Tony's 2nd verification result is in...

[B]M42643801 is prime! G29: 00000000,0
NEW MERSENNE PRIME DISCOVERED !!!![/B]

This is the completion of the original Glucas on Bull Novascale 16 way Itanium 2 run.

FYI, The Mlucas / Sparc run is due to complete in about 39 hours.

[quote=joblack;177435][quote=cheesehead;177429]DC in the 22xxxxxx-23xxxxxx range (thousands yet available)[/quote]Can you actually get these range with the new prime95 client. I just tried to get such a number and the error message was something like 'wrong cpu'.
[/quote]Does your CPU fit the criteria under "[SIZE=3][B][B]Thresholds for double-check assignments[/B][/B][/SIZE]" on [URL]http://mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL] --

[SIZE=3]CPU reliability of[/SIZE] at least 0.5, and
CPU confidence level of at least 2.0?

(The "preferred" criteria don't apply -- there aren't any exponents available in the "preferred" range.)

[quote]Enlighten us ...[/quote]I recently reset my default assignment request type to DC, so when I last reported a result when my remaining assignments were less than the whatever-it-is-threshold (19 days or something), I got a DC assignment. That's all.

Nothing special, if you've already completed and reported several PrimeNet assignments so that your CPU has a proper record with PrimeNet for reliability and confidence level. If you haven't, go acquire such a record.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;177507]"Thresholds for double-check assignments" on [URL]http://mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL] --
CPU reliability of at least 0.5, and
CPU confidence level of at least 2.0?[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I read that section as weaker than that (adding parentheses for clarity):
"Force trial factoring if ( CPU reliability less than 0.5 and CPU confidence level is greater than or equal to 2.0 )"

[quote=cheesehead;177507]Does your CPU fit the criteria under "[SIZE=3][B][B]Thresholds for double-check assignments[/B][/B][/SIZE]" on [URL]http://mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL] --

[SIZE=3]CPU reliability of[/SIZE] at least 0.5, and
CPU confidence level of at least 2.0?

(The "preferred" criteria don't apply -- there aren't any exponents available in the "preferred" range.)

I recently reset my default assignment request type to DC, so when I last reported a result when my remaining assignments were less than the whatever-it-is-threshold (19 days or something), I got a DC assignment. That's all.

Nothing special, if you've already completed and reported several PrimeNet assignments so that your CPU has a proper record with PrimeNet for reliability and confidence level. If you haven't, go acquire such a record.[/quote]

You're right I had something like 0.95 and confidence 6 ... sniff .. my confidence is gone now. George should set the cpu index back to 1 if there weren't any errors for a long time.

Regardless, it won't take long to complete those double check assignments in that range, even on slower PCs. It will be interesting when double checks start to approach the 25-30M range (or higher). I hope computers continue to get faster at the rate they have been (or even faster) as these LLs take longer and longer to do now.

[quote=markr;177514]Interesting, I read that section as weaker than that (adding parentheses for clarity):
"Force trial factoring if ( CPU reliability less than 0.5 and CPU confidence level is greater than or equal to 2.0 )"[/quote]Right ... and so if CPU reliability is at least 0.5 or CPU confidence level is less than 2.0 PrimeNet will not force TF to be assigned instead of DC.

(I don't recall the definition of "confidence level", though I did know it once. Is it really defined such that a higher number means [I]less[/I] confidence than a lower number? ... sorta like star magnitudes?

and ... confidence [i]in what[/i]?)

Reliability and confidence level
 

George gives the following explanation in the thread [thread=11569]"Reliability and confidence level"[/thread] :[quote]When you submit an LL result the confidence goes up if the run had no errors, it goes down if the LL run had errors. The confidence level is simply the number of LL tests you've reported (i.e. how confident the server is in the generated reliability score)
...
Actually, reliability is a rolling average. You get 1.0 for a successful double-check. You get a 0.0 for a proven bad result (should only happen if someone verified the exponent before you submitted your result). You get 0.5 (I think) for an error plagued unverified test. You get 0.98 for a unverified LL test.
If an LL-D later disagrees with the output of a previous LL (...) No changes are made to either machine. I only look at the error code returned with an LL test.[/quote]
Jacob

Frozen lake
 

[QUOTE=rgiltrap;177502]Tony's 2nd verification result is in...[/QUOTE]Thanks to have informed the Forum that the Glucas/Itanium2 verification was (as expected...) a success !
Today, I was [URL="http://trex58.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dscn2140.jpg?w=500"]there[/URL] (Exactly [URL="http://maps.google.fr/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.979849,6.01494&spn=0.002034,0.008218&t=h&z=18"]there[/URL]). A lake at 2493m, on the south-east of Grenoble. I climbed 1400m (that's a lot for me...) with friends. 6 hours walking in the mountain, it was GREAT !!
Now waiting for your verification to end. And Jeff's too.
Tony

[QUOTE=joblack;177540]You're right I had something like 0.95 and confidence 6 ... sniff .. my confidence is gone now. George should set the cpu index back to 1 if there weren't any errors for a long time.[/QUOTE]
Your machine's reliability & confidence are fine! I don't see why it wasn't given a double-check. Is it an older machine with "Pentium 4 equivalent speed" under 1000 MHz, or "256KB or less L2+L3 cache"? (If they even apply when you select double-checks as the worktype.)

Hey Tony (I can't help but think of those frosted flakes commercials), I have a quick, un-related question for you. Since you are the only person on the forums that I know actually owns a poster... I wanted to know if they have any captions on them such as "M47, discovered by such and such" etc. Thanks.

[quote=markr;177566]Your machine's reliability & confidence are fine! I don't see why it wasn't given a double-check. Is it an older machine with "Pentium 4 equivalent speed" under 1000 MHz, or "256KB or less L2+L3 cache"? (If they even apply when you select double-checks as the worktype.)[/quote]

No it's a Core 2 Duo Q6600 Quad Core - overclocked to 3 GhZ (had some issues a year ago but I balanced the overclocking to the point where I had no more errors in a daily torture test).