it would be easier to mine on a pool and split the payout?
nicehash is paying very good these last couple days.

Has anyone figured out yet why S5's can randomly lock up and stop working?

Web Settings unavailable, and even whole BBB seems to be locked up as I can't SSH into the affected machine also. Seems to be happening almost randomly to 5 - 10% of machines. Sometimes it will happen to the same machine, sometimes to a unit once and never again. Lights on the control boards (Below BBB) has D2 green light solid, and D1 light blinking. No soft resets work, as able to get into the unit to try anything. I can either do a Hard reset on the BBB by pulling, and re-plugging the 4 pin data cable, or a hard power reset on the full machine. What is causing this? does not seem to be the chips or a hash blade locking up. Must be more then cgminer crashing as unable to SSH into machine. Could this be something linux watchdog could detect and reboot the machine? or a reset so may hours cron job? Would a newer firmware cgminer version solve problem?

Has anyone else had this same problem at all?

Hi,

i got a few new S5 set up today and get some trouble with nearly half of them.
After a while hasrate drops 50%. Temps of 1 board drop down so it looks inactive, but the Asic status shows no x at all.
I rebbot and get it running for a while, but then it happens again. For one rebbot does not work, i have to do a complete power cycle to get it back running.
Definetly no powersupply issue and not overclocked.
Any idea what to look for?

Had it happen to me once since January. It was not the miners. It was my router. Sometimes a complete power down and reboot of everything is necessary. It worked for me and they have been running 24/7 every since.

It could be the pool. Nicehash always crashes on me within hours but f2pool is rock solid for weeks.

Give Fedex a call, that's doesn't sound correct. Maybe they misread the category code off the invoice.



Which firmware you on, what pool and what miner difficulty? Several possible things that can be causing it.

If they don't provide the source code they are violating the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses of many software package on the device including but not limited to the Linux kernel and BusyBox.
From my emailing with them they either seem to be having trouble understanding what the GPL is or what source code is.
When asked for the source code for the firmware build environment they offered to provide a .ko file(a compiled kernel module) which is not source code in addition to being already available on the device itself to download via scp(although it is useless unless used with the exact Bitmain kernel that they use in their images).
I plan to begin enforcement action in western countries if they fail to respond to my request, I find Chinese companies don't respect the GPL or copyright law in general but when their resellers and international subsidiaries get contacted by GPL enforcement organizations such as the SFC they change their tone.
I want to make sure Bitmain has been given the opportunity to comply with the law but if they ignore my GPL request I will be forced to take action.
I want to make sure they understand that this GPL request is a legal demand to comply with licenses for the software that they distribute and that failure to comply would be a serious violation and can lead to legal action.

I just came across this post from a while back, looks like they ignored a request for the cgminer source code for a while but eventually got the message. Bitmain needs to understand that the firmware development environment source code must be released for the same reason they had to release cgminer source code. In order to be compliant with the GPL license the development environment must produce the firmware files that Bitmain provides for download from their source code.

Its actually not as hard as one would assume to take action against Chinese companies that sell to western countries.

Even if they can't be touched directly their resellers, distributors and subsidiaries are all liable for copyright infringement if they don't release the source code.

That is certainly a bit strange, technically they aren't required to release the documentation, it is just the source code that they are required to release.