from dmesg:


it says "beaglebone-black".  I'm not an expert on these things, but I wouldn't imagine a non-black version would have that entry.  Could be wrong tho.  In addition, some folks matched up the physical layout from the preproduction pictures to be the Black version, IIRC.  Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there in case someone found it interesting/useful.

Looks like there is another ssh session with the screen attached already.  "screen -rd" will probably do the trick as it detaches the screen session from wherever it is currently running, and then attaches your current session to it.

Thanks!  I think you did post them but I couldn't remember if it was in this thread or somewhere else..but thank you for indulging me   And that's quite different from the reading in Sweden @ 850-ish watts, so I think one can safely say that there was something different between those two, and by extension what eventually made it out for customers.  And thanks for the background on the VRMs...very interesting and makes perfect sense in the timing of it and why it was rolled out without extensive testing. I withdraw my "reckless" statement and replace it with "unfortunately timed".

Yeah good points..though I will counter by saying it depends on what sort of issues one runs into as said beta tester.  When you've had the luck that you and I have had with the machines (working as expected after extensive tinkering/testing/praying to the BTC gods for the perfect firmware to arrive) then it's easy to dismiss the problems as mostly trivial and surmountable.  But, when you have had issues that have required physical RMA's to resolve due to aforementioned exploding capacitors,  etc...well, I'm not sure even you would be quite so chipper about it given the time-is-money aspect of mining

I count myself very fortunate to have a machine that is working very close to intended specs (finally) that hopefully will fully break-even before the New Year...perhaps sooner if the current rise in BTC prices becomes the new normal.  However, I think it's also important to take KnC to task on issues that they should learn from in the future.

Anyway...just so I'm not misunderstood....to all new prospective buyers of KnC gear:  I can give a recommendation to the company as a whole and the gear has functioned as advertised (eventually).  There is a lot of lessons that I *hope* they learned from this first go-round which will make future offerings that much better...though with the marked lack of direct communication from them it's hard to tell if that is the case so I guess just put down your money and hope for the best  Good luck!

Edit re: your edit

Yep, and the HX850's fall into that category yet were implicated as the cause of the catastrophic failures.  It was a generic recommendation without specific brands/models mentioned...so to me that's a generic recommendation which led some customers to have issues that could have been avoided with a different PSU.
http://www.corsair.com/en/media/cms/manual/corsair-psu-spec-table-091813.pdf

Further, pointing to the FAQ as it now exists is a bit revisionist.  Let's see what they told us "way back then", shall we?
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-31


Seems REALLY generic...but maybe it's just me :p

Well that is surprising given the results that later cropped up with overcurrent PSU's and exploding capacitors..do you have a link to those kill-a-watt photos from Atlanta?  I don't remember the values you saw there versus what was in the youtube video in Sweden.  And just to clarify..when I said "tweaked" I meant subsequent production machines, not the one you took to Atlanta.  In other words, my assumption was that the initial "beta" firmware or whatever you had then was running at say .8V and then when you guys decided on the production values for the boxes that were going to start shipping it was bumped to .9V for the added stability/speed benefits that brings.  I wasn't suggesting that you custom-tuned the Atlanta box.  But however it worked out in the order of events...there were definitely some growing pains in relation to power at the PSU and the power through the VRMs that had to be ironed out, as I know you are extremely familiar with

As for the 8/4 thing...well, you keep saying it didn't matter when the facts showed that it did.  There was a material difference in how those things ran before/after the change which had to be accounted for in new firmware.  Again, I don't think it was some malicious conspiracy or anything..but I do think it was a reckless change that was done without adequate testing which caused issues that had to be addressed further down the road.

I'm saying that all of the Day1/Day2 machines that were delivered with pre-.95 firmware pulled very high wattage..and in some cases that translated to hardware failures when coupled with PSU's like the Corsair HX850 that contributed to exploding capacitors.  Actually testing specific PSU's and making specific recommendations based on known-working models would have been better instead of leaving it to chance for customers to figure it out on their own.  I, myself, bought the same model as KnC's hosting but gave myself some extra margin with higher wattage rating so my machine was never running over-spec of the PSU at any time on any firmware (the VRMs themselves, well, that's another story).

I've never said that the V850's had problems..I am specifically referring to the corsair HX850's which were the center of the "exploding capacitor" investigation.  By leaving the recommendation so open (generic "850W" recommendation) without actually testing, many customers were set up for failure in the early days of delivery as you well know.  Thankfully, less power-hungry firmware was released later which fixed the issue.

And I'd be willing to bet a few satoshi's that the unit you took to Atlanta did not have the same firmware as those units that were subsequently shipped out to Day 1 customers onwards...and that the voltage was tweaked upwards in the interim thus increasing the power requirements (in the name of increasing performance/stability, I'm sure).  Couple the fact that the actual physical design of the product was changed quite substantially (8 VRMs to 4 VRMs) and it's not exactly apples-to-apples

Even in the "launch video" you have footage of the kill-a-watt pulling ~850W at the wall at (I assume) 240V with (I assume) 8 VRMs per board.

