[QUOTE=endless mike;408680]Finished overnight; as expected, not a [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41019989&full=1"]match[/URL].[/QUOTE]

I'll run a triple check. Should be done next week.

different shifts = important
 

And here's why a different shift count matters:
[URL="www.mersenne.org/M37126169"]M37126169[/URL]

Although technically I think this is one of the handful (under 100, I think) of results that got accidentally checked in twice. But if it weren't for looking at shift counts and requiring them to be different, it may well have been accepted as a verified double check... I mean, they came in a year apart. :smile:

endless_mike just beat me to taking that.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408759]And here's why a different shift count matters:
[URL="www.mersenne.org/M37126169"]M37126169[/URL]

Although technically I think this is one of the handful (under 100, I think) of results that got accidentally checked in twice. But if it weren't for looking at shift counts and requiring them to be different, it may well have been accepted as a verified double check... I mean, they came in a year apart. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Woo, quad check, I'll take it.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;408764]endless_mike just beat me to taking that.[/QUOTE]

I type slow

my triple checking...
 

FYI, I started out figuring I'd just start doing the necessary triple checks for all the junk that had 2+ mismatching residues. I'm just about done with all of the 34M examples, although some current assignments expire here and there, and our strategic double-checks are finding more mismatches.

That's been helpful in finding some new systems that had bad results where we didn't really have a track record yet, but in many cases the bad system was already a known offender. :smile:

For the 35M+ stuff I thought I'd focus on exponents where both systems are an unknown quantity... Since there's no shortage of exponents with mismatches, I figured this would be the best way to approach it so that I'm actually contributing to the dataset of bad systems.

Any thoughts? Anyone besides myself interested in tackling some of these exponents where TC's are needed? I believe we've already sifted through and found any that need extra factoring (I can double check) so these would be good old LL tests, just to figure out who was right and who was wrong (or both wrong, as I've seen in many cases).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408770] Anyone besides myself interested in tackling some of these exponents where TC's are needed?[/QUOTE]

I can take a few....not the fastest of hardware so would prefer in the lower range...
I have 6 cores what were fast 2 years ago that could each complete 1 in about 12 days.

I may have more fire power available later in the year if there is still work to be done on these.

Will you as in the past publish a list now and then or are there just too many?

If no list just send me 18 to test...

Wayne

WIP
 

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408770] Anyone besides myself interested in tackling some of these exponents where TC's are needed? .[/QUOTE]

In the last few weeks, I've been TC' and QC'ing a few dozens expos in the 34M6 to 34M8 region, mainly coming from you or Greg, with some more already queued up for completion. Unsurprisingly, all the completed ones confirm 2015's newest results. No big iron here, so my output is on average one check a day, or so. I plan to continue this way for some more time, so if you publish a priority list I can grab a few new ones from there.

Hth,
Ric

[QUOTE=petrw1;408773]I can take a few....not the fastest of hardware so would prefer in the lower range...
I have 6 cores what were fast 2 years ago that could each complete 1 in about 12 days.

I may have more fire power available later in the year if there is still work to be done on these.

Will you as in the past publish a list now and then or are there just too many?

If no list just send me 18 to test...[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to nail down how best to query the data now.

I'll start on just the stuff below 36M. There's a total of 470 exponents < 36M that have had 2 checks so far with no matches (and are currently unassigned).

What I want to be able to do is narrow down which among those 470 involve *both* computers with not a lot of historical data, so that by doing the TC now we'll at least build up some stats on good/bad systems for those that are currently unknown.

My first stab at a query for that gave me ~ 340 or so exponents. I snagged about 50 of them (from 35.0M up to 35.3M) but before grabbing more I'm going to QA the list and make sure my query is okay.

If anyone is curious, there are currently 5310 *unassigned* exponents that need a triple check (I've been snagging and clearing the ones that need quad+ checks). But that excludes about 100 more where I'm one of the testers... I didn't want to assign myself any work I've already done. :smile: I have 28 exponents where I'm one of 3 contributors, and then I guess another 75'ish where I'm one of the two mismatched testers. I'm not terribly concerned about those since I've just been assuming mine is the right one, along with other "awesome" systems with low/zero bad results.

Looking at *assigned* work (which could be assigned for extra TF, or for someone already doing a triple check) there's another ~ 2000. 36 of those have 3 mismatched tests... those are the ones that, when they become available, I've been snatching up. It's fun to verify those because I'm marking at least *2* computers as having another bad result with only one test. :smile: Sometimes all 3 previous results are bad, and those are the ones I usually mention here so someone can do a quint check.

First, an updated "strategic double check" list
 

Before delving into hunting bad systems by doing triple checks, I thought it was time to put out an updated list of first/only checks that may be bad.

There are some new entries in this list, thanks to a user "eskifullofbeer" that now has 3 bad entries, zero good, and 24 unknown. 2 of those "bad" are actually ones where I did another check and didn't match theirs, so I'm assuming mine is correct. Part of my fishing expedition, looking for systems without much to go on, but seemed like they might be bad.

We also have a new entrant into the "3 times as many bad as good" thanks to user "Arthur Townsend" and some recent tests I completed that bumped his bad count just over the threshold (again, more of my speculative testing of marginal looking boxes).

Those are the ones that have 17 bad, 5 good, 12 unknown.

Anyway... here's the list:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
35597701 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=35597701,71,1
35751481 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=35751481,71,1
36477403 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=36477403,71,1
36611753 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=36611753,71,1
37373783 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=37373783,71,1
37558289 17 5 12 1 DoubleCheck=37558289,71,1
37665493 9 3 5 5 DoubleCheck=37665493,71,1
42069659 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=42069659,72,1
42305167 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=42305167,72,1
42748019 17 4 5 3 DoubleCheck=42748019,72,1
42983959 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=42983959,72,1
43402943 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=43402943,72,1
43698703 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=43698703,72,1
43717981 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=43717981,72,1
43731869 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=43731869,72,1
43746137 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=43746137,72,1
43768357 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=43768357,72,1
44378077 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=44378077,72,1
44394173 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=44394173,72,1
44781521 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=44781521,72,1
44988709 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=44988709,72,1
45364853 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=45364853,72,1
45388481 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=45388481,72,1
45656467 3 1 3 6 DoubleCheck=45656467,72,1
45710999 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=45710999,72,1
45857047 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=45857047,72,1
46175153 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46175153,72,1
46216699 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46216699,72,1
46378181 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46378181,72,1
46487227 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=46487227,72,1
46584451 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46584451,72,1
46605149 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46605149,72,1
46733287 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=46733287,72,1
46975139 3 1 8 6 DoubleCheck=46975139,72,1
47780699 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47780699,72,1
47786399 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47786399,72,1
47787829 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47787829,72,1
47962091 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=47962091,72,1
48099251 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=48099251,72,1
48099301 3 0 24 1 DoubleCheck=48099301,72,1
49342991 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49342991,72,1
49360579 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49360579,72,1
49544023 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=49544023,72,1
50060831 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=50060831,73,1
50240497 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=50240497,73,1
50316473 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=50316473,73,1
50331793 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=50331793,73,1
50364731 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=50364731,73,1
50364827 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=50364827,73,1
50364943 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=50364943,73,1
50364961 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=50364961,73,1
50725429 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=50725429,73,1
50818837 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=50818837,73,1
51226867 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=51226867,73,1
53059973 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=53059973,73,1
53375909 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=53375909,73,1
53740301 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=53740301,73,1
53771789 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=53771789,73,1
53948311 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=53948311,73,1
54068747 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54068747,73,1
54072163 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072163,73,1
54072253 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072253,73,1
54072643 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072643,73,1
54280231 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54280231,73,1
54513103 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54513103,73,1
54620483 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54620483,73,1
54629573 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54629573,73,1
54629689 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54629689,73,1
54629747 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54629747,73,1
54922663 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=54922663,73,1
55075171 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=55075171,73,1
55257889 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=55257889,73,1
55295731 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=55295731,73,1
55421599 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=55421599,73,1
55614661 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=55614661,73,1
56269861 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=56269861,73,1
56959759 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=56959759,73,1
57044891 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=57044891,73,1
57131161 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=57131161,73,1
57414373 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=57414373,73,1
57533953 3 1 28 3 DoubleCheck=57533953,73,1
57584141 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=57584141,73,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408785]I'm trying to nail down how best to query the data now.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I think I got it running okay. It'll spit out a list of exponents that need a triple check, and neither of the two machines that already submitted a result are suspected of being bad or good. By focusing on these we can start to get results on both by marking more bad and more good in a single test, which should improve the overall strategy of rooting out bad systems.

