Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1226. (Read 3049528 times)

I use this formula because kano say so ;P don't remember where thou. Now i'm on my way home but as soon as i get there i'll search the link of the post where he explained how to compute varoius ratios.

Did you try firmware 0.90 then enablecores.bin?  Are you forcing air onto the BBB?  A warmish BBB will drop your hashrate.

is there a syslog on these things that i can forward to knc...figure out this 20% Hardware Error rate.....ridonkulous.

thanks, that means I am still at 21%, spinning my wheels it feels

Thanks.  That changes mine from ~4.4% down to ~4.1%.  Although it doesn't agree with BertMod:

Device Hardware%=4.9875
Device Rejected%=4.1048
Pool Rejected%=4.3372
Pool Stale%=0.0000

with all the right tho

Last in Lines always do. (If he is even in line hah)

man, you fucking whine a lot.

HW error % = HW/A+R+HW

where

HW = number of hw errors
A    = number of accepted
R    = number of rejected

with 0.97 I got something like 10-11% after almost 20 hours, whereas before the same miner running with 0.95 I used to have 5-7%

I go with (HW*100)/A

i dont know who you are referring to with your vague waffle about meaningless hashrates & not knowing what information has been given but i personally gave all the info regarding cgminer, KNCs GUI and BTCGs pool rate.

i also asked specifically where to find the HW% and you prefer to troll the tread rather than give a knowledgeable response.

i'll cry you a river mate!! so long as u hop in a canoe & fuck off down stream in it

24 hrs after 0.97



still problem with 1 machine...
one of the sats went back to 250
tried reflash, nada

Sorry. I couldn't resist

Trolling the troll. Nothing to see really

Actually, I should have refrained, my apologies. This thread is finally being useful.

The early complaint of whining from the ASIC module, tho probably from one or more VRMs, were there many complaints proportionally?  The firmware upgrade corrected that.  My Merc arrived with 0.95, had input voltages of 11.8 on all VRMs and output voltages ranging from 0.738 to 0.748.  It couldn't get out of its own way, never reaching 100GH/s average.

To correct this I first went to 0.90 initial firmware.  I had already read the high praise the initial firmware had gotten over firmware upgrades by users who remained quite disappointed until finally the enablecores.bin became available.  I ran enablecores.bin with 0.90 firmware and was finally pleased with >100GH/s hashing, and pretty quickly I might add.

I went thru the upgrades one at a time looking for the 0.740 voltage change and found it in 0.95 but my hashrate again returned to sub-100GH/s.  So, back to 0.94 and I'm happy with it relatively speaking.  The extra >100watts at the wall will mean something more than $5.50/month in electric but a cold front has reached this area and it's a tradeoff instead of the propane heat - besides, that extra
 KnC 0:  | 149.7G/135.5Gh/s | A:7273677 R:328049 HW:420447 WU:2088.1/m
35.5GH/s will earn quite a bit more than that in BTC.

So, I'm not going to be getting any higher hashing from my Merc unless I buy an ASIC module and transform it into a Saturn.

But, now I wonder.  The initial firmware was likely treating the VRMs with an optimal frequency for their design.  As I never heard that whine voiced by some that prompted the first firmware upgrade 0.91, and not knowing what advantages I'm seeing in 0.92 or 0.93 or what I'm presently using 0.94, maybe 0.90 is the best?  ...at least until warm weather returns.

And who knows, maybe the VRM whine had been slightly displaced VRM heatsink tops that resonated but stopped resonating with the frequency change.

How do I remove that asic_test file??

I'm 9BTC down and still no miner. Not even going to get 1 day on current difficulty it looks like. Next difficulty is probably going to mean we are down to mining only 0.5BTC/day on a jupiter. So 2 days per bitcoin. In a couple of weeks, it'll take a week+/1btc.

And KNC don't even as much as apologise, just say "We learned stuff", "you ain't getting shit from us for the losses we caused you - read the T&C's" and set up other business ventures for themselves. Sick of waiting and sick of KNC.

they might of tried to get the same type of performance of .94 with .97 but the enabling and disabling of cores is worse than just HW errors as far as avg hashing at the pool goes

I've run bfgminer which doesn't auto switch cores (lets you manual do each if you like) and even with high HW errors you can get good hash rate.  I am not saying high HW errors are good, but in KNC's cgminer they lead to turning cores off that may still run at 70% hashing with a high error rate.   You start turning off all those 70% working cores your hashrate nosedives

I don't think it is on the datacenter side.  These things just have too much variance and many were ran pre-95 FW on 4 VRM boards which can leave 'scars'

The number one fuckup on KNC was removing the 4 VRMs before understanding its full effect.. and then shipping and using them in the datacenter running overspec.  Two wrongs didn't make a right.

They shouldn't of used 4 VRM boards until Nov cheaper miners and then they would of had plenty of time to make a FW for that


Will they ever admit to this short sighted cash 'savings'?   I think their last news update alluded to this in their 'learned lessons'.
KNC is a good company but this shows how one mistake can lead to many many more unintended consequences
I think they will right their ship, but for many customers they are left in tough waters

Yes! It's all about the hardware error rate. The values on KNC's cgminer do not seem to take that into account. I don't know if other versions do. The difference between machines seem to come mostly from the level of hardware errors so when someone says "my jupiter/saturn is doing X/Y in hashrate with this FW" you end up empty handed because you don't know if they are measuring that at cgminer or and actually getting much less at the pool (as you would measure from averages). In fact it misleads other people and possibly devs into thinking that they are progressing with the software.

0.97 for me and other people seems to ramp up the hardware rate and the reported hashrate at cgminer (depending how bad your machine actually is) but you see all these pointless reports of "yey +10 GH/s" without stating the source.

edgar: cry me a river!