Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1238.

soy

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:39:45 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:35:50 AM

recommended. not required.

Your miners were working very well before yet you still decided to tinker with it anyway by updating the firmware.

The main rule of thumb when updating any drivers/firmware for anything is that things can break or go wrong.

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:35:50 AM

recommended. not required.

Your miners were working very well before yet you still decided to tinker with it anyway by updating the firmware.

The main rule of thumb when updating any drivers/firmware for anything is that things can break or go wrong.

I don't really appreciate the satire, especially since the two were underperforming to begin with... so everyone should just not update anything cause you said so, eh? Even when KNC recommends it.. . I hope it happens to you as well.

Did you try light pressure on the VRM tops of the ASIC performing poorly, but not enough pressure to flex the board threatening to break ball grid array points under the ASIC? Better to take the board out and place on something flat to prevent flex then press on the VRM tops. If those tops are heatsinks then better contact improves operation. Didn't make sense removing the fans on the side of my module improved cores 'till I remembered I did press on the VRM tops.

sbfree

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: r3animation on October 23, 2013, 09:02:10 AM

I can confirm *on my Sat* that 0.97 is faster then previous firmwares. From 270gh/s to 278gh/s.

So far my Saturn seems improved in regards to flushwork and WU....I still have a high HW error rate, maybe slightly higher even...but at this point i am happier....30 mins in....will check back later.

soy

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:24:12 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:19:18 AM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 07:58:09 AM

I'm pissed off now for sure.
.97 SLOWED 2 of 3 SATURNs
wtfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
enjoy?... yeah, right.

You knew the risks when you chose to update it

If you're not prepared for doom, just leave it the way it is.

The author making the upgrade suggestion is probably running 10 jupiters with the 0.94 firmware in the hosting area getting free power as an employee.

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Quote from: WastedLTC on October 23, 2013, 09:11:14 AM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:43:08 AM

I don't see any satire at all in my posts

Anyone is free to do whatever. Just know there are risks in doing so.

Underperforming miners eh? I thought your 3 were pretty good.

they were 255, 265, and 275
the 255 sat is like a jup at 510... you call that good?
0.97 made it 220
it made the one with 265, now 260
the 3rd, one was 275, is 275

A jupiter above 500 is good. stop nitpicking. Even a jupiter running at 480 is considered fully functional. are we really talking about a 2% change in hash rate and getting upset?

guess some folks live to lower standards, and accept things as they are... not me.
If you got hired for a job that advertised 550 a week, and they gave you 510 instead, you'd be ok with that?
or better yet, you simply got a cut in pay, and they call it an upgrade
we have a name for your type around here...sheeple

soy

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1013

Quote from: frankenmint on October 23, 2013, 04:31:39 AM

This seems to be what I'm pulling on stock Hash Rate on Mercury does this look good for WU?...right now it's 139GH 2020 WU

Also, I'm curious to know if dropping the stock fan helped at all in terms of hashrate?

Looks low but not as low as mine when running >0.94 firmware. Here's mine with 0.94.

cgminer version 3.4.0 - Started: [2013-10-21 23:03:28]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):148.8G (avg):138.0Gh/s | A:4523872 R:190782 HW:246840 WU:2115.7/m
ST: 2 SS: 0 NB: 375 LW: 4840834 GF: 1 RF: 0
Connected to stratum.bitcoin.cz diff 100 with stratum as user BillJ.worker1
Block: 000fd8e18b830ff2... Diff:268M Started: [14:07:48] Best share: 3.55M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
KnC 0: | 146.0G/138.0Gh/s | A:4523872 R:190782 HW:246843 WU:2115.7/m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2013-10-23 14:10:44] Accepted 02816c21 Diff 102/100 KnC 0 pool 1
[2013-10-23 14:10:51] Accepted 022bdffe Diff 117/100 KnC 0 pool 1
[2013-10-23 14:10:51] Accepted 00b98834 Diff 353/100 KnC 0 pool 1
[2013-10-23 14:10:54] Accepted 01a02e61 Diff 157/100 KnC 0 pool 1
============================================================

My best was ssh into miner, shut down cgminer, run 0.94 upgrade, run enablecores.bin, halt, turn off power, maybe press a little on the tops of the vrms but not so hard as to flex the PCB, wait a minute, restart. Also I have a piece of cardboard in the center of the two front fans between above the fans and down to the base in front of the module(s) forcing air down on the center of the BBB.

WastedLTC

hero member

Activity: 778

Merit: 563

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:43:08 AM

I don't see any satire at all in my posts

Anyone is free to do whatever. Just know there are risks in doing so.

