[QUOTE=airsquirrels;426841]I took 35675153.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... PrimeNet shows it as being assigned to MadPoo.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;426865]Hmmm... PrimeNet shows it as being assigned to MadPoo.[/QUOTE]

Yep looks like it got assigned before I grabbed it. Accidentally quad check ensuing...

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;426870]Yep looks like it got assigned before I grabbed it. Accidentally quad check ensuing...[/QUOTE]

Funny... I did a check for anything needing quad checks and saw that one so I grabbed it. I didn't know it had been posted here. Whoops.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;426317]I might look into that. My problem is that I'll go back and see that CudaLucas has quit and I need to restart it. I just took to making a bat file to run it about 30 times in a row to help counteract it.[/QUOTE]

Well my 770 just failed with a 37M exponent so I definitely need to look at it before trying my 55M assignments.

[QUOTE=LaurV;426690]Match with you: [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=51770489&full=1"]51770489[/URL]
(second one still running)[/QUOTE]
Second match with fivemack too: [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=51940249&full=1"]51940249[/URL].

#AnOopsieMoment
 

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;426841]Can someone Quad-Check 36338021[/QUOTE]

Well, it's a light-hearted Sunday here, so let's put this [I]à la[/I] Groucho Marx:

[QUOTE]Done. Matched. But not yours.[/QUOTE]

On a side note, I've enqueued a couple more quad-checks of yours, still in the 36M3 range but, unless you've some urgency, those won't be crunched before a week or two :)

cheers, r.

[QUOTE=ric;427021]Well, it's a light-hearted Sunday here, so let's put this [I]à la[/I] Groucho Marx:



On a side note, I've enqueued a couple more quad-checks of yours, still in the 36M3 range but, unless you've some urgency, those won't be crunched before a week or two :)

cheers, r.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, no rush on the others - That result came from a card of mine that has been very stable so that is interesting. Logging shows the card was never over 39* C during the test and never throttled clocks for any reason. I will definitely keep an eye on it.

Update: Noticed a second quad check on the same card also came back bad. I'm going to try lowering the clock on that card and see if it starts behaving.

Here's a new list. Some of these are in the "churn" zone... may go fast.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38305409 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38305409,71,1
38601403 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38601403,71,1
38941213 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38941213,71,1
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
40356571 8 3 6 2 6 2 DoubleCheck=40356571,72,1
40392127 8 4 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=40392127,72,1
40568431 18 5 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=40568431,72,1
40605407 4 0 5 1 4 2 DoubleCheck=40605407,72,1
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1[/CODE]

Thanks!
 

A big thank you to Madpoo for triple-checking 35895053 and 36011531! I would have been surprised if the bad results were mine, but you never know. So good to not have a long wait before resolution. They were cat 3's back in August, so the triple-checks would have had to wait at least for the head of the cat 2 queue to move up to them (it's nearly there now) and it probably would have slipped past them anyway, leaving them at the back of the cat 1 queue.
:tu: :coffee:

[QUOTE=markr;427147]A big thank you to Madpoo for triple-checking 35895053 and 36011531! I would have been surprised if the bad results were mine, but you never know. So good to not have a long wait before resolution. They were cat 3's back in August, so the triple-checks would have had to wait at least for the head of the cat 2 queue to move up to them (it's nearly there now) and it probably would have slipped past them anyway, leaving them at the back of the cat 1 queue.
:tu: :coffee:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, all part of my (and AirSquirrels too) plan to slog away at some of these triple-checks that are needed.

My ultimate goal with those is to build up the knowledge of bad/good machines, but it's also kind of fun to clear those out anyway.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;427144]Here's a new list. Some of these are in the "churn" zone... may go fast.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38305409 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38305409,71,1
38601403 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38601403,71,1
38941213 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38941213,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

going to take these for work over the next week or so

[QUOTE=Madpoo;427144]Here's a new list. Some of these are in the "churn" zone... may go fast.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
40356571 8 3 6 2 6 2 DoubleCheck=40356571,72,1
40392127 8 4 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=40392127,72,1
40568431 18 5 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=40568431,72,1
40605407 4 0 5 1 4 2 DoubleCheck=40605407,72,1
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Queued up the other 8 of them.

Here's another handful if anyone's interested. I'll try to just pop a few of these in here now and then.

