[QUOTE=sdbardwick;415385]Finished the above.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36574903&full=1"]M36574903[/URL] needs a TC; others matched.[/QUOTE]

I'll grab that one

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412980]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:
[/QUOTE]

22 of the 24 that I grabbed have now completed, all have a matching result with one of the other checks. The last two should be done in about two days.

If anyone would like to do a quad check on a self verified result (whoops) 52040731 was a strategic double check that I inadvertently self verified. It was done on two different machines of mine, so I'm pretty sure my checks are good. But Madpoo will end up checking it again if someone else doesn't grab it first.

[QUOTE=endless mike;415699] (whoops) 52040731 [/QUOTE]
Yeah, whoops! I wanted to grab it but it is TC by Madpoo already. This guy has no sleep.. :razz:
:tu:

(this post is just to avoid that someone is queuing it without checking first - the work is done already)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;415360]In case anyone wants more of these fun assignments...[/QUOTE]
I took the remaining 4 of these.

[QUOTE=LaurV;415755]Yeah, whoops! I wanted to grab it but it is TC by Madpoo already. This guy has no sleep.. :razz:
:tu:

(this post is just to avoid that someone is queuing it without checking first - the work is done already)[/QUOTE]

I'm on top of things. :) Besides checking for newly self-verified work, I also look for any odd cases where someone is *assigned* a test for something they've already done before.

It just so happened that I was caught up with the triple-checks of work already done, so I proactively added a handful to be ready. :smile:

Fun new data
 

I went through the old log data and managed to populate the LL result dates for somewhere around 1.27 million older "primenet version 4" results. There are still about 192K results that I can't easily match up to their log entry (too ambiguous) so those dates will remain empty. Oh well.

There are some interesting things now that we have more results with an actual *year* to mess around with.

First, I know someone is going to notice that I'll be checking in triple-checks for a bunch of small exponents (between 1M and 10M). The reason for that is I ran into an interesting thing... there were something like 5200 old exponents where all of the verifying runs had a shift-count of zero. Now, they were done by different application versions, but I figured I might as well get a verifying run on the books that uses a different shift count as well.

I tasked one machine (with "only" 8 physical cores) to do all of those and I estimate it'll be done in 9-10 days.

The second thing to mention is a new batch of suspected bad machines. Before, all those old results got lumped in together into what I generically termed "2007". A machine that may have done great in 2004-2006 but flaked out in 2007 could have been looking pretty decent all lumped together, but now broken down by year, they stand out.

Here's an example of one such system that sticks out now... started strong in 2005, dropping off in 2006, and then by 2007/2008 it's just tanking.
[CODE]user-cpu_year-app Bad Good Sus Unk Solo Mis Year
user-cpu_2005-133 0 17 0 1 1 0 2005
user-cpu_2006-133 5 10 1 9 9 1 2006
user-cpu_2007-133 7 1 4 11 10 5 2007
user-cpu_2008-133 1 1 6 8 8 6 2008[/CODE]

Here's a new list of 3:1 bad/good, including a few with even higher bad/good ratios. There are some larger exponents in the list if anyone feels like tackling the big boys (over 60M):
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35355259 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=35355259,71,1
35366041 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35366041,71,1
35373869 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35373869,71,1
35412499 5 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35412499,71,1
35427037 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35427037,71,1
35516737 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35516737,71,1
35545277 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35545277,71,1
36008263 6 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36008263,71,1
36317443 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=36317443,71,1
36682589 5 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=36682589,71,1
36746981 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=36746981,71,1
36760007 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=36760007,71,1
36822131 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=36822131,71,1
36834233 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=36834233,71,1
37062733 5 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=37062733,71,1
37063181 5 0 3 2 3 2 DoubleCheck=37063181,71,1
37179887 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=37179887,71,1
37433257 4 1 8 2 5 5 DoubleCheck=37433257,71,1
37436131 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=37436131,71,1
37465249 4 1 8 2 5 5 DoubleCheck=37465249,71,1
37674107 3 1 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=37674107,71,1
37812119 5 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=37812119,71,1
37933913 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=37933913,71,1
37934947 3 0 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=37934947,71,1
38363993 5 1 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=38363993,71,1
38389081 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=38389081,71,1
38681807 7 0 2 3 1 4 DoubleCheck=38681807,71,1
42503831 3 0 4 3 4 3 DoubleCheck=42503831,72,1
42740833 3 0 4 3 4 3 DoubleCheck=42740833,72,1
43109593 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=43109593,72,1
43386403 3 0 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=43386403,72,1
43533937 3 0 4 3 4 3 DoubleCheck=43533937,72,1
45538709 3 0 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=45538709,72,1
47456863 3 0 1 6 1 6 DoubleCheck=47456863,72,1
47811013 3 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=47811013,72,1
60039731 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=60039731,73,1
60039827 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=60039827,73,1
60439991 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=60439991,73,1
60453149 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=60453149,73,1
61485799 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=61485799,74,1
61552459 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=61552459,74,1
62302013 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=62302013,74,1
62494429 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=62494429,74,1
64957247 3 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=64957247,74,1
65438599 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=65438599,74,1
65862781 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=65862781,74,1
67457263 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=67457263,74,1
67457279 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=67457279,74,1
67983401 3 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=67983401,74,1
67983437 3 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=67983437,74,1
68099827 3 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=68099827,74,1
69454223 3 0 2 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=69454223,74,1
69643967 3 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=69643967,74,1
69675233 3 0 2 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=69675233,74,1[/CODE]

I will take the first two:
[CODE]35355259 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=35355259,71,1
35366041 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35366041,71,1
[/CODE]

Enough of the names changes! Please revert it now.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;415780]Enough of the names changes! Please revert it now.[/QUOTE]

Fervently agreed!

[CODE]
35373869 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35373869,71,1
35412499 5 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35412499,71,1
35427037 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35427037,71,1
35516737 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=35516737,71,1
35545277 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=35545277,71,1
36008263 6 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36008263,71,1
36317443 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=36317443,71,1
36682589 5 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=36682589,71,1
36746981 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=36746981,71,1
36760007 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=36760007,71,1
36822131 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=36822131,71,1
36834233 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=36834233,71,1
[/CODE]

I'll take these

[QUOTE=kladner;415781]Fervently agreed![/QUOTE]

Disagreed! I am amused.