Another strategy would be to triple check a few numbers that Madpoo has done a DC without a match. If you don't match his, then you likely have a problem.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=36000000&exp_date=&user_only=1&user_id=Madpoo&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&B1=[/url]

A few hours of memory testing came up spotless, but this was from user-space and not the boot straight to memtest variety.

The machine is onto another batch of DCs which usually only take a few days, so between that and a couple triple checks here we should have a gauge on it shortly. I've had unverified DCs pop up in the past but usually out of a batch of 6-8 results I will have one mismatch and the rest verify. This is the first time I have seen one verify and all the rest fail.

I try to do a few rounds of DC on new machines to make sure they are solid and avoid causing stress for Madpoo 10 years down the road :)

I have to revise my ETA to, currently, ~1D:16H, @ 2.43% completed.

Chris- I was not sure of the status, though PrimeNet rejected (I think) an effort to register it. Is this worth pursuing?

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411446]A few hours of memory testing came up spotless, but this was from user-space and not the boot straight to memtest variety.[/QUOTE]

No, mate! To be sure, you have to go to the bare metal. There's a chance you only have a single bit or two or so of memory already allocated which is flaky. User-space is for users! :wink:

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411446]...and avoid causing stress for Madpoo 10 years down the road :)[/QUOTE]

:smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;411447]Is this worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]

Some might disagree, but I would argue yes.

The worst thing that will happen is you complete the work before someone who was given this assignment eventually does. There is less than a 1% chance that the "official assignee" will complete in this particular case (or even check in before it expires); the candidate is in the "churning zone".

My personal rule with regards to "poaching" is to try to be as careful as possible, and if someone else actually completes the assignment they were given by Primenet then they are given the credit.

This includes the very /very/ unlikely case of a MP.

I'll let it keep rolling. :smile:

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41106281&exp_hi=&full=1]M41106281[/url] needs a triple check. My other 41M should be done in a few hours.

Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411488]Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.[/QUOTE]

One quick suggestion... If you are bringing a new machine online which you have reason to believe is reliable, perhaps reserved at least two candidates per worker thread via a trusted machine to start the trending.

P.S. Check 41106281 in about 36 hours from now.

[QUOTE=chalsall;411444]Knowing what I know about you, your new machine is probably sound, you just happened to get assigned a half dozen candidates done "poorly" by others.

But... When I encounter such situations (and I only DC for a reason) I run deep and lengthy memory tests.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I'm a bit more skeptical. I just looked at those 5 exponents along with the good/bad counts of the other systems involved.

For the most part, the other, non-AirSquirrels cpu has an okay track record.

The other machine that did M41031493 has an unknown record... zero good/zero bad, but then none of it's other tests have been double-checked until now. The other systems all have at least 1 good result on the book, and only one of them has a single bad result but it also has 57 good ones (that's on exponent M41031587).

If I were a betting man, I'd say that at least 4 out of these 5 new results are wrong, and maybe the 5th one as well but with that other system being unknown, it's a toss up. After all, AirSquirrels did already match a 6th one. :smile:

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411488][url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41106281&exp_hi=&full=1]M41106281[/url] needs a triple check. My other 41M should be done in a few hours.

Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41079751&exp_hi=&full=1]M41079751[/url] finished and matched the previous result.

I have completed my first two ever 4xM LL tests. :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;411498]One quick suggestion... If you are bringing a new machine online which you have reason to believe is reliable, perhaps reserved at least two candidates per worker thread via a trusted machine to start the trending.

P.S. Check 41106281 in about 36 hours from now.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me you are suggesting a trick for running cat 1 (and/or cat 2) jobs before PrimeNet is willing to hand them to the machine directly. Well, I'm OK with getting a few cat 3/4 assignments first, though the idea of using another machine to grab assignments had occurred to me. I think I have enough work done now, that I should be able to get cat 1s going forward.

I note that I completed an ordinary DC assignment on each of the 4 cores prior to using the core for any "Madpoo" work. Though I suppose my failing to match the residue on M41106281 makes my machine look a little bit suspect by Madpoo's standards (4 first LLs, 5 matching DCs, 1 non-matching DC completed), but hopefully Chris bails me out there soon enough.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411511]Though I suppose my failing to match the residue on M41106281 makes my machine look a little bit suspect by Madpoo's standards (4 first LLs, 5 matching DCs, 1 non-matching DC completed), but hopefully Chris bails me out there soon enough.[/QUOTE]

I'll only give a machine the evil-eye on a mismatch if the other system involved has an awesome track record.

In the case of M41106281, your CPU is 4 good/0 bad. The other system is in worse shape... 2 good/5 bad (with 2 suspect, a total of 5 still unverified/mismatched results).

I'd say it's a good bet you have the correct result, but to me, an "awesome" system where I've been giving it the benefit of the doubt and declaring it the probable winner is any system with >= 40 good and <= 1 bad. And I'm even on the fence about letting it have one bad, but then I realize even the most awesomest systems can have an off day. :smile:

Maybe I could also let it include systems with >= 20 good and zero bad. Hmm... maybe that'd help guesstimate more winners and losers with these mismatches.