Overall, I think we've done a really good job of getting the low hanging fruit, and we're getting down to stuff where the CPU has less than a 2;1 bad/good ratio. Still WAY higher than they should be, but just not as certain we'll mismatch on our run.

For those I'll probably start pulling out just the smallest available exponent from those systems so we can test just one more at a time and see which direction we're heading before we pull more from the same thing. I've also setup another query to narrow results down by year and month to try and spot systems that were mostly good for a year or a quarter, but had a bad month... apparently that's a thing, there are machines like that. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39125137 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39125137,71,1
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
39285991 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39285991,71,1
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1
52276529 25 3 1 5 1 5 DoubleCheck=52276529,73,1
63462271 23 11 2 5 2 5 DoubleCheck=63462271,74,1[/CODE]

I took these:

[CODE]
39125137 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39125137,71,1
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
39285991 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39285991,71,1
[/CODE]

That 52M one with 25 bad to 3 good looks very tasty....

I took these two:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1
52276529 25 3 1 5 1 5 DoubleCheck=52276529,73,1[/CODE]

My first batch of strategic DCs in the 50M range is over.

Could I request triple-checks for 50803771, 53998279, 50967491 ?

[QUOTE=fivemack;427512]
Could I request triple-checks for 50803771, 53998279, 50967491 ?[/QUOTE]

They are running.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;427401]

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39125137 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39125137,71,1
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
39285991 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39285991,71,1
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1
52276529 25 3 1 5 1 5 DoubleCheck=52276529,73,1
63462271 23 11 2 5 2 5 DoubleCheck=63462271,74,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

This list and the one from 22 Feb seem to have a couple of duplicates.
I guess we are quad checking those.

[QUOTE=bgbeuning;427648]This list and the one from 22 Feb seem to have a couple of duplicates.
I guess we are quad checking those.[/QUOTE]

That could be the case. If the exponents on the lists are duplicates, then nobody reserved them the first time around so they still pop up when I do a new query.

[QUOTE=bgbeuning;427648]This list and the one from 22 Feb seem to have a couple of duplicates.
I guess we are quad checking those.[/QUOTE]

Are you working on any of those?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;427668]Are you working on any of those?[/QUOTE]

I gave these to cudaLucas to crunch on. I don't know how to manually
reserve exponents and it did not automatically reserve them.
2 verified, 4 got mismatches, and 2 are still running.

[QUOTE]
exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39239509 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39239509,71,1
39263383 13 6 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=39263383,71,1
39273809 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39273809,71,1
40356571 8 3 6 2 6 2 DoubleCheck=40356571,72,1
40392127 8 4 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=40392127,72,1
40568431 18 5 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=40568431,72,1
40605407 4 0 5 1 4 2 DoubleCheck=40605407,72,1
46550347 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46550347,72,1
[/QUOTE]

I have been using cudaLucas for about 10 days and still learning
what it can and can not do compared to prime95.

[QUOTE=bgbeuning;427683]I gave these to cudaLucas to crunch on. I don't know how to manually reserve exponents and it did not automatically reserve them.[/QUOTE]

If the exponents are cat 1 or cat 2, the only way to get them manually assigned is to add them to your Prime95 worktodo, let it communicate with the server, and it should create the assignments.

Right now, the double-check category 3 and 4 are anything from 37431534 up, so you should be able to reserve all of those manually using the website.

For cat 3, you would need to make sure you've enabled your account get preferred assignments by clicking the button here:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL]

[QUOTE=bgbeuning;427683]I gave these to cudaLucas to crunch on. I don't know how to manually
reserve exponents and it did not automatically reserve them.
2 verified, 4 got mismatches, and 2 are still running.

I have been using cudaLucas for about 10 days and still learning
what it can and can not do compared to prime95.[/QUOTE]

I'm 80% done 46550347, so my result will be an unneeded triple check.

Please reserve the exponents next time, either manually or through Prime95.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;420623]Here's an updated list. I recently bumped one system from 2:1 into the 3:1 category... one available exponent from it. And looks like some other juicy ones are available thanks to expired assignments.

Don't be shy about taking those larger ones either. :smile: I've been working on some from those CPUs and they're turning up bad more often than not.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=endless mike;421107]
Took these 30. Estimated to finish by the beginning of February.[/QUOTE]

Finally finished the last one a few days ago. Stupid Dell Skylake I7, giving me bad results, which made it necessary to move assignments off of it. I don't think any have been assigned yet, so if someone wanted to do some spot checking to make sure my boxes haven't gone off the deep end.

Anyway, [COLOR="Red"]three matched[/COLOR], the rest didn't.
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
69009877 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69009877,74,1
69459743 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69459743,74,1
69503513 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69503513,74,1
69586357 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69586357,74,1
69603371 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69603371,75,1
69777287 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=69777287,75,1
69794827 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69794827,74,1
69794929 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69794929,74,1
69795181 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795181,74,1
69795347 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795347,74,1
69795587 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795587,74,1
69795599 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795599,74,1
69795809 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795809,74,1
[COLOR="Red"]69795937 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795937,74,1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]69795991 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69795991,74,1[/COLOR]
69796031 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796031,74,1
69796049 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796049,74,1
69796213 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796213,74,1
69796313 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796313,74,1
69796343 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796343,74,1
69796913 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69796913,74,1
69797243 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69797243,74,1
69797681 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69797681,74,1
69798017 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69798017,74,1
69798137 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69798137,74,1
69798173 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69798173,74,1
[COLOR="Red"]69798181 5 1 26 0 24 2 DoubleCheck=69798181,74,1[/COLOR]
72096443 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=72096443,74,1
72107267 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=72107267,74,1
72162271 13 2 34 5 33 6 DoubleCheck=72162271,74,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=endless mike;427798]Finally finished the last one a few days ago. Stupid Dell Skylake I7, giving me bad results, which made it necessary to move assignments off of it. I don't think any have been assigned yet, so if someone wanted to do some spot checking to make sure my boxes haven't gone off the deep end.[/QUOTE]

I'll take M69009877 and give it the triple-check it needs, just to make sure we're on the right track with your results.

Thanks for doing these larger ones. It'll be quite some time before the regular double-checking gets up to these so it's nice to know we're pre-checking and plucking whatever weeds we can.

Might be a good new name for the project... "weeding", and we're the "gardeners". :smile:

[QUOTE=fivemack;427512]My first batch of strategic DCs in the 50M range is over.

Could I request triple-checks for 50803771, 53998279, 50967491 ?[/QUOTE]

They all matched.

More 3+ to 1 bad-good stuff.

There's a bunch of larger 73M stuff in there... I found a system that had a few bad months in 2015 (January through early April). They were doing 30+ per month and their track record in those first few is not good.

By late April they were doing better and for the rest of 2015 it seems okay.

But, of course, I haven't done a lot of testing compared to how many are left unchecked. If anyone wanted they might want to pick up one of them and see how it goes, then we'll see if the trend is still there.

I've picked up a few more myself and hope to get those done early next week.

Oh, they're the ones with 26, 30, or 36 "solo" checked exponents remaining.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
43883923 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43883923,72,1
44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
49463371 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
50622967 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=50622967,73,1
50821703 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=50821703,73,1
52534751 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52534751,73,1
54627319 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=54627319,73,1
56294479 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56294479,73,1
56309111 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56309111,73,1
59136463 7 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=59136463,73,1
72386887 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=72386887,75,1
73641899 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73641899,74,1
73642033 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73642033,74,1
73643509 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73643509,74,1
73643701 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73643701,74,1
73645031 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73645031,75,1
73645051 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73645051,74,1
73646059 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646059,74,1
73646107 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646107,75,1
73646141 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646141,75,1
73646491 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646491,75,1
73646501 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646501,75,1
73646801 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646801,74,1
73646857 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646857,75,1
73646861 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73646861,75,1
73684073 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73684073,75,1
73684703 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73684703,75,1
73685083 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73685083,75,1
73685099 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73685099,75,1
73685609 3 1 30 0 30 0 DoubleCheck=73685609,75,1
73801309 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73801309,74,1
73801619 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73801619,74,1
73802039 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802039,74,1
73802059 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802059,74,1
73802803 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802803,74,1
73802809 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802809,74,1
73802903 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802903,74,1
73802987 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73802987,74,1
73804903 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73804903,74,1
73806097 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73806097,75,1
73806199 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73806199,74,1
73809013 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73809013,74,1
73809097 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73809097,74,1
73811047 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73811047,75,1
73812071 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73812071,75,1
77075387 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=77075387,75,1
77143147 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=77143147,75,1[/CODE]

