[QUOTE=storm5510;466221]How are you using memory sticks in context with this project?

I have six of them. It's needless to say that I have never had one go bad.[/QUOTE]

I've installed ClearLinux onto them, for running mprime (Clear better than Ubuntu, and I get better performance). There isn't a heavy write load, but after many months I'm getting read errors, which leads to things crashing.

I don't think they were intended for heavy usage.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;466231]I've installed ClearLinux onto them, for running mprime (Clear better than Ubuntu, and I get better performance). There isn't a heavy write load, but after many months I'm getting read errors, which leads to things crashing.

I don't think they were intended for heavy usage.[/QUOTE]

I see, and no, I doubt they were ever intended for heavy use. Is there a possibility of ClearLinux creating a ram-drive, and using that for read-write processes? This would really cut down the stress on the stick.

[QUOTE=storm5510;466239]I see, and no, I doubt they were ever intended for heavy use. Is there a possibility of ClearLinux creating a ram-drive, and using that for read-write processes? This would really cut down the stress on the stick.[/QUOTE]

The only thing doing any real writes on there is mprime saving every half hour. There is a minor bit of logging (couple MB per day).

Now these weren't high-end branded sticks. Still, ~5MB * 48 = 240MB per day, and after a year, is 87.6 GB. On a 4 GB stick, that's writing the entire thing 22 times, but I don't think these drives would actively be wear-levelling, and I wouldn't be surprised if some areas were hit harder.

[QUOTE=storm5510;466199][B]@Madpoo[/B]: I was looking at your column headers in post 1589. What do [U]Sus[/U], [U]Solo[/U], and [U]Mis[/U] mean?[/QUOTE]

Sus = suspect: count of unverified results from that CPU that had known errors during the run
Solo = count of tests by that CPU that haven't had a double-check at all yet
Mis = mismatch: tests from that computer that have been double-checked but mismatched

Those things can sometimes help determine the overall healthiness of a machine. Well, more the "suspect" results at any rate. High # of mismatches could just be from the people in this thread testing results we think were bad. :smile:

If a machine has more bad than good, sometimes it's helpful to see how many unverified results it has out there... if it has 1 bad, 1 good, and 1 solo result, yeah, sure, it's probably worth doing a double-check on that solo result. If it has 40 unverified results, I'd probably do a few cherry picked tests of it's smallest exponents, or break it down more by year/month and see if any trends develop. It could have just had a bad day and everything else from it is good.

Ultimately it's up to whoever might be interested in picking up any of these for an assignment... I just include it to help make that decision.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;466248]...Now these weren't high-end branded sticks. Still, ~5MB * 48 = 240MB per day, and after a year, is 87.6 GB. On a 4 GB stick, that's writing the entire thing 22 times, but I don't think these drives would actively be wear-levelling, and I wouldn't be surprised if some areas were hit harder.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that's not a lot. I have a 64 GB Sandisk plugged into the front of a Blu-Ray player. It has documentaries on it. It generally sees three to five hours of playback per day. I've had it about six months. Strange as this may sound, I cannot concentrate in a quiet room.

I've always wondered if simply being energized a lot shortens their life, like a light bulb.

[QUOTE=Madpoo]Sus = suspect: count of unverified results from that CPU that had known errors during the run
Solo = count of tests by that CPU that haven't had a double-check at all yet
Mis = mismatch: tests from that computer that have been double-checked but mismatched[/QUOTE]

Well, I got one right: Suspect. :smile:

Solo is an interesting category. No verified tests. A person might think that there would not be many of these. Your latest list proves the opposite. There needs to be a lot more DC work performed. There are some which do not care for the amount of time it takes, and would not, or could not, shell-out for a high-end system, or GPU,

[U]Off-topic[/U]: There is one little detail which might clear-the-waters a bit for those, like myself, who peruse the recent data. The "Type" column on both pages uses "C" to indicate a composite value. If it could use "CU" to indicate [I]unverified[/I], and "CV" to indicate [I]verified[/I], this would cut back on page reloads needed to return to the main listing on each page. Just a thought...

[QUOTE=moebius;465536]Horrible result! I reacteded accordingly and have lowered the DRAM latencies and I started another Double-check.[/QUOTE]
Seems to be solved.. This Double-Check was successfully again.

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=44009333&full=1"]44009333[/URL]

Updated list
 

Here's a new "top 100" bad/good and then re-ordered by exponent size:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk worktodo
41696293 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=41696293,72,1
41719147 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=41719147,72,1
42733279 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=42733279,72,1
43045133 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=43045133,72,1
43344919 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=43344919,72,1
43592701 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=43592701,72,1
43642481 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=43642481,72,1
43882621 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=43882621,72,1
44013859 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=44013859,72,1
44448641 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=44448641,72,1
44514427 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=44514427,74,1
44588273 1 0 2 DoubleCheck=44588273,72,1
44742949 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=44742949,72,1
44842979 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=44842979,72,1
45286627 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=45286627,72,1
45324871 1 0 1 DoubleCheck=45324871,72,1
45325499 1 0 1 DoubleCheck=45325499,72,1
45470323 1 0 1 DoubleCheck=45470323,72,1
46105831 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=46105831,72,1
46113547 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=46113547,72,1
46119443 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=46119443,72,1
46571467 1 0 1 DoubleCheck=46571467,72,1
46905743 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=46905743,72,1
46956491 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=46956491,72,1
47084671 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=47084671,72,1
47668079 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=47668079,72,1
47747389 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=47747389,72,1
47796143 1 0 1 DoubleCheck=47796143,72,1
47839741 1 0 2 DoubleCheck=47839741,72,1
48066199 9 8 2 DoubleCheck=48066199,72,1
48095123 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=48095123,72,1
48165989 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=48165989,72,1
48170179 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=48170179,72,1
48194101 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=48194101,72,1
48523327 1 0 2 DoubleCheck=48523327,72,1
48525839 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=48525839,72,1
48628457 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=48628457,72,1
50040247 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=50040247,73,1
50536769 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=50536769,73,1
50537183 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=50537183,73,1
50801873 1 0 2 DoubleCheck=50801873,73,1
50847029 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=50847029,73,1
51628531 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=51628531,73,1
51725251 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=51725251,73,1
51900467 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=51900467,73,1
51907969 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=51907969,73,1
51945079 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=51945079,73,1
52078027 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52078027,73,1
52105457 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=52105457,73,1
52146673 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52146673,73,1
52503727 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52503727,73,1
52562707 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52562707,73,1
52638863 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=52638863,73,1
52736503 2 2 1 DoubleCheck=52736503,73,1
52902649 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=52902649,73,1
53035573 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53035573,73,1
53035649 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53035649,73,1
53156867 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53156867,73,1
53191093 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53191093,73,1
53232449 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53232449,73,1
53329681 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53329681,73,1
53364041 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=53364041,73,1
53520547 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53520547,73,1
53520613 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53520613,73,1
53783837 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=53783837,73,1
54033407 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=54033407,73,1
54106807 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=54106807,73,1
54479993 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=54479993,73,1
54497749 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=54497749,73,1
54542801 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=54542801,73,1
54674621 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=54674621,73,1
54998431 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=54998431,73,1
55008181 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=55008181,73,1
56141483 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=56141483,73,1
56152133 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=56152133,73,1
56389639 2 2 3 DoubleCheck=56389639,73,1
56389973 2 2 3 DoubleCheck=56389973,73,1
56477437 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=56477437,73,1
56492083 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=56492083,73,1
56565331 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=56565331,73,1
56845619 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=56845619,73,1
56875199 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=56875199,73,1
56983049 2 2 3 DoubleCheck=56983049,73,1
57110591 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=57110591,74,1
57164689 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=57164689,73,1
57278267 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=57278267,73,1
57291181 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=57291181,73,1
57591487 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=57591487,73,1
57591773 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=57591773,73,1
57629809 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=57629809,73,1
57771949 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=57771949,73,1
58084207 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=58084207,73,1
58123129 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=58123129,73,1
58123693 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=58123693,73,1
58567319 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=58567319,74,1
58595063 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=58595063,73,1
58778611 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=58778611,73,1
58952743 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=58952743,73,1
59571931 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=59571931,73,1
59573699 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=59573699,75,1
[/CODE]

Taking these:
41696293 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=41696293,72,1
41719147 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=41719147,72,1
Registered. ETA about 52 hours for each, concurrently on 2 worker windows, with 2 cores each. i7-6700k, 4.3 GHz, Kingston 2666 MHz RAM at 3200 MHz.

[CODE]DoubleCheck=xxxxx,42733279,72,1
[/CODE]

Successfully registered with the server. 60 hours on my HP.

[CODE]DoubleCheck=xxxx,43344919,72,1
[/CODE]

Also registered this one. The first is 23% complete.

[QUOTE=kladner;467022]Taking these:
41696293 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=41696293,72,1
[/QUOTE]
Matched.
22 hours to 41719147. I am back to running all 4 cores on one worker, after a week with two with 2 workers. The difference seems negligible. In fact, 2 workers with 2 cores each was hitting 4.28 ms/it, while 1 worker with 2 cores gives about 3.8 ms/it. All 4 on the same range exponent is doing 2.11.