[QUOTE=Prime95;460657]I think it would be a good idea to strategically double-check at least half of this users exponents. Based on the data that comes back, we might then double-check the other half.[/QUOTE]

I've got a query already setup that will pull the smallest unassigned exponent for a particular year/month of any matching criteria (in this case a specific CPU). It comes in handy for spot checking...

Here's that list, in chronological order. :smile:

[CODE]Exponent Bad Good Unk worktodo
43191191 0 14 7 DoubleCheck=43191191,72,1
45537641 0 2 3 DoubleCheck=45537641,72,1
41953489 0 4 7 DoubleCheck=41953489,72,1
46388297 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=46388297,72,1
44405707 0 1 4 DoubleCheck=44405707,72,1
43518661 0 7 2 DoubleCheck=43518661,72,1
42316943 0 2 6 DoubleCheck=42316943,72,1
41721523 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=41721523,72,1
47556689 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=47556689,72,1
44258833 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=44258833,72,1
44169109 0 2 6 DoubleCheck=44169109,72,1
45602677 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=45602677,72,1
45414253 0 1 7 DoubleCheck=45414253,72,1
45414401 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=45414401,72,1
44095913 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=44095913,72,1
43849327 0 3 6 DoubleCheck=43849327,72,1
40289297 0 8 3 DoubleCheck=40289297,72,1
45591499 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=45591499,72,1
46157549 0 2 3 DoubleCheck=46157549,72,1
50928337 0 1 14 DoubleCheck=50928337,73,1
43220833 0 1 8 DoubleCheck=43220833,72,1
50752483 0 1 7 DoubleCheck=50752483,73,1
48738539 0 0 10 DoubleCheck=48738539,72,1
43454707 0 1 14 DoubleCheck=43454707,72,1
43482251 0 4 10 DoubleCheck=43482251,72,1
45921341 0 1 11 DoubleCheck=45921341,72,1
50505359 0 2 12 DoubleCheck=50505359,73,1
50488463 0 2 17 DoubleCheck=50488463,73,1
50737123 0 0 8 DoubleCheck=50737123,73,1
50513509 0 0 24 DoubleCheck=50513509,73,1
47880529 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=47880529,72,1
53644573 0 1 22 DoubleCheck=53644573,73,1
51220769 1 3 17 DoubleCheck=51220769,73,1
50419043 0 2 31 DoubleCheck=50419043,73,1
50051017 1 2 17 DoubleCheck=50051017,73,1
47304703 0 3 27 DoubleCheck=47304703,72,1
51781361 1 1 14 DoubleCheck=51781361,73,1
51466607 1 4 17 DoubleCheck=51466607,73,1
55061443 0 0 23 DoubleCheck=55061443,73,1
55109911 0 0 9 DoubleCheck=55109911,73,1
55329581 0 0 17 DoubleCheck=55329581,73,1
54430973 0 0 18 DoubleCheck=54430973,73,1
51223423 0 0 24 DoubleCheck=51223423,73,1
60475829 0 0 6 DoubleCheck=60475829,74,1
51914539 0 0 22 DoubleCheck=51914539,73,1
51916897 0 2 14 DoubleCheck=51916897,73,1
58945283 0 1 17 DoubleCheck=58945283,73,1
56899343 0 0 17 DoubleCheck=56899343,73,1
57421031 0 0 28 DoubleCheck=57421031,73,1
60002291 1 2 19 DoubleCheck=60002291,74,1
62647661 0 1 13 DoubleCheck=62647661,74,1
58907749 1 5 11 DoubleCheck=58907749,73,1
61500731 7 6 11 DoubleCheck=61500731,74,1
55897211 5 9 19 DoubleCheck=55897211,73,1
61222081 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=61222081,74,1
60939001 0 2 21 DoubleCheck=60939001,74,1
61037629 2 2 16 DoubleCheck=61037629,74,1
63181423 1 2 13 DoubleCheck=63181423,74,1
63530827 0 0 15 DoubleCheck=63530827,74,1
63683693 0 0 14 DoubleCheck=63683693,74,1
63683929 0 0 10 DoubleCheck=63683929,74,1
63683621 0 0 14 DoubleCheck=63683621,74,1
65062643 0 0 17 DoubleCheck=65062643,74,1
64681307 0 0 14 DoubleCheck=64681307,74,1
66229081 0 0 19 DoubleCheck=66229081,75,1
66698507 2 2 8 DoubleCheck=66698507,75,1
72629587 2 2 4 DoubleCheck=72629587,75,1
72629749 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=72629749,75,1
67854097 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=67854097,75,1
75059249 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=75059249,75,1
67854053 0 0 12 DoubleCheck=67854053,75,1
68360059 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=68360059,75,1
68699989 0 0 8 DoubleCheck=68699989,75,1
72893761 0 1 16 DoubleCheck=72893761,75,1
73829731 0 0 6 DoubleCheck=73829731,75,1
73656907 0 0 7 DoubleCheck=73656907,75,1
77486791 0 8 3 DoubleCheck=77486791,75,1
77486441 0 3 4 DoubleCheck=77486441,75,1
78212009 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=78212009,75,1
78431653 0 1 3 DoubleCheck=78431653,75,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Prime95;460657]I think it would be a good idea to strategically double-check at least half of this users exponents. Based on the data that comes back, we might then double-check the other half.[/QUOTE]

