32 Itanium cores? :w00t:

*drools*

Care to give an estimate on how long your verification run will take?

[quote=jinydu;140608]Care to give an estimate on how long your verification run will take?[/quote]

Translating into plain English:

Care to give us a hint on how long the candidate is?

[quote=jinydu;140608]Care to give an estimate on how long your verification run will take?[/quote]Tony,

Before you answer that, be sure to multiply by the cabal's inflation factor (see my post #189 [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=140252&postcount=189[/URL]). :smile:

Anybody else planning on changing what ranges they test if this ends up winning the prize, or am I just over-thinking things? It might be silly, but for whatever reason, in my mind it's worth dealing with the larger tests because of the lure of a world record and possible cash prize, but not just for the world record. As the 10M digit tests I currently have reserved finish up, I think I might focus on finding exponents that give the most credit per CPU hour and picking up first time tests as they expire to help clear out all the sub-10M digit first time tests.

[QUOTE=Jeff Gilchrist;140538]Just to give everyone an update, my verification is almost 30% complete...[/QUOTE]

We're about 40% done now... :spot::spot::spot::spot:

[QUOTE=rgiltrap;140623]We're about 40% done now... :spot::spot::spot::spot:[/QUOTE]

Wow, I'm not as far behind you as I thought, I'm at 38.5%... :big grin:

Jeff

Reminds me of old jokes about the "unitary" method:
If one man can verify a prime in three weeks, how long would it take four men?

I'll be late...
 

[QUOTE=jinydu;140608]Care to give an estimate on how long your verification run will take?[/QUOTE]I think I'll be late... This damned Intel compiler produces bad code with 3 files of Glucas when I use -O3 (and also with -O2 and -O1 !!!!), the machine has an architecture different (slower...) than the one I used for the previous verifications I've done, and some tools I used in the past are not giving the 30% improvement I was used to get... So, I have a sec/iter rate about THREE times bigger than for M44. Bad. And I started late.
So I'll be done around the 17th. Very late.
I think Ernst will be the first to check this new prime. [B]He deserves that !![/B]
How many days still to wait before you have checked it, Ernst ?
Tony

[QUOTE=T.Rex;140643]I think I'll be late...[/QUOTE]I've found one of my mistakes. The verifcation should be done around the 13th.
Tony

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;140018]28829407 69 0x849E58408C92DE__ 23-Aug-08 7:41 hagenbuchner XENserv1
32428427 69 0xB6C80137FEDB7E__ 23-Aug-08 7:49 suuuncon SPDELL
36705287 70 0xDDA8BEB967041D__ 23-Aug-08 7:32 dmazh dm2
37425887 68 0x9B10891A72B405__ 23-Aug-08 7:02 BranMuffin ROTV-O4
37763179 70 0xB141C151483C99__ 23-Aug-08 7:34 curtisc wcm128--03L
37946213 69 0x901FF5AA04168E__ 23-Aug-08 7:19 S611352 p4raid
38859463 69 0x5840B65CA7CB7B__ 23-Aug-08 7:23 curtisc JCKL-cce41L
40896127 69 0x4F9CCA10FDF131__ 23-Aug-08 7:35 fcg619 C1391
41935241 69 0xEDB167FA1DBB31__ 23-Aug-08 7:53 S00039 Cinebox_0
41959849 69 0xD689BE98B86C77__ 23-Aug-08 7:53 curtisc grn206--11l
42206137 69 0x0A0EEC17151DAC__ 23-Aug-08 7:33 drrocket MIS5PC
42760397 70 0xA6090C299C0678__ 23-Aug-08 7:46 curtisc JCKL-ccd62L
42781927 69 0x8613884B69237A__ 23-Aug-08 7:56 jmoseley Vader
42796219 69 0x4F4C53A0908A5D__ 23-Aug-08 7:59 DingoDog starfury
42801739 69 0xF6DDB517B9A4C6__ 23-Aug-08 7:44 DingoDog starfury
43096799 69 0x32E28ECEC2C31B__ 23-Aug-08 7:21 TeamRessler 1062315
43112609 69 0x8691696D2BDA50__ 23-Aug-08 7:33 UclaMath C20E3341C
43411699 69 0x7C0112FE295ECD__ 23-Aug-08 7:25 salfter office1[/QUOTE]

Does anyone notice something odd about M32428427? No?

When M44 was reported, another exponent, M29225803, was also given a fake residue.

Let's take a closer look:

Residue of M32428427 when M45 was reported: 0x[COLOR="Red"]B6C8013[/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]7FED[/COLOR]B7E__
Residue of M29225803 when M44 was reported: 0x[COLOR="red"]B6C8013[/COLOR]6DB[COLOR="blue"]7FED[/COLOR]__

See anything now?