I've reserved the first three M37952297, M38155841, M41720983 should have them done over the next couple of days to a week.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412911]If anyone else is interested in trying out a couple smaller ones using this approach, here's a few:
[/QUOTE]

I took:
[CODE]42676009 3 0 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=42676009,72,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412911]If anyone else is interested in trying out a couple smaller ones using this approach, here's a few:[/QUOTE]

I've taken the last three.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;408790]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.[/QUOTE]
I just reserved the last of this TC list. Got more? :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;412915]I would recommend for all sysadmins to run it at least few hours per day in their networks, doing DC work :razz:. This guy's computer ran for years without much a problem, then it started producing junk, and at the end, got replaced. If he would pay attention earlier to the output, he had a very early indicator that his system went in the weeds, and we would have less headache now, too...[/QUOTE]

Seconded.

I can't actually put a dollar value on how much GIMPS has saved me in downtime.

But, as a guess, lots!

When your (possibly mission critical) machine can't do a DC "well", you must give it the evil eye. And schedule a replacement. Like, really soon now....

[QUOTE=frmky;412954]I just reserved the last of this TC list. Got more? :smile:[/QUOTE]

Okay... I had to refresh my memory on what this was. :smile:

So, for everyone else... it's a list of exponents that need a *triple check*, and the two machines that ran it the first time don't really have a track record.

To be specific, this is a list of exponents that were checked twice already with no match, and both machines have *zero* bad results and 6 or less good results.

I was trying to think of a good way to show the list of exponents... I mean, I can do that and it'll have *two* lines for each one, showing the CPU stats for each one, but then you'd have to remember to only take one of those entries and set up a client to do the DC. That's how I was doing it when I picked up a handful of just these very things earlier today...

For now I'll just have a list of exponents and the worktodo entry... if you'd like to see more stats on each one, let me know.

52 of these below 38M. End result will be that, whatever the outcome, at least one of these previously "spotless" CPU's will have a bad result added to their account, which will hopefully feed into our strategic double checking:
[CODE]exponent worktodo
35699393 DoubleCheck=35699393,71,1
35795849 DoubleCheck=35795849,71,1
36056633 DoubleCheck=36056633,71,1
36178937 DoubleCheck=36178937,71,1
36239101 DoubleCheck=36239101,71,1
36264091 DoubleCheck=36264091,71,1
36302951 DoubleCheck=36302951,71,1
36306343 DoubleCheck=36306343,71,1
36380651 DoubleCheck=36380651,71,1
36502049 DoubleCheck=36502049,71,1
36506081 DoubleCheck=36506081,71,1
36524963 DoubleCheck=36524963,71,1
36681691 DoubleCheck=36681691,71,1
36685543 DoubleCheck=36685543,71,1
36777289 DoubleCheck=36777289,71,1
36849583 DoubleCheck=36849583,71,1
36863647 DoubleCheck=36863647,71,1
36868357 DoubleCheck=36868357,71,1
36880643 DoubleCheck=36880643,71,1
36899831 DoubleCheck=36899831,71,1
36950449 DoubleCheck=36950449,71,1
36996521 DoubleCheck=36996521,71,1
37055581 DoubleCheck=37055581,71,1
37069369 DoubleCheck=37069369,71,1
37096859 DoubleCheck=37096859,71,1
37097167 DoubleCheck=37097167,71,1
37214531 DoubleCheck=37214531,71,1
37235789 DoubleCheck=37235789,71,1
37236013 DoubleCheck=37236013,72,1
37347641 DoubleCheck=37347641,71,1
37392473 DoubleCheck=37392473,71,1
37440577 DoubleCheck=37440577,71,1
37452281 DoubleCheck=37452281,71,1
37455169 DoubleCheck=37455169,71,1
37456337 DoubleCheck=37456337,71,1
37471513 DoubleCheck=37471513,71,1
37476293 DoubleCheck=37476293,71,1
37481531 DoubleCheck=37481531,71,1
37487017 DoubleCheck=37487017,71,1
37529941 DoubleCheck=37529941,71,1
37532197 DoubleCheck=37532197,71,1
37608313 DoubleCheck=37608313,71,1
37625381 DoubleCheck=37625381,71,1
37698851 DoubleCheck=37698851,71,1
37761833 DoubleCheck=37761833,71,1
37771337 DoubleCheck=37771337,71,1
37795843 DoubleCheck=37795843,71,1
37809337 DoubleCheck=37809337,71,1
37849457 DoubleCheck=37849457,71,1
37854829 DoubleCheck=37854829,71,1
37899497 DoubleCheck=37899497,71,1
37960003 DoubleCheck=37960003,71,1[/CODE]

35699393 DoubleCheck=35699393,71,1
Mine.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412980]
[CODE]35795849 DoubleCheck=35795849,71,1
36056633 DoubleCheck=36056633,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took these two - the next two. Will be doing these serially after my 42M finishes.

I thought I would take a couple before the lowest ones are all taken.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412980]
[CODE]exponent worktodo
36178937 DoubleCheck=36178937,71,1
36239101 DoubleCheck=36239101,71,1
36264091 DoubleCheck=36264091,71,1
36302951 DoubleCheck=36302951,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I grabbed these four

I'm grabbing these four

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412980]
[CODE]exponent worktodo
36306343 DoubleCheck=36306343,71,1
36380651 DoubleCheck=36380651,71,1
36502049 DoubleCheck=36502049,71,1
36506081 DoubleCheck=36506081,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412911]...
But break their results down by year and we see an interesting pattern:
[CODE]Year Bad Good Sus Unk Solo Mis
2008 0 9 0 2 2 0
2009 0 52 0 8 8 0
2010 1 12 0 26 24 2
2011 11 1 4 5 5 4[/CODE]

Seems like 2011 was a bad year for this system... 11 of the 12 known bad were from this year, and it only has 5 solo-checked exponents, so maybe it wouldn't be too bad to check those out.

In fact that's what I plan to do. I picked up all 5 of those (47M-49M range) so I'll know in a day....[/QUOTE]

Well, that was fun. All 5 of those exponents I checked came up with different residues. :smile: If I hadn't broken this systems results down by year, I never would have bothered with doing any of them, much less been able to pick out those 5 in particular.

I can't say they'll all be like this, but it does give me a fun new way of picking out work that was probably done wrong the first time. I'll try and work up some new lists of exponents to do.