Not insinuating anything malicious here..just saying that what was put out there ended up being inadequate given the issues that cropped up with some of the 850 PSU's (HX850 that you had so much fun with, for instance).

I understand what you are saying, but when CYPER starts with a wall wattage and says it is "in within specs" you use the efficiency to work backwards from that to find the DC output wattage and therefore if it is within the 840 listed.  The entire exercise is a "paper" one, but that's what he presented so that's what I gave him back.

And I "grasp" all of this fine, thanks.  You don't seem to grasp what I was trying to convey to CYPER.  Read the prior paragraph a few times and let it sink in.  You are picking an argument where there is none.  I will admit that I did not "show my work" and list in exhaustive detail all the "givens" that went into my statement to your satisfaction since I was just trying to fire off a quick blurb to him, and not you.  But if you want it:  here is more for you.  CYPER listed 900W and said the V850 was in spec.  Because of the higher efficiency, it only showed 900W at the wall whereas a HX850 would have shown slightly more owing to its lower efficiency.  At 900W, at the listed 90% typical and 93% efficiency at fifty percent load, I used the 90% figure to arrive at a value of 810W DC and thus it was in spec at that wall wattage (though barely..I consider a headroom of 30W to be riding the razor's edge at that level).  Obviously, I should have put in a caveat that I would expect the HX to show a higher wall wattage at a similar DC load, and also go into gruesome detail (as I did in the exchange with you later on) about my own observations of *actual* steady sustained and spike power that I observed (although I thought I was alluding to that fact, but perhaps I was too vague).  I did not do that, and I apologize that it confused you.  Better?

The reality is that those machines pulled more at the wall than what he even cited at times, and thus were out of spec on the spikes rendering that hypothetical exchange moot.  Thankfully (for KnC's hosted miners and others) CoolerMaster "V" series units didn't shit themselves and handled the load.  The HX850 units (or at least a number of them) did not conduct themselves in the same stalwart nature.  At the end of the day, as is my only argument all along,  a blanket "850W PSU" recommendation was insufficient and it wound up causing issues.  KnC later fixed it with firmware..yay for them..but the initial information missed the mark.  

Awesome  Coolermaster V1000 working great for me as well.  Lots of sad people who took Day 1 and Day 2 deliveries with corsair HX850's were not as pleased with the results.  These days with the new firmware, non-issue thankfully.

BUT WHEN YOU CALCULATE BACKWARDS FROM A WALL WATTAGE TO A DC WATTAGE, YOU USE THE EFFICIENCY RATING TO DO SO AND SINCE CYPER QUOTED A WALL WATTAGE IN HIS STATEMENT OF BEING IN SPEC, IT IS APROPOS TO USE THE EFFICIENCY AS PART OF THE SUPPORTING DATA.  IN ADDITION, IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE COOLERMASTER UNITS HAVE A MARGIN BUILT INTO THEIR 840 RATING WHEREAS THE CORSAIR UNITS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

All caps is fun, does that make me as cool as you think you are?

Actually, I have a degree in Engineering and I do technology work for a living...math is very much my strong suit.  I'm telling you that those PSU's (HX850) were shutting off.  I just reported to you that mine ran 950W constantly (bounced between 945 and 954) as I watched it in real time.  I have seen momentary spikes up to about 975W (read 972 briefly when it happened). Since my UPS only seems to report wattage in 9W increments, it very well may have been higher.  I'm pretty sure I don't have a "special unit".  It's obvious (to me, at least, who seems to actually understand these things) that the failure mode related to the HX850 was caused by overcurrent protection kicking in.  This failure mode could have been prevented by buying a 1000W PSU, as many people did (and those who had HX1000 reported no such problems to my knowledge).  Now, you can play armchair engineer all day (as you are apt to do on these threads, and often talk out of your ass though few call you on it) but that is a fact.  That is something that GE themselves verified with a hands-on test.

As for "strange" blah blah blah...um, you don't happen to remember the OTHER datacenter that had numerous boards blow up because they were running HX850's?  Seriously dude, did you hit your head or are you just trying to be a revisionist historian here to serve some sort of agenda?  Look back at the thread...all the info is there in gory detail.  The fact that 1) KnC lucked out by using Coolermaster which seemed to have a bit of headroom in the specs and more tolerant overall and 2) they quickly released firmware which dramatically reduced power requirements has been the reason(s) that they haven't had catastrophic issues.  

And to specifically address the "nonsense" thing...you sure talk with a lot of authority on how these things operate for someone who doesn't even have one.  But I guess it's easier to just theorize rather than deal with actual facts gained from hands-on observations, right? 

Great, what about all the other brands and models @850W?  KnC never specified V850's..they just told people to get an 850W power supply.  Some of them (HX850) were obviously not up to the task.

