[QUOTE=tha;396429]The first time LL frontline had more debris from the old rules than DC. Given enough time, things will stabilize.[/QUOTE]

I hear what you're saying. But I would argue that the LL range had "more debris" (love that term! :smile:) mostly because of the churners. Almost certainly ~99.9% of that has already been filtered out (because the assignments have not been reported on).

I think George's newly proposed ranges for the categories make a lot of sense -- trusted (read: Cat 1 and 2) DC'ers are currently facing a famine; trusted LL'ers are being given more than they can eat.

That sound like it might be time for me to lay off the DCs and do more 1st time LLs.

That brings up the question of P-1 work. How well is that demand being served?

[QUOTE=kladner;396497]
That brings up the question of P-1 work. How well is that demand being served?[/QUOTE]

I was wondering about that myself. I've got one core of my i7-5930K working on P-1 right now with loads of memory since I'm not using the system for much right now, but it's working on 71M P-1 so I'm guessing we have a comfortable lead.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;395954]A little more detail on that particular bad computer...

- Of the 109 bad results, 56 of those had a zero for the error code.
- Of the 43 non-bad results:
- 4 are still unverified, awaiting a double-check
- 17 are verified okay (double-check matched)
- 21 are suspect - some error code, but they haven't been double-checked yet
- 1 had a factor found later, so who the heck knows, but there were 2 LL mismatched LL tests done...I have my guess which one was bad :smile:
[/QUOTE]

An update... I've been running checks on the unverified/unassigned things and as expected the original results are indeed turning out to be bad (well, I think one checked out okay).

There was also another user with a very bad computer that returned a bunch of results... I'm checking those as well and so far I think I'm at 2 for 2 were bad in that original run.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;396506]I was wondering about that myself. I've got one core of my i7-5930K working on P-1 right now with loads of memory since I'm not using the system for much right now, but it's working on 71M P-1 so I'm guessing we have a comfortable lead.[/QUOTE]

Actually, things are a bit "tight" for P-1'ing.

I've got one of my spiders watching the Cat 4 range (for both LL'ing and P-1'ing). If it sees anything about to be handed out for P-1'ing at less than 74 it "pulls it's rip-cord" to release some at 74. At the same time, if anything is about to be handed out for LL'ing at less than 75 (usually a completed P-1 at 74) it grabs it for processing.

This is why "Let GPU72 Decide" is sometimes assigning 66M (Cat 3) to 75, and at other times >71M to 75.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396520]An update... I've been running checks on the unverified/unassigned things and as expected the original results are indeed turning out to be bad (well, I think one checked out okay).

There was also another user with a very bad computer that returned a bunch of results... I'm checking those as well and so far I think I'm at 2 for 2 were bad in that original run.[/QUOTE]

Good job. Thank you for doing that.

[QUOTE=TObject;396586]Good job. Thank you for doing that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's kind of fun finding the bad results. Just got another one... I think I'm at 6 out of 7 now (where the first run by someone was bad).
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=45133499&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=45133499&full=1[/URL]

I was meaning to do some kind of analysis and see how many exponents in an average 1M range of exponents ended up being bad. Someone may have already done it, but I should be able to poke the DB and tease that info out of it.

For what I'm doing, I found something like a couple dozen exponents that were highly suspicious over a range of 44M-60M+, so I know that's only a drop in the overall bucket of how many will actually end up being bad, but I wonder by how much.

I'm looking at machines that have done "XX" LL tests where "YY" percent ended up being bad. That kind of limits it to older systems that have done work that have already been assigned as double-checks, but quite a few of them also did stuff higher up that haven't been DC'd yet, or even assigned as DC's (I'm only doing unassigned exponents).

It's probably not crazy to think that even if a computer has returned a single bad result, anything else coming out of it has a much higher chance of also being bad. Maybe even to the point where if a machine has one bad entry, it might be worth assigning all of it's exponents as double-checks right away.

After all, in my analysis, I'm looking for computers with a certain bad percent out of it's total results. But even if it has a low percentage like 10% bad, that may only reflect the fact that not many have been DC'd yet...the final percent of bad results could be near 100% by the time they're all checked.

The worst offender I'm just about done working on had something like 70% + bad results, but of the 5 or so I'm checking, I think all but one was bad which probably puts that computer closer to a 90% failure rate when all's said and done.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396642]The worst offender I'm just about done working on had something like 70% + bad results, but of the 5 or so I'm checking, I think all but one was bad which probably puts that computer closer to a 90% failure rate when all's said and done.[/QUOTE]Hmm, just thinking now, that perhaps I could just not bother with those pesky time and power consuming LLs and DCs. Perhaps instead I can just submit random residues for exponents and let Madpoo (and whomever else is doing such things) run the real tests. AFICT I still get the credit. And the only price to pay is getting flagged as unreliable. Moar credits! :evil:

[size=1][color=grey]Perhaps we should remove the credits that were given for results shown to be incorrect? It might encourage people to fix their machines and stop wasting their electricity and time for no return.[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=retina;396643][size=1][color=grey]Perhaps we should remove the credits that were given for results shown to be incorrect? It might encourage people to fix their machines and stop wasting their electricity and time for no return.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

Not a bad idea.

[QUOTE=retina;396643]Hmm, just thinking now, that perhaps I could just not bother with those pesky time and power consuming LLs and DCs. Perhaps instead I can just submit random residues for exponents and let Madpoo (and whomever else is doing such things) run the real tests. AFICT I still get the credit. And the only price to pay is getting flagged as unreliable. Moar credits! :evil:

[size=1][color=grey]Perhaps we should remove the credits that were given for results shown to be incorrect? It might encourage people to fix their machines and stop wasting their electricity and time for no return.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

Of course if you really want more credits, just type up and submit a lot of trial factoring results, say 1000 exponents taken to say 90 bits, and no need to even make up a pesky residue :w00t:

[QUOTE=Gordon;396670]Of course if you really want more credits, just type up and submit a lot of trial factoring results, say 1000 exponents taken to say 90 bits, and no need to even make up a pesky residue :w00t:[/QUOTE]Factors are checked by the server but residues aren't (and can't be).