[QUOTE=GP2;471721]Way too much of a coincidence for my liking. We'll see. I'm now double-checking a bunch of other exponents that were tested by that user/computer.[/QUOTE]

Looks like I didn't need to worry, Mlucas indicates that my residue on c5.large for this exponent was the correct result. Another user is running a triple check and they should return their own result sometime today or tomorrow.

@ Madpoo: I am glad to see you picked up 42680887 for a triple. That is an embarrassing series of events, for me.

Start with a BIOS update on the system board. After restoring the previous settings, I got a Jacobi test failure, though not immediately. To cut is short, I tweaked settings and rolled back P95 several times. I did not trust the two results which got submitted contrary to my efforts. Oh, well. I certainly did not intend to submit two conflicting results, of which neither agreed with the 1st time LL.

At this point, I am still uneasy about stability, though system has passed 10 hours of Blend TT with 10 out of 16 GB of RAM allocated. I have rolled back the BIOS, tried to reset everything, and run more torture tests. ATM, I have a DC at 65% with no errors, thus far.

[QUOTE=kladner;478685]@ Madpoo: I am glad to see you picked up 42680887 for a triple. That is an embarrassing series of events, for me.

Start with a BIOS update on the system board. After restoring the previous settings, I got a Jacobi test failure, though not immediately. To cut is short, I tweaked settings and rolled back P95 several times. I did not trust the two results which got submitted contrary to my efforts. Oh, well. I certainly did not intend to submit two conflicting results, of which neither agreed with the 1st time LL.

At this point, I am still uneasy about stability, though system has passed 10 hours of Blend TT with 10 out of 16 GB of RAM allocated. I have rolled back the BIOS, tried to reset everything, and run more torture tests. ATM, I have a DC at 65% with no errors, thus far.[/QUOTE]

My run on that one will finish in 4 hours, so I guess we'll see which of the results I match. :smile:

EDIT: I just noticed that your 2 runs both had the same shift count, so even if the residues matched it wouldn't have counted as a verification. That probably means you started a new run of it using a previous save file, rather than an entirely new run starting from scratch.

By the way, if anyone feels like doing triple-checks, these are available. I'm one of the 2 or 3 previous testers so someone else needs to tackle the verification run. :smile:
[CODE]44399711
46442621
46687429
46689427
46694953
46695599
46927409
50254189
50449073
52794311
52794317
52794353
52926721
55523527
55571039
56993347
57571721
57572329
61089319
61598567
61740551
62471327
63975341
64161359
66416531
76331477[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;478741]By the way, if anyone feels like doing triple-checks, these are available. I'm one of the 2 or 3 previous testers so someone else needs to tackle the verification run. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form? :wink: :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;478742]Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form? :wink: :smile:[/QUOTE]

sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;478743]sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'[/QUOTE]

You forgot the cat and the pipe. :smile:

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;478743]sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me for this, but I am often amazed by how few people understand the most basic of rules.

Regular expressions defines a period as being any character. A "star" ("*") means any number of matches; zero, one, or many.

This regex could have also been done using a "\d*", which means any number of digits, including none. "\d+", on the other hand, means that at least one decimal character exists.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;478739]My run on that one will finish in 4 hours, so I guess we'll see which of the results I match. :smile:

EDIT: I just noticed that your 2 runs both had the same shift count, so even if the residues matched it wouldn't have counted as a verification. That probably means you started a new run of it using a previous save file, rather than an entirely new run starting from scratch.[/QUOTE]

Neither of yours were correct. LOL

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M42680887"]M42680887[/URL]

[QUOTE=chalsall;478742]Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form? :wink: :smile:[/QUOTE]

Ah, I didn't do that since I reckoned a lot of them could be reserved using the manual assignment page...
[CODE]DoubleCheck=44399711,72,1
DoubleCheck=46442621,73,1
DoubleCheck=46687429,73,1
DoubleCheck=46689427,73,1
DoubleCheck=46694953,73,1
DoubleCheck=46695599,73,1
DoubleCheck=46927409,73,1
DoubleCheck=50254189,73,1
DoubleCheck=50449073,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794311,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794317,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794353,73,1
DoubleCheck=52926721,73,1
DoubleCheck=55523527,73,1
DoubleCheck=55571039,73,1
DoubleCheck=56993347,73,1
DoubleCheck=57571721,74,1
DoubleCheck=57572329,74,1
DoubleCheck=61089319,74,1
DoubleCheck=61598567,74,1
DoubleCheck=61740551,74,1
DoubleCheck=62471327,74,1
DoubleCheck=63975341,74,1
DoubleCheck=64161359,74,1
DoubleCheck=66416531,75,1
DoubleCheck=76331477,75,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;478754]Neither of yours were correct. LOL

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M42680887"]M42680887[/URL][/QUOTE]
I expected as much, even if I got them finished without reported errors. I thought I had taken those results out of the report line up, but clearly had not. So the 1st time was correct. :smile: