[QUOTE=Gordon;399983]You absolutely sure about that :no:

There's a load below 100k that are only at 61, I'm working through the low 3M's which are only at 65...[/QUOTE]

My comment was specific to the list of exponents needing triple-checks/independent verification. Sorry for causing any confusion. :smile:

Updated list
 

Here's an updated list in case anyone was watching the progress.

I'm close to getting the 22.2 - 24M range done. I still have some machines testing the 190M and 383M exponents so I may need to pick out some 24-25M exponents for those to run on their other core. I need to find the sweet spot and see what exponent the other chip can handle without slowing down the other one.

I also picked up the 58M range for some other systems to chip away at.

Other volunteers have been doing great at knocking out the other range. Good work! Petrw1 will be done with the 16M exponents before too long.

Here's another update. I picked the 26M-27M range and expanded my stuff on the high end down to everything above 56M.

I'm very close to having the 4 epxonents in the 190M range done which will be great since I can throw some of the 40M+ stuff at those (they're running on some of the 8-10 core chips).

The one running that 383M exponent still has about 80 days left... I'll have to feed the other chip on that system some smaller exponents. I think it does okay with 30-40M without slowing down the big LL test, so you may see me pick up a bunch in that range too.

The 24-26M range is unspoken for if someone's looking for more smaller exponents to work on (cuBerBruce is down to his last one, for instance).

Meanwhile on the other little project I was doing, clearing the ones where the same user self-verified in both v4 and v5, I'm just about done. I have about 21 left I think.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;400678]The 24-26M range is unspoken for if someone's looking for more smaller exponents to work on (cuBerBruce is down to his last one, for instance).[/QUOTE]

Yes, one more to go for me, but it hasn't started yet. It's waiting for a 57M to finish, but that will be within 24 hours. So that final one may be nearly a week away from finishing. After that I plan to concentrate on my real GIMPS assignments for a month or two. Then I may consider taking on a few more of these, assuming there will be some left to take at that time.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;400683]Yes, one more to go for me, but it hasn't started yet. It's waiting for a 57M to finish, but that will be within 24 hours. So that final one may be nearly a week away from finishing. After that I plan to concentrate on my real GIMPS assignments for a month or two. Then I may consider taking on a few more of these, assuming there will be some left to take at that time.[/QUOTE]

Cool, no pressure, and thanks for helping out. Many hands make light work. :smile: That's kind of the whole GIMPS motto in a nutshell I suppose. LOL

It's not huge, but I'll do:

DoubleCheck=25984831,71,1
DoubleCheck=25991333,71,1
DoubleCheck=25992443,71,1

I want to test out power consumption on a box.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;400706]It's not huge, but I'll do:

DoubleCheck=25984831,71,1
DoubleCheck=25991333,71,1
DoubleCheck=25992443,71,1

I want to test out power consumption on a box.[/QUOTE]

Duly noted, thanks.

Version 17 bug and triple-checks
 

While we're discussing triple checks (or "chucks" as our faithful mod has currently renamed the thread):

I hearken back to the version 17 shift count bug. At the time, version 18 was released and if it was an upgrade to version 17, it would discard the save file since it was incorrect. All results checked in from version 17 were assigned for double-checks right away.

What I'm wondering is, how did that all end up? At the time I don't think I was all that clued in to the goings on with that. I'm sure all v17 results were double-checked long since.

Trying to wrap my head around what all actually happened to know if it's worth trying to find any that might be worth a quickie triple-check (exponents above 4M).

What got me was I noticed in the Primenet database it lists some version 17 applications. There are several version 17 and only one of them is noted as having the "buggy shift count". There are currently zero results anywhere in the DB from that client, but some with other v17 apps.

I didn't know if that meant there was a working v17 release at some point?

Anyway, I thought I might do something like narrow down with of those "v17" results were only verified by another v17 client. If they were double-checked by v18+ then I wouldn't bother. And maybe that's already the case.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;401207]
I hearken back to the version 17 shift count bug. At the time, version 18 was released and if it was an upgrade to version 17, it would discard the save file since it was incorrect. All results checked in from version 17 were assigned for double-checks right away.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, the shift count bug affected exponents above a particular value. All tests below that exponent were OK. All tests above that exponent were tossed.

[QUOTE=Prime95;401230]IIRC, the shift count bug affected exponents above a particular value. All tests below that exponent were OK. All tests above that exponent were tossed.[/QUOTE]

That probably explains then why I didn't find any results at all (verified, unverified, bad, etc) for the "WT0" client. There were still a good amount from WT1-WT7 which were the other v17 Linux/OS2/Windows/NTService versions. Ah... good old OS/2.

1691 LL results in all from those 4 app versions. 1679 distinct which implies some of those were double-checked by another v17 client.

As it breaks down, of the 1691 results, 1400 are listed as verified, 137 as bad, and then 154 got factored later.

If I look at just the 1400 that show "verified", there are 1395 distinct exponents, so still indicates some were checked again by another v17 client.

These are the 5:
5530541
5657767
5703283
6153209
6220519

As it turns out, each of those have in fact been triple+ checked by v18+ clients so I guess we're good. I may do a different validation of that but we're probably a-ok.

EDIT: yup, verified a different way and it is just those 5 that have in fact been triple-checked that stuck out.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;400484] Petrw1 will be done with the 16M exponents before too long.[/QUOTE]

By morning.