[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;425599]I'll bung it at the top of my queue.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, 0PolarBearsHere!

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425427]Although not directly related to strategic double checking, the user known as Amy Pond seems to have a box doing Cat 1 DC that is... unreliable. Madpoo, could you please investigate? Is there anything we can do about it?[/QUOTE]

I told that box to stop requesting new work January 22nd. CPU/RAM/SSD might have failed. Will investigate when time allows.

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;425702]I told that box to stop requesting new work January 22nd. CPU/RAM/SSD might have failed. Will investigate when time allows.[/QUOTE]

:tu: As long as you're aware :smile:

35331143
Bad 2008-01-15 Phil Frakes 319898F49EBFEE15
Verified 2016-01-29 owftheevil E95094F99F50518A
Verified 2016-02-09 ktony E95094F99F50518A

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;425702]I told that box to stop requesting new work January 22nd. CPU/RAM/SSD might have failed. Will investigate when time allows.[/QUOTE]

If I put on my fortune teller hat, I predict your result for this one will also turn out to be bad:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M44644141"]M44644141[/URL] (already assigned to someone).

Ditto on:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39161921"]M39161921[/URL] (unassigned)

I think the unknown results from 2014 would be okay. The rest of the stuff that has been DC'd around then came out okay.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;425759]Ditto on:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39161921"]M39161921[/URL] (unassigned)
[/QUOTE]

We'll see. Queued.

[code]DoubleCheck=45865801,72,1[/code]

Unverified.

M37334837 was a match with dragonbud

[QUOTE]M37334837 was a match with dragonbud [/QUOTE]

Thanks. I may have to keep that 580 doing TF. It does not seem to be totally reliable on LL.

[QUOTE=kladner;425858]Thanks. I may have to keep that 580 doing TF. It does not seem to be totally reliable on LL.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I gave up on LLing with my 770 for the same reason.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;425934]Yeah I gave up on LLing with my 770 for the same reason.[/QUOTE]

If either of you are interested, AirSquirrels is helping me with a little project to work on doing triple-checks of exponents.

A month ago or so I picked up the exponents in the 35M range that needed triple checking and I'm close to getting those done. Meanwhile I just set him up with a bunch of triple-checks in the 36M range.

The nice thing about those is that with the GPU testing, it's a pretty good check of your system because you *should* match one or the other of the first two tests.

Not always... I do get some where none match and it'll go out as a quad check. But it does increase your chance you should match something, if you're worried about your own system's stability.

Worst case, you don't match either one and someone has to quad check it and turns out you were wrong as well, but if you get your own unique residue more often than one-in-twenty you probably need to stick to TF. :smile:

Oh, plus this can help knock machines into the "bad" category if neither run had enough info to "guess" the correct one.

So, let me know if any of you are interested. Here's a breakdown of the counts of exponents needing triple-checks in various ranges:
[CODE]Range Count
37M 478
38M 508
39M 27
40M 9
41M 5
42M 14
43M 1
45M 15
46M 326
47M 287
48M 274
49M 238
50M 217
51M 145
52M 145
53M 133
54M 94
55M 72
56M 83
57M 98
58M 56
59M 93
60M 85
61M 75
62M 97
63M 63
64M 55
65M 45
66M 49
67M 48
68M 17
69M 56
70M 12
71M 15
72M 35
73M 14
74M 9
75M 2
76M 5
77M 1
78M 1
79M 2[/CODE]