Um, yep....why do you think those PSU's were shutting off?  And your "spec calculation" is over simplistic, btw...just because a PSU is rated for an overall wattage doesn't mean that an individual rail is.  In some cases, the total +12V wattage is less than the overall PSU wattage rating because they were coming in just under the wire, so to speak, to meet a "common" PSU rating cut-off and the lower voltages are necessary to add in to reach the overall number.  For instance, the Corsair HX850 that was the center of the controversy is an 850-rated PSU but only rated a maximum of 840W +12V with apparently little to no safety margin built-in given the observed results.
http://www.corsair.com/en/media/cms/manual/corsair-psu-spec-table-091813.pdf

As for the "at best efficiency"...well, at near 100% load you aren't going to get that, now are you?  Again, according to manufacturer's specs you could expect 87.73% @115V input.  So put the lower actual rated rail wattage coupled even with lower real-world efficiency when running with a wall power reading of over 970W (and yes, those levels were typical prior to version .95 of the firmware for jupiters) and guess what?  You are running that thing over-spec at time of KnC initial release and that's why those things were shutting themselves off and then coming back with a bang in some cases upon recovery.


Others PSU models/brands are actually under-rated in that the combination of the +12V rails actually oversubscribes the overall rating, and the rating itself has a safety margin built-in to it so that the PSU is rated (according to manufacturer documentation) to be able to deliver over the rating (which would be the one you would probably want to buy).

And yes, once again, machines with fully functional chips with initial firmware could very much pull that much wattage..hence the issue.  With .94 firmware mine would peak at 945W long-term sustained at the wall according to my UPS readout with higher spikes depending on what cores were enabled/disabled at the time.  I never ran .90 but I know that rev pulled at least as much. Was I the only one paying attention when all that was going down?  When you actually have one to play with, try putting a pre-.95 firmware on it and let us know how much power you see it pull, k? 

edit:  clarified verbiage to better express thought chain.

Of CoolerMaster V850, barely @120V....and by virtue of higher efficiency than the corsairs would only show that hypothetical 900W (but still only rated to 840W on +12V) versus a higher value that would be shown by the corsairs at same DC output wattage.  But the Jupiter's were pulling 950-ish and more at the wall at release up through .95 firmware being released.  And the 240V value would actually go the other way with the higher efficiency gained by the voltage jump...the wall wattage would show lower at 240V versus 120 at same DC output.  The Corsair HX850's that some people were buying were definitely out-of-spec at the wattage being pulled during initial product release due to a smaller actual +12V rail wattage than the overall PSU (again 840W) with seemingly no safety margin and slightly lower efficiency (indicating lower quality parts as well as more internal heat generation which can have a cascade effect when pushing the components to absolute limits).  Since KnC didn't recommend a specific brand/model...they just said "850"...I have to say that their overall recommendation was faulty and was the cause of several failures.

edited to better show train of logic in statements

Exactly, which meant that 850W PSU's were put into an over-spec situation, and some of them handled it badly (eg the Corsair psu's that came back from the safety-shutdown mode and popped capacitors on the hashing boards).  Firmware all the way to .94 was pulling 900+ at the wall.

So in answer to CYPER's question...hell yes, it was a bad recommendation.  I'm glad I got a 1000W which accounted for KnC's screw-up in power estimation.  Granted, later firmware has rendered the issue moot..but for the initial release it was a swing-and-a-miss by KnC on that 850W recommendation for sure.

LOL I get you..I thought it was just pure comedic providence to put your two quotes together :p

Um, well....


LOL, so in HINDSIGHT you have determined you should have bought BTC and not the Jupiter, right?  ROFL.

And that over-simplification is why people are pushing back on your "explanation".  Your explanation relies on someone having $7000 cash sitting someplace that could readily be converted into BTC or purchase a miner at equal cost in terms of time-value of money.  Many people purchased a miner with a credit card at or near zero percent interest, where as getting a cash advance would have entailed a 20% or higher interest rate (typical of the cards I've seen, YMMV) in addition to a upfront fee.  In addition, the miner itself retains substantial residual value for quite some time (if the ASICMiner gear is any indication) which is not being added to the equation (capitalization versus straight expensing of equipment for you accountant types out there) which further muddies the water of overall profitability.  Especially when tax considerations are taken into account with same-year full expensing of business-related computer equipment being allowed for small businesses.

So, yes, in hindsight buying BTC would have been a *better* investment if one was to measure the progress of BTC mined as of RIGHT now versus selling bought BTC...but it hardly means that buying a miner was a *bad* investment considering that the miners have yet to reach their full potential of mining production AND they may yet have some to-be-determined residual value even after that which can be re-captured.  While buying BTC will likely prove to have been the most optimal investment unless for some strange reason the diff increases start to level out....the margin of how much better is still very much in question at this point.

For those interested, here is a much (in my opinion) nicer SSH client that is free for home use:

http://www.netsarang.com/products/xsh_overview.html

From my perspective, it combines most of the good things from Putty and many of the more well-known commercial offerings like SecureCRT.