Requesting DC on:
[QUOTE]
Doublecheck=N/A,36337351,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,36337387,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,36337463,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38874197,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38932447,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38987401,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39004543,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39259279,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39635213,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58475341,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58491773,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58680437,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58696147,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58926013,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58974449,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73143311,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73385537,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73385681,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73566947,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,74029057,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76077787,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76108447,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76141001,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76976729,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,77045861,75,1
[/QUOTE]

All these exponents came from a machine that was plagued with unverified residue mismatches and a few suspect results (I ignored this issue since the machine would occasionally send a good DC result), yesterday finally one turned up to be a BAD result, ran Memtest86+ and it spews errors like crazy (test 7)(DDR3-2400 XMP, no CPU overclock). Odds are there is a substantial number of exponents that are bad.

[QUOTE=UBR47K;412432]Requesting DC on:[/QUOTE]

I grabbed the first three. They will take about three weeks as I'm running them on an older machine.

[QUOTE=UBR47K;412432]Requesting DC on:
...
All these exponents came from a machine that was plagued with unverified residue mismatches and a few suspect results (I ignored this issue since the machine would occasionally send a good DC result), yesterday finally one turned up to be a BAD result, ran Memtest86+ and it spews errors like crazy (test 7)(DDR3-2400 XMP, no CPU overclock). Odds are there is a substantial number of exponents that are bad.[/QUOTE]

Just FYI, all of those below 58M have already been double (or even triple) checked without a match. The ones 58M and above have only been checked once, despite two of them being marked suspect when they were checked in. That puts them back into the "available for first time check" pool, but they're high enough that it just hasn't happened yet (M58926013 and M76108447).

In fact, the ones that were under 58M from UBR47K were all double-checks of stuff done previously... I'd guess in those cases the first check was probably correct.

That said, the machine in question does have a track record right now of 19 good, 1 bad, 2 suspect, 23 unknown, 9 mismatches, and 16 that have only been checked once.

If it were me, I'd be focusing more on the 16 that haven't been double-checked at all instead of doing the triple (or quad) checks, since we probably have good odds they've already been done at least once successfully by now. :smile: Plus, some of those in the list are currently assigned.

Of the 16 "solo" checked exponents, here are the currently unassigned ones:
[CODE]58475341
58491773
58680437
58696147
58974449
73143311
73385537
73385681
73566947
74029057
76077787
76141001
76976729
77045861[/CODE]

I think this goes to show why it would be a good idea if we have new machines do a couple DC runs first to see how they're doing, before they can do a first time check. Even a single DC would give us a good shot at finding potentially bad systems before they surprise us later with a run of worthless residues. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411214]I just checked and these 3 beauties just became available again (assignments expired).

Judging from the bad/good ratio, I'd say these are definitely in the category of things to DC ahead of the curve:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37864429 5 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=37864429,71,1
40164529 20 3 3 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=40164529,72,1
54881429 32 6 12 14 7 19 DoubleCheck=54881429,73,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411267]40164529 has been assigned to an anonymous user - probably a cat 4 churner. ETA 7 days (supposedly).

The last one is still available.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=endless mike;411360]Looks like no one else grabbed it, so I'll take 54881429.[/QUOTE]

Finished overnight, I matched the first time test. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=54881429&full=1"]54881429[/URL]

[QUOTE=endless mike;412464]Finished overnight, I matched the first time test. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=54881429&full=1"]54881429[/URL][/QUOTE]

Ah, bummer. Well, I guess that machine managed to get one more right after all.

Here's it's final tally... it doesn't have any more that haven't at least been DC'd by (probably) a more reliable machine.
[CODE]Bad Good Sus Unk Fact Solo Mis
35 11 13 5 1 0 18[/CODE]

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=46674293&full=1"]Yarrrrr![/URL] :chappy: (i.e. this post actually should be in the [STRIKE]curtisc[/STRIKE] chuck norris thread, hehe, I am happy he wasted 4 tests on that :devil:)

A bit of an experiment...
 

I have a little experiment I wonder if anyone would want to help with.

Currently, these lists of "possibly bad" tests I'm coming up with are based on the history of good/bad results for each CPU. What it entails under the hood is that for each exponent, I've setup a "user id + cpu id" hash (in most cases for v5 of Primenet, the CPU id is distinct but sometimes a user might use the same computer to check in results over different accounts, thus using the user ID as an additional means of narrowing things down).

So that seems to be working more or less... pretty good results. But right now I'm getting down to where we've found a lot of the easier stuff... machines that have been consistently bad.

When chasing down a particular machine's results I noted that at some point the app it was using got updated and it's results of good/bad changed.

See where I'm headed? So what if I include the app version as another identifier in my hash?

On paper it seems promising... for example, under the user+cpu method there's a machine with:
42 good, 46 bad, 2 suspect

Sure, you'd be thinking "that's a pretty good candidate to pick off their single-checked stuff... about half and half.

But looking deeper at the app versions, I find:
32 good, 3 bad when it was running Windows,Prime95,v26.6,build 3
0 good, 1 bad when it was running Windows,Prime95,v27.7,build 2
10 good, 41 bad, 2 suspect when it was running Windows,Prime95,v25.11,build 2

Clearly it was doing far worse during that time it ran v25.11 ... that doesn't mean the version was to blame, but it could indicate a certain time period when it had some other issue.

With that in mind, I'd prioritize the 11 "unknown, single check" exponents that cpu did on that app version, before looking at the other stuff.

Other examples are even clearer, like total cpu stats of 7 good, 10 bad, but broken down by app version as well I see that one app had 5 good, 0 bad, and the other had only 2 good and all 10 of the bad. That second combo is the one to track down, I'd think.

Any thoughts on this or suggestions? And yes, I had thought about using the date of the result quantized by year or something to specifically focus on the temporal aspect, but I'm afraid a query like that would kill the server, or take an unnecessarily long time to get results. But maybe down the road...

Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis
35025241 13 2 1 0 1 0
35030701 5 1 2 0 2 0
35196527 13 2 3 0 1 2
35545417 5 1 2 0 2 0
36480287 10 1 14 0 12 2[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412532]Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.[/QUOTE]

All now mine. Check back in ~24 hours.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412532]Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, all but one (35196527) _matched_.

M46102687 needs a triple check

[QUOTE=dragonbud20;412630]M46102687 needs a triple check[/QUOTE]

I took it.