By the way, I just thought of this and it would be a little bit of a "cheat" but we could "persuade" the general masses to do strategic double-checking by marking potentially wrong results as "suspect" and make them available for first-time checks.

When a computer itself encounters certain errors and turns in a suspect result, that's exactly what happens anyway... in this case we'd be doing what *should* have happened and mark it as suspect so it's checked again much sooner.

I think I saw that a "suspect" result has a 50/50 chance of being correct, if I remember what I found when analyzing the error codes... I think the lists we're pulling of "probably bad" is actually better than that at spotting bad results.

Anyway, just a thought, although it might mess up some reporting where we've already crossed several milestones for first-time checks, but suddenly marking a bunch as suspect and available for a "new first time check" would gum things up for a bit.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;460683]By the way, I just thought of this and it would be a little bit of a "cheat" but we could "persuade" the general masses to do strategic double-checking by marking potentially wrong results as "suspect" and make them available for first-time checks.[/QUOTE]

But the "general masses" will just churn and expire those strategic exponents. We want them to actually get done, and in a timely fashion. Hence this thread.

[QUOTE=GP2;460624]The triple checks on exponents [M]53648893[/M], [M]53648981[/M], [M]53648423[/M], [M]53647547[/M] will finish within a few hours, in that order. The first one is already at 51M and the slowest is almost at 49M. All interim residues are still matching.[/QUOTE]

I see the first 3 matched my Mlucas-on-overheating-Ryzen-system results - what is ETA on the fourth?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;460697]I see the first 3 matched my Mlucas-on-overheating-Ryzen-system results - what is ETA on the fourth?[/QUOTE]

As of right this very instant, it's 99.72% complete... so in about 40 minutes from now.

[QUOTE=GP2;460684]But the "general masses" will just churn and expire those strategic exponents. We want them to actually get done, and in a timely fashion. Hence this thread.[/QUOTE]

Most of them would be sub category zero (if that's a thing...) :smile:

[QUOTE=GP2;460700]As of right this very instant, it's 99.72% complete... so in about 40 minutes from now.[/QUOTE]

And, I see we match on that one as well. Thanks for jumping on these - big relief to know I haven't been wasting all those Ryzen cycles David Stanfill has generously gifted me with. (Not even in the subpar-performance sense, as on Ryzen I get ~90% the throughput of mprime, avx2-builds for both.)

Here's a short list... this machine has been trending towards the "bad" side of the equation, now with overall stats of 20 bad, 21 good.

Below is a list of the smallest available exponent for any month where the bad>=good (and it might mean no bad/no good). It'll help fill in some unknowns about when the system started to rot... seems like around late 2010 but there are gaps there where no DC's have been done yet.

[CODE]Exponent Bad Good Unk worktodo
41654687 0 0 2 DoubleCheck=41654687,72,1
44526941 0 0 1 DoubleCheck=44526941,72,1
46594763 0 0 7 DoubleCheck=46594763,72,1
46708141 2 0 2 DoubleCheck=46708141,72,1
47521781 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=47521781,72,1
50613733 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=50613733,73,1
50896471 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=50896471,73,1
52944533 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52944533,73,1
53674261 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=53674261,73,1
55885723 0 0 4 DoubleCheck=55885723,73,1
[/CODE]

I don't know if it's just me, but I found one of the user names in this exponent report to be hilarious in its honesty:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M46205657"]M46205657[/URL]

That's the 2nd bad result from I've seen from it (it doesn't have any more outstanding).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;461216]I don't know if it's just me, but I found one of the user names in this exponent report to be hilarious in its honesty:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M46205657"]M46205657[/URL]

That's the 2nd bad result from I've seen from it (it doesn't have any more outstanding).[/QUOTE]

I see where you ran another DC on June 14. There must be something 'flaky' going on with his hardware. Of course, this is just a guess on my part.

I suppose a lot of what he/she ran will need to be checked...

[QUOTE=storm5510;461514]I see where you ran another DC on June 14. There must be something 'flaky' going on with his hardware. Of course, this is just a guess on my part.

I suppose a lot of what he/she ran will need to be checked...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I did a spot check of another one but it matched, so maybe I just hit a few bad ones as a result of my triple-checking.

I may check it out again or just do another roundup of "maybe bad, but let's test one more and see" kind of work.