Underperforming miners eh? I thought your 3 were pretty good.

they were 255, 265, and 275
the 255 sat is like a jup at 510... you call that good?
0.97 made it 220
it made the one with 265, now 260
the 3rd, one was 275, is 275

A jupiter above 500 is good. stop nitpicking. Even a jupiter running at 480 is considered fully functional. are we really talking about a 2% change in hash rate and getting upset?

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: ImI on October 23, 2013, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: sbfree on October 23, 2013, 09:02:00 AM

do you need to run enablecores bin file on .97?? Anyone

after upgrading to 0.97 alot of cores were disabled and are now being reactivated one by one

do you mean disabled by cgminer while running or disable since the beginning (just after the reboot)?

ImI

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1019

Quote from: sbfree on October 23, 2013, 09:02:00 AM

do you need to run enablecores bin file on .97?? Anyone

after upgrading to 0.97 alot of cores were disabled and are now being reactivated one by one

maybe a enablecore.bin would do the same job quicker, i dont know

plasmoske

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 251

The realist

Everyone knows that's exaggeration.

It really should be: minimum:## and maximum:##

Jup says 550+ but average people are getting is about 480-530

But that page is for November. Maybe they'll optimise things by then..

FiatKiller

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

275 is for new orders. When we ordered they only guaranteed 200! :-D

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:59:26 AM

Please point to me where the spec says a sat should run at 270-275.

r3animation

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

I can confirm *on my Sat* that 0.97 is faster then previous firmwares. From 270gh/s to 278gh/s.

sbfree

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

do you need to run enablecores bin file on .97?? Anyone

Xialla

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1001

/dev/null

is this good replacement for stock heatsink fans?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608026

thanks for any advice.

plasmoske

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 251

The realist

Please point to me where the spec says a sat should run at 270-275.

Okay it does write that in the website but that's for the lucky. Not everyone gets those max speeds.

It should really say "runs up to a max of ###gh/s"

cet

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Quote from: adrd on October 23, 2013, 08:51:57 AM

You need to enable CGminer API and restart CGminer

Thanks, that solved my problem.

/cet

Phoenix1969

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

LIR DEV

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:50:34 AM

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:43:08 AM

I don't see any satire at all in my posts

Anyone is free to do whatever. Just know there are risks in doing so.

Underperforming miners eh? I thought your 3 were pretty good.

they were 255, 265, and 275
the 255 sat is like a jup at 510... you call that good?
0.97 made it 220
it made the one with 265, now 260
the 3rd, one was 275, is 275

255 265 275. For sats. Pretty good.

What are your expectations? 290 290 290?

No, and stop being a smart-ass, please?
What I expect, is 3 machines running around 270-275, just like the specs say.
255 is crap, 265 is nominal

adrd

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Quote from: cet on October 23, 2013, 08:48:32 AM

does anyone know how to get the web interface to connect to the cgminer api correctly? I just did an update from .95 to .97 and the miner status data doesn't display correctly.

Code:

Mining Status

CGMiner Status	Running (Connect to CGMiner API failed)
Last Checked	
Avg. Hash Rate	
WU	
Difficulty Accepted	
HW Status

ASIC slot #1	50.0 ℃
ASIC slot #2	-
ASIC slot #3	60.0 ℃
ASIC slot #4	53.0 ℃
ASIC slot #5	48.0 ℃
ASIC slot #6	-

Thanks,
/cet

You need to enable CGminer API and restart CGminer

xyzzy099

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1098

Quote from: Rampion on October 23, 2013, 08:38:19 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:35:50 AM

recommended. not required.

Your miners were working very well before yet you still decided to tinker with it anyway by updating the firmware.

The main rule of thumb when updating any drivers/firmware for anything is that things can break or go wrong.

This. If ain't broken...

I certainly understand taking a conservative approach, especially when money is involved - but in this case, it is literally a less-than-30-second job to revert to your old firmware if you don't like the new stuff, so why not just try it?

So far, it looks to me like the flushwork improvement in 0.97 is worth the effort.

plasmoske

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 251

The realist

Quote from: Phoenix1969 on October 23, 2013, 08:47:01 AM

Quote from: plasmoske on October 23, 2013, 08:43:08 AM

I don't see any satire at all in my posts

Anyone is free to do whatever. Just know there are risks in doing so.

Underperforming miners eh? I thought your 3 were pretty good.

they were 255, 265, and 275
the 255 sat is like a jup at 510... you call that good?
0.97 made it 220
it made the one with 265, now 260
the 3rd, one was 275, is 275

255 265 275. For sats. Pretty good.

What are your expectations? 290 290 290?

Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 1238. (Read 3049528 times)