🎯I’ve moved to ocean for the same reason.

At 500W (499) I get about 81 watts per TH/s and at 300W (306) I get about 92 watts per TH/s.

You mean you want to be able to go from 750W to 500W to 300W without the boards dropping their Hash rates to zero before ramping up again?

Or something else?

“Start from scratch”

I just assumed this was a procedure to not burn up the ASICs by 1) stopping hashing, 2) run fans at full speed, 3) set fans according to configuration, 4) then ramp ASICs to Energy consumption configurations, 5) monitor temperature as the ASIC ramps.

If you mean they should be able to overclock and underclock without needing to “tune” to learn the stable set points I guess I don’t know enough to have an opinion. Once the set points are “learned” you can bounce between them without “tuning” with only the procedure above between the set points.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It is interesting to see the variability between what are supposed to be the sane boards.

Yes. That's exactly correct. Setting the power usage on the fly would be a much better control scheme for secondary uses.

Nope. On switching power targets, the fans drop out entirely... So, that's really poor controlling methodology.

The temperature monitoring drops off, too. Again, stupidly poor methodology.

May I ask you how you are controlling power consumption at your s9?

I have done it manual via the web interface so far.

Might save me some research time. :)

That's also how I'm doing it, which is another point of contention. I'd rather not have to do that.

Ah I see, yeah that’s not really practical