Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

s17 pro not recognized in some instances #42

Closed
gav1111 opened this issue Jun 4, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #43
Closed

s17 pro not recognized in some instances #42

gav1111 opened this issue Jun 4, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #43

Comments

@gav1111
Copy link

gav1111 commented Jun 4, 2023

Describe the bug
Some s17 pro miners are not recognized and thus cannot be identified or queried as powered on miners.
For these miners Socket connect failed: Connection refused is written on their webgui.

To Reproduce
Seems to be inherent to the miner rather than certain steps.

Expected behavior
To return miner information saying that hash is 0 etc etc

Screenshots
Here is btctools screenshot for one of miners in question and webgui screenshot
65 btctools
65 webgui

Miner Information (If applicable):

  • Antminer
  • S17 Pro
  • Firmware Type: Stock
  • Firmware Version: "Hardware Version Socket connect failed: Connection refused"

Additional context
For S17+ models running Vnish 2.0.4 which also have socket connect failed messages on the webgui, they are still recognized by pyasic and .get_data returns correct values.

results of await pyasic.miners.miner_factory.MinerFactory()._get_miner_type for s17 pro

WARNING:root:172.16.1.65 - Command devdetails+version: [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('172.16.1.65', 4028) WARNING:root:172.16.1.65 - Command devdetails: [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('172.16.1.65', 4028) WARNING:root:172.16.1.65 - Command version: [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('172.16.1.65', 4028) WARNING:root:172.16.1.65 - Command get_version: [Errno 111] Connect call failed ('172.16.1.65', 4028) WARNING:root:172.16.1.65: API Command Error: No API data. (None, None, None, None)

@UpstreamData
Copy link
Owner

In consideration of this, #41, #37, and #40, which are all related to the way miners are identified, obviously something is going to have to be updated on that side. I have been working on trying to find a way to update this for a while now, but it might be time to just make a branch for it for people to test it.

Hopefully have something to test on Monday.

@gav1111
Copy link
Author

gav1111 commented Jun 4, 2023

Wonderful, let me know if I can help, I have a little bit of programming experience but with python its a bit of a struggle for me.

@UpstreamData
Copy link
Owner

UpstreamData commented Jun 5, 2023

Please see this PR (#43), it is still very much incomplete, but with some testing it will hopefully fix this issue. Any suggestions can be added there.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants