get 0.96 to work?

Thanks,

_theJestre

Any change in performance or temp?