[QUOTE=LaurV;414794]Next time however, when you find a mistake in my tests, you should find a prime! Otherwise we both are wasting the time... :razz:[/QUOTE]

Always good advice.

[QUOTE=LaurV;414794]So this is not a hardware failure, for the peace of my heart :razz:
You may find more like that, from the same period.[/QUOTE]

I did a spot check of your machines and only found that one that seemed like it had any possible trouble and I picked up all of it's exponents for double-checking. So far (and I might be done?) that was the only one that didn't match my test.

Another fun sub-category
 

I was doodling around again and thought I'd see what happens if I break down by account, CPU, year, and then also by the app version. I tried the app version before, but not by year. I thought it could be interesting to see if it gives me any more leads on strings of bad results.

It might... I'm running a couple tests. Here's an example of a machine that I would have basically skipped over given it's annual good/bad, but looking at the app version as another factor, it gets curious.
[CODE]CpuId-year-app Bad Good Sus Unk Solo Mis
xx-yy_2007-99 0 4 0 0 0 0
xx-yy_2007-136 6 1 1 3 2 2[/CODE]

(the app versions are "Prime95,v23,NT service" and "Prime95,v24 final,NT service" respectively)

In aggregate it had 6 bad and 5 good for 2007... still more bad than good but not quite at the point where I'd be going after it with lower hanging fruit. But something strange seems to have happened after it was upgraded to v24... it's not v24's fault I'm sure but probably another temporal coincidence that works in my favor.

I found a couple examples like that where I'm testing an exponent of theirs to see how it goes. I'm not sure how useful it'll be, but I just wanted to mention it in case it does end up being another useful vector.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414900]I found a couple examples like that where I'm testing an exponent of theirs to see how it goes. I'm not sure how useful it'll be, but I just wanted to mention it in case it does end up being another useful vector.[/QUOTE]

Oh, what the heck, if anyone wants to try some of these out, here's a group where the cpu in question had a 5:1 bad/good ratio:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36099269 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=36099269,71,1
36527723 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=36527723,71,1
36574903 10 2 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=36574903,71,1
36631909 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=36631909,71,1
36717617 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=36717617,71,1
36850763 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=36850763,71,1
36883499 10 2 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=36883499,71,1
37029217 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37029217,71,1
37093729 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=37093729,71,1
37107457 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=37107457,71,1
37281071 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37281071,71,1
37308521 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=37308521,71,1
37902607 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=37902607,71,1
37952581 10 2 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=37952581,71,1
37968001 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37968001,71,1
38022109 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=38022109,71,1
38089477 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=38089477,71,1
43780291 25 5 5 2 5 2 DoubleCheck=43780291,72,1
44352641 25 5 5 2 5 2 DoubleCheck=44352641,72,1
51184253 25 5 5 2 5 2 DoubleCheck=51184253,73,1
51416447 25 5 5 2 5 2 DoubleCheck=51416447,73,1
51907231 25 5 5 2 5 2 DoubleCheck=51907231,73,1[/CODE]

I grabbed the first (lowest) 5.

quint check needed
 

Oh good grief, really? :smile:

Anyone feel like doing the 5th check on this poor thing and put it out of its misery?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39751183"]M39751183[/URL]

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39751183"]M39751183[/URL] is already assigned to Hung Chien-Hua...

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414902]Oh, what the heck, if anyone wants to try some of these out, here's a group where the cpu in question had a 5:1 bad/good ratio:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36850763 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=36850763,71,1
36883499 10 2 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=36883499,71,1
37029217 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37029217,71,1
37093729 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=37093729,71,1
37107457 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=37107457,71,1
37281071 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37281071,71,1
37308521 5 1 6 1 5 2 DoubleCheck=37308521,71,1
37902607 10 2 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=37902607,71,1
37952581 10 2 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=37952581,71,1
37968001 11 2 8 2 6 4 DoubleCheck=37968001,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Taking 10, the remaining ones below 38M.

[QUOTE=S485122;414914][URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39751183"]M39751183[/URL] is already assigned to Hung Chien-Hua...[/QUOTE]

That was fast. I hope they do it right or it'll need a 6th check. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;414900]I found a couple examples like that where I'm testing an exponent of theirs to see how it goes. I'm not sure how useful it'll be, but I just wanted to mention it in case it does end up being another useful vector.[/QUOTE]

Results are in... both of the tests I did came back with mismatches (a good thing, in this case). So that seems like it might be useful... neither one of those came from systems I would have picked out before.

I'll wait and see how some more of these other ones do before getting too optimistic about it. In the meantime I've still been going through a bunch of exponents that already had mismatches and need a triple-check. With a special focus on exponents where neither machine had much of a record, so my triple-check would potentially knock one or the other into the "let's take a closer look" category.

I did find one machine that way where it had zero good and bad to start out, but had a couple of mismatches which seemed suspicious. I did a triple-check and that machine was the loser, so I started doing DC's on its other work and it ended up with something like 8 bad, 10 good. Not too bad (from my perspective that is...horrible for that machine). I may have one or two more from that system to go, but basically that's the kind of thing I'm hoping to uncover.

[QUOTE=ric;414921]Taking 10, the remaining ones below 38M.[/QUOTE]

I took the rest (38M and up) for myself.