[QUOTE=ixfd64;431997]Never Odd or Even recently checked in another self-verified result in the 600M range: [url]http://mersenne.org/M604090609[/url][/QUOTE]

I sure hope they know what they're doing and have a decent system. I still wonder what kind of custom build of Prime95 he's using, but I won't be testing those 2 large exponents anytime soon. :smile:

Looks like curtisc just self-verified a result: [url]http://mersenne.org/M64105369[/url]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;432948]Looks like curtisc just self-verified a result: [url]http://mersenne.org/M64105369[/url][/QUOTE]

Yeah... I'm still checking for any like that and adding them to the hopper, although I only check once in a while now.

I think Curtis' systems sometimes have their assignments shuffled around, because when self-verified work comes in, they both have the same assignment ID. Probably a result of some old system come back online and starting work on something even though it's assignments had been moved (and completed) to a different box.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;432955]Yeah... I'm still checking for any like that and adding them to the hopper, although I only check once in a while now.

I think Curtis' systems sometimes have their assignments shuffled around, because when self-verified work comes in, they both have the same assignment ID. Probably a result of some old system come back online and starting work on something even though it's assignments had been moved (and completed) to a different box.[/QUOTE]

Which means they especially need double checking. I suppose that they have the same shift count.

Another one: [url]http://mersenne.org/M64161577[/url]

[QUOTE=henryzz;432998]Which means they especially need double checking. I suppose that they have the same shift count.[/QUOTE]

No, they must start independently (just the worktodo entry got moved, not any save files). They come in with different shift counts, at any rate.

At least right now, with the assignment rules keeping people from automatically getting an assignment for something they've done before, there aren't that many that show up. Just people like LaurV who does it on purpose (:smile: had to pick on him just a bit) and Curtis' systems that do it incidentally (about a couple a month... I'm wondering if that might die down with any changes to assignment rules or whatever).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;433097]. Just people like LaurV who does it on purpose (:smile: had to pick on him just a bit)[/QUOTE]
Hehe... :blush:
Now, to avoid any further self-DCs :razz:, you may juggle with [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70019029&full=1"]these[/URL] [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70019171&full=1"]two[/URL] exponents, due to the fact that for some strange reason I got 2 "suspects" in my last 4 submitted. That is a 50% fail rate, so either my computer didn't come back from Songkran holiday yet, or something fishy is going on there...

[QUOTE=LaurV;433195]Hehe... :blush:
Now, to avoid any further self-DCs :razz:, you may juggle with [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70019029&full=1"]these[/URL] [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70019171&full=1"]two[/URL] exponents, due to the fact that for some strange reason I got 2 "suspects" in my last 4 submitted. That is a 50% fail rate, so either my computer didn't come back from Songkran holiday yet, or something fishy is going on there...[/QUOTE]

I can take those, although it looks like the suspect result on both of those exponents was from the other result, not yours.

Since suspect results are bad 50% of the time (on average), your results are probably fine. When there's a mismatch and one of them is suspect, I can say that the 2nd result is going to be good probably 96% of the time (just based on the non-suspect result 4% error rate). Again, that's an average and if your machine has been doing great, then I'd say it's 99.9% odds yours is correct. :smile:

Another one needing a triple check if anyone is interested:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/M39712003[/url]

[QUOTE=ATH;436724]Another one needing a triple check if anyone is interested:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/M39712003[/url][/QUOTE]

Jeg vil få det gjort i omkring tre dage.

I hope I said that idiomatically.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;436725]Jeg vil få det gjort i omkring tre dage.

I hope I said that idiomatically.[/QUOTE]

It was almost correct, just "i" should be "på" which means "on". For some reason we say "on around 3 days" when regarding time, instead of "in around 3 days". I'm not very good at grammar, so do not ask me why :smile: