[QUOTE=kladner;456807]Oh, well. I suppose user "WWU-CS" is the one with the spotty record, not that I should sneer. I have my own rap sheet of proven bad results.[/QUOTE]

Well, you win some, you lose some. Like I said, this list of smaller exponents includes computers that, for any particular month, may have an almost equal # of bad and good, so it's more of a crapshoot.

Over time I expect we'll still come across computers where they have far more bad than good, but we've actually done a pretty good job of finding and testing the worst of the worst. There are still some unknowns out there that simply don't have enough double-checked work and it's a safe bet there are some terrible machines out there waiting to be discovered. :smile:

For those, there's really no other way to know except run at least one double-check of any machine that's never had one done yet... I've done some of that on old systems (version 4 clients) but the rest will come up naturally here and there. I guess we could have a project to tackle those, and I think we've talked about some ways of doing that (a special assignment type of some sort).

[QUOTE=kladner;456699]I took-
[CODE]40260631 2 2 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40260631,72,1 [/CODE][/QUOTE]
And [U]did not[/U] match the first run.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;456846]For those, there's really no other way to know except run at least one double-check of any machine that's never had one done yet... I've done some of that on old systems (version 4 clients) but the rest will come up naturally here and there. I guess we could have a project to tackle those, and I think we've talked about some ways of doing that (a special assignment type of some sort).[/QUOTE]

How many of those machines are there?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;456854]How many of those machines are there?[/QUOTE]

My educated guess... a few more than 5330 in the range 0-100M

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;456854]How many of those machines are there?[/QUOTE]

There are a total of 13,683 systems that have never had a single successful (or even unsuccessful) double-check run on them with a combined total LL test count of 85,197 exponents.

Of those 13,683 machines, if I run a report to get the smallest available exponent from each of them, I get a list of 12.466 exponents (some systems already have all of their results assigned for DC...usually systems with only a single check to their credit).

About 3200 of those exponents are below 50M, another 6100 are between 50M-60M, then another 1900 between 60M-70M, and then 1130 from 70M-80M. The rest are a wild mix of 80M+ even including a bunch of 100 million digit stuff that I don't care about if they're wrong.

So if any of you just wanted to do some double-checks to "chalk one up" for these systems, knowing that you'll probably match 95% of them (based on the overall odds), I can spit out a list of those. Maybe I could even periodically generate a "lowest 100 exponents" list based on that, just to get the smallest stuff included.

I guess that would still qualify as a strategic double-check since it has a more specific goal in mind than a typical DC.

With that in mind... if interested, there are the first 100 from that list. Note that several of these are Category zero so if you want it, you'll have to assign it by starting work and then checking in to the server to get the assignment, and there's also a good chance by the time you see this someone will already have it auto-assigned.