To start I just pulled exponents < 35.5M to keep the list smallish... there's still 128 entries though.

As usual, if you start working on one, be sure to let your system check in so it gets assigned to you. And before starting a new one, look online to see if someone else already snagged it.

Or if you're bold and you're going to take a bunch, let people know on here to save some time.

When I manually eyeballed a few of these to see what machines did the tests, many of them have one system that has nothing but good results, but not enough for me to consider them "awesome" (like only 10+ good results, not the 50+ I'm looking for), and the other one has a few bad, but maybe just as many good.

In those cases I'm pretty sure I could predict with 80% accuracy (wild guess) which one is correct, but only a TC will tell for sure.

[CODE]exponent worktodo
35285249 DoubleCheck=35285249,71,1
35302283 DoubleCheck=35302283,71,1
35302507 DoubleCheck=35302507,71,1
35309177 DoubleCheck=35309177,71,1
35309801 DoubleCheck=35309801,71,1
35309947 DoubleCheck=35309947,71,1
35313661 DoubleCheck=35313661,71,1
35316817 DoubleCheck=35316817,71,1
35317423 DoubleCheck=35317423,71,1
35319763 DoubleCheck=35319763,71,1
35321219 DoubleCheck=35321219,71,1
35321899 DoubleCheck=35321899,71,1
35322037 DoubleCheck=35322037,71,1
35322103 DoubleCheck=35322103,71,1
35325373 DoubleCheck=35325373,71,1
35328949 DoubleCheck=35328949,71,1
35329537 DoubleCheck=35329537,71,1
35330017 DoubleCheck=35330017,71,1
35330237 DoubleCheck=35330237,71,1
35330263 DoubleCheck=35330263,71,1
35330749 DoubleCheck=35330749,71,1
35330969 DoubleCheck=35330969,71,1
35331419 DoubleCheck=35331419,71,1
35332223 DoubleCheck=35332223,71,1
35332699 DoubleCheck=35332699,71,1
35340847 DoubleCheck=35340847,71,1
35342929 DoubleCheck=35342929,71,1
35345623 DoubleCheck=35345623,71,1
35346943 DoubleCheck=35346943,71,1
35347567 DoubleCheck=35347567,71,1
35348359 DoubleCheck=35348359,71,1
35349527 DoubleCheck=35349527,71,1
35349997 DoubleCheck=35349997,71,1
35350423 DoubleCheck=35350423,71,1
35354909 DoubleCheck=35354909,71,1
35357389 DoubleCheck=35357389,71,1
35358667 DoubleCheck=35358667,71,1
35361323 DoubleCheck=35361323,71,1
35363239 DoubleCheck=35363239,71,1
35365549 DoubleCheck=35365549,71,1
35366677 DoubleCheck=35366677,71,1
35368717 DoubleCheck=35368717,71,1
35369899 DoubleCheck=35369899,71,1
35369923 DoubleCheck=35369923,71,1
35373341 DoubleCheck=35373341,71,1
35373557 DoubleCheck=35373557,71,1
35373743 DoubleCheck=35373743,71,1
35375731 DoubleCheck=35375731,71,1
35376763 DoubleCheck=35376763,71,1
35377369 DoubleCheck=35377369,71,1
35380067 DoubleCheck=35380067,71,1
35381279 DoubleCheck=35381279,71,1
35381377 DoubleCheck=35381377,71,1
35382337 DoubleCheck=35382337,71,1
35384383 DoubleCheck=35384383,71,1
35384521 DoubleCheck=35384521,71,1
35384801 DoubleCheck=35384801,71,1
35388653 DoubleCheck=35388653,71,1
35390519 DoubleCheck=35390519,71,1
35390633 DoubleCheck=35390633,71,1
35391883 DoubleCheck=35391883,71,1
35392891 DoubleCheck=35392891,71,1
35394083 DoubleCheck=35394083,71,1
35396399 DoubleCheck=35396399,71,1
35398147 DoubleCheck=35398147,71,1
35399597 DoubleCheck=35399597,71,1
35401033 DoubleCheck=35401033,71,1
35401061 DoubleCheck=35401061,71,1
35405561 DoubleCheck=35405561,71,1
35410873 DoubleCheck=35410873,71,1
35412217 DoubleCheck=35412217,71,1
35413999 DoubleCheck=35413999,71,1
35414371 DoubleCheck=35414371,71,1
35415763 DoubleCheck=35415763,71,1
35417969 DoubleCheck=35417969,71,1
35418619 DoubleCheck=35418619,71,1
35423627 DoubleCheck=35423627,71,1
35423747 DoubleCheck=35423747,71,1
35423851 DoubleCheck=35423851,71,1
35424331 DoubleCheck=35424331,71,1
35426077 DoubleCheck=35426077,71,1
35426327 DoubleCheck=35426327,71,1
35428619 DoubleCheck=35428619,71,1
35429333 DoubleCheck=35429333,71,1
35429419 DoubleCheck=35429419,71,1
35432021 DoubleCheck=35432021,71,1
35435489 DoubleCheck=35435489,71,1
35436217 DoubleCheck=35436217,71,1
35438989 DoubleCheck=35438989,71,1
35442499 DoubleCheck=35442499,71,1
35443523 DoubleCheck=35443523,71,1
35444153 DoubleCheck=35444153,71,1
35446403 DoubleCheck=35446403,71,1
35446721 DoubleCheck=35446721,71,1
35448181 DoubleCheck=35448181,71,1
35453389 DoubleCheck=35453389,71,1
35455559 DoubleCheck=35455559,71,1
35456689 DoubleCheck=35456689,71,1
35458231 DoubleCheck=35458231,71,1
35458723 DoubleCheck=35458723,71,1
35463157 DoubleCheck=35463157,71,1
35463739 DoubleCheck=35463739,71,1
35464657 DoubleCheck=35464657,71,1
35466287 DoubleCheck=35466287,71,1
35466397 DoubleCheck=35466397,71,1
35466661 DoubleCheck=35466661,71,1
35467057 DoubleCheck=35467057,71,1
35467109 DoubleCheck=35467109,71,1
35468029 DoubleCheck=35468029,71,1
35469743 DoubleCheck=35469743,71,1
35471729 DoubleCheck=35471729,71,1
35473561 DoubleCheck=35473561,71,1
35474063 DoubleCheck=35474063,71,1
35474849 DoubleCheck=35474849,71,1
35478853 DoubleCheck=35478853,71,1
35479723 DoubleCheck=35479723,71,1
35480339 DoubleCheck=35480339,71,1
35480579 DoubleCheck=35480579,71,1
35480791 DoubleCheck=35480791,71,1
35488613 DoubleCheck=35488613,71,1
35490097 DoubleCheck=35490097,71,1
35490269 DoubleCheck=35490269,71,1
35490529 DoubleCheck=35490529,71,1
35494871 DoubleCheck=35494871,71,1
35496977 DoubleCheck=35496977,71,1
35498587 DoubleCheck=35498587,71,1
35498719 DoubleCheck=35498719,71,1
35499397 DoubleCheck=35499397,71,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408790]As usual, if you start working on one, be sure to let your system check in so it gets assigned to you.[/QUOTE]
I do this, but it is a pain for low exponents since the online form won't let me manually reserve them. Currently I stop a running mprime, add them to worktodo.txt, restart it and let it communicate, stop it, remove the updated lines from worktodo.txt, and then restart it. Would it be possible to repurpose the DC LL reservation code from GPU-72 for this project?