Any machines that are set as "do what makes the most sense" gets a small percentage of DC work -- I'd have to look it up. A default install of prime95 will have this work preference. As an aside, I think we should up the percentage of DC work as DC is falling behind the LL wavefront by more than I like.

I'm reluctant to override settings for those that have explicitly selected first-time LL tests.


Edit: Percentage was 10%, now it is 20%.

[QUOTE=Prime95;413846]Edit: Percentage was 10%, now it is 20%.[/QUOTE]
:tu: We salute that!

[QUOTE=Madpoo;413184]Here's more. From machines with at least a 3:1 bad:good ratio, using the "by calendar year" method:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
...
51981047 7 2 11 8 11 8 DoubleCheck=51981047,73,1
...[/CODE][/QUOTE]

My residue matched on this one.

Small set of work
 

Here's a fun and weird group of exponents up for grabs.

These are from machines with zero good, one or more bad, and only one solo-checked exponent left.

Kind of a crapshoot here... not enough data to say one way or another if their lone solo-checked thing will be good or bad except for the fact that they haven't had a good one yet. But as you can see some of them only have one bad one, so who knows. :smile:

There are a couple in there that would have been swept up with my 3:1 bad/good ratio query as well so I expect we'll have a better clue as to how those turn out.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
34902599 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=34902599,71,1
34942693 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=34942693,71,1
35664833 1 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=35664833,71,1
35790331 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35790331,71,1
37702097 4 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=37702097,71,1
38128627 3 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=38128627,71,1
42270829 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42270829,72,1
43728611 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=43728611,72,1
44130049 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44130049,72,1
44253581 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44253581,72,1
46233977 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46233977,72,1
46289773 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46289773,72,1
47139277 2 0 1 6 1 6 DoubleCheck=47139277,72,1
50582549 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=50582549,71,1
52628813 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=52628813,72,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414089]Here's a fun and weird group of exponents up for grabs.[/QUOTE]

I'll take them.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414089]Here's a fun and weird group of exponents up for grabs.
...
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
34902599 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=34902599,71,1
...[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took this first one.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;414091]I took this first one.[/QUOTE]

We cross posted...

I've taken all but the first; the first is yours.

[QUOTE=chalsall;414093]We cross posted...

I've taken all but the first; the first is yours.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I noticed that. I grabbed, then posted. I guess you posted, then tried to grab.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;414094]Yes, I noticed that. I grabbed, then posted. I guess you posted, then tried to grab.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It actually worked out perfectly... I have 14 available high-speed(ish) CPUs, but there were 15 in the list. I tried to put the lowest one on a slower machine, but noticed it wasn't available.

@Madpoo,
I´ve noticed a fair amount of 2M exponents that have been very recently triple checked by you. As the previous runs were matching, and they appear legit, I´m curious about the criteria used to select those ones for TC.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414089]Here's a fun and weird group of exponents up for grabs.
...
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
34902599 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=34902599,71,1
...
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

The residue I got for this one did not match.