[CODE]worktodo
DoubleCheck=39954737,71,1
DoubleCheck=39977671,71,1
DoubleCheck=39980543,71,1
DoubleCheck=39991681,71,1
DoubleCheck=39994193,73,1
DoubleCheck=39996581,71,1
DoubleCheck=40004947,72,1
DoubleCheck=40025353,72,1
DoubleCheck=40030183,72,1
DoubleCheck=40030219,72,1
DoubleCheck=40034287,72,1
DoubleCheck=40046597,72,1
DoubleCheck=40049413,72,1
DoubleCheck=40059133,72,1
DoubleCheck=40068799,72,1
DoubleCheck=40097593,72,1
DoubleCheck=40098923,72,1
DoubleCheck=40130471,72,1
DoubleCheck=40130989,72,1
DoubleCheck=40139483,72,1
DoubleCheck=40140367,72,1
DoubleCheck=40162201,72,1
DoubleCheck=40175767,72,1
DoubleCheck=40182199,72,1
DoubleCheck=40200451,72,1
DoubleCheck=40202047,72,1
DoubleCheck=40233229,72,1
DoubleCheck=40242767,72,1
DoubleCheck=40252547,72,1
DoubleCheck=40259833,72,1
DoubleCheck=40268911,72,1
DoubleCheck=40291663,72,1
DoubleCheck=40293061,72,1
DoubleCheck=40301491,72,1
DoubleCheck=40340669,72,1
DoubleCheck=40342429,72,1
DoubleCheck=40351481,72,1
DoubleCheck=40373077,72,1
DoubleCheck=40396871,72,1
DoubleCheck=40407799,72,1
DoubleCheck=40441871,72,1
DoubleCheck=40451701,72,1
DoubleCheck=40452131,72,1
DoubleCheck=40453397,72,1
DoubleCheck=40465417,72,1
DoubleCheck=40482733,72,1
DoubleCheck=40483039,72,1
DoubleCheck=40745893,72,1
DoubleCheck=40759967,72,1
DoubleCheck=40766417,72,1
DoubleCheck=40770137,72,1
DoubleCheck=40770563,72,1
DoubleCheck=40780781,72,1
DoubleCheck=40793549,72,1
DoubleCheck=40793723,72,1
DoubleCheck=40854631,72,1
DoubleCheck=40859191,72,1
DoubleCheck=40905539,72,1
DoubleCheck=40965433,72,1
DoubleCheck=40968409,72,1
DoubleCheck=40968713,72,1
DoubleCheck=40973131,72,1
DoubleCheck=40974823,72,1
DoubleCheck=40983511,72,1
DoubleCheck=40984393,72,1
DoubleCheck=40986271,72,1
DoubleCheck=41021971,72,1
DoubleCheck=41037617,72,1
DoubleCheck=41043029,72,1
DoubleCheck=41048317,72,1
DoubleCheck=41048519,72,1
DoubleCheck=41049049,72,1
DoubleCheck=41056313,72,1
DoubleCheck=41072287,72,1
DoubleCheck=41077171,72,1
DoubleCheck=41085127,72,1
DoubleCheck=41097593,72,1
DoubleCheck=41100893,72,1
DoubleCheck=41105413,72,1
DoubleCheck=41119301,72,1
DoubleCheck=41119801,72,1
DoubleCheck=41130121,72,1
DoubleCheck=41131481,72,1
DoubleCheck=41139143,72,1
DoubleCheck=41140331,72,1
DoubleCheck=41140727,72,1
DoubleCheck=41155739,72,1
DoubleCheck=41164289,72,1
DoubleCheck=41169229,72,1
DoubleCheck=41181263,72,1
DoubleCheck=41181887,72,1
DoubleCheck=41181997,72,1
DoubleCheck=41182637,72,1
DoubleCheck=41183297,73,1
DoubleCheck=41188249,72,1
DoubleCheck=41194051,72,1
DoubleCheck=41199559,72,1
DoubleCheck=41200331,72,1
DoubleCheck=41209877,72,1
DoubleCheck=41210021,72,1[/CODE]

If you could make that query a new work type, I would automate my systems to fetch that (with the usual DC category rules applying).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;456898]There are a total of 13,683 systems that have never had a single successful (or even unsuccessful) double-check run on them
[/QUOTE]

Hmm... are you including all machines, or just the ones with at least one unverified expo?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;456898]Of those 13,683 machines, if I run a report to get the smallest available exponent from each of them, I get a list of 12.466 exponents (some systems already have all of their results assigned for DC...usually systems with only a single check to their credit).[/QUOTE]

I think the majority of these machines, maybe the vast majority, have only returned a single LL result, ever.

It won't be particularly helpful to double-check these ahead of time, because whether that single result is good or bad, it provides no clues about any other exponents. So these are by definition "unstrategic" double checks.

Maybe it's better to focus on machines that have two or more unverified results and no verified results. Then if any results are bad we can look at double-checking other exponents returned by the same machine.

Title
 

[QUOTE=Madpoo;456898]There are a total of 13,683 systems that have never had a single successful (or even unsuccessful) double-check run on them with a combined total LL test count of 85,197 exponents.

Of those 13,683 machines, if I run a report to get the smallest available exponent from each of them, I get a list of 12.466 exponents (some systems already have all of their results assigned for DC...usually systems with only a single check to their credit).

About 3200 of those exponents are below 50M, another 6100 are between 50M-60M, then another 1900 between 60M-70M, and then 1130 from 70M-80M. The rest are a wild mix of 80M+ even including a bunch of 100 million digit stuff that I don't care about if they're wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I here by dub thee "data miner extraordinaire".

I've been quite busy with work lately, so I've just been grabbing a few manual exponents for DC lately (honestly I think I even have some old assignments that I still need to clean up).

If there would be an easy way to grab some of this specialized work I'd be happy to focus efforts on this instead.

[QUOTE=ric;456922]Hmm... are you including all machines, or just the ones with at least one unverified expo?[/QUOTE]

That was a count of all systems that have returned at least one LL result, but so far none of their results have been verified (or proven bad).