[code]
43883923 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43883923,72,1
44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
49463371 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
[/code]

mine :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428075][CODE]
50622967 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=50622967,73,1
50821703 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=50821703,73,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took these.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428075]
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
52534751 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52534751,73,1
54627319 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=54627319,73,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
took these two, eta 4-5 days (queued)

[CODE]72386887 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=72386887,75,1
73641899 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73641899,74,1
73642033 4 1 26 0 26 0 DoubleCheck=73642033,74,1
73684073 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73684073,75,1
73684703 3 0 36 0 36 0 DoubleCheck=73684703,75,1
73685609 3 1 30 0 30 0 DoubleCheck=73685609,75,1
[/CODE]

I took these 6.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;427859]I'll take M69009877 and give it the triple-check it needs, just to make sure we're on the right track with your results.[/QUOTE]

endless mike: I matched your result:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M69009877"]M69009877[/URL]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428172]endless mike: I matched your result:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M69009877"]M69009877[/URL][/QUOTE]

Excellent! Thanks for that. One down and 59 to go.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;427693]

Right now, the double-check category 3 and 4 are anything from 37431534 up, so you should be able to reserve all of those manually using the website.

[/QUOTE]

The web site only seems to allow reserving two for double checks.
The 3rd one I try gets an error code 40.
Trying to get assignments for 7 GPU.

[code]DoubleCheck=43883923,72,1[/code]

didn't match

[QUOTE=LaurV;428101]took these two, eta 4-5 days (queued)[/QUOTE]
M( 52534751 )C, 0x4097.....
No match. I didn't report it, because in case [U]my test[/U] is the one which is wrong, I don't want to increase my "counter" of bad results. I also will not TC by myself, because in that case Madpoo will waste his cycle to QC. So, the best way is if somebody TC, and tell me (write here or PM) if he gets the 0x4097.... residue. If so, I will report it then.

[QUOTE=LaurV;428291]M( 52534751 )C, 0x4097.....
No match. I didn't report it, because in case [U]my test[/U] is the one which is wrong, I don't want to increase my "counter" of bad results. I also will not TC by myself, because in that case Madpoo will waste his cycle to QC. So, the best way is if somebody TC, and tell me (write here or PM) if he gets the 0x4097.... residue. If so, I will report it then.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you should be so considered about getting bad results listed. I've had some before and I don't let it bug me.

You have a good track record... 1428 good results, 20 bad. All of your bad results came in from manual check-ins (which makes sense if they came from a GPU) so I couldn't figure out if they're all from one machine or not.

I do see that all but one of them were from 2012, with just one that came in 2013.

I looked at how the bad results break down by which app version was used and 9 of those 20 came from "CUDALucas v1.2b" (but that same app version in 2012 also had 8 good ones).

If you want to know what months were involved, here you go:
[CODE]Year Mon Bad
2012 1 5
2012 2 8
2012 3 3
2012 6 1
2012 7 1
2012 9 1
2013 11 1[/CODE]

In other words, don't worry so much about bad results. :smile:

Now that I have quite a few GPUs doing LL it would REALLY be nice if primenet didn't group them all under one Manual Testing heading. I have to go grepping through my own logs to track down which GPU mismatched and there is no easy way for others looking at my results to differentiate the one bad card from all the good ones

[QUOTE=endless mike;428207]Excellent! Thanks for that. One down and 59 to go.[/QUOTE]

72107267 & 72162271 matched.

Been a while since I've posted a new list, so here goes:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39487807 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39487807,71,1
42754043 3 0 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=42754043,72,1
42898351 2 1 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=42898351,72,1
44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
44904473 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=44904473,72,1
47035511 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47035511,72,1
47729323 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=47729323,72,1
47879687 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47879687,72,1
48132013 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=48132013,72,1
48292061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48292061,72,1
49463371 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
52078513 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52078513,73,1
52534751 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52534751,73,1
54627319 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=54627319,73,1
55415323 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=55415323,74,1
55842821 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842821,73,1
55842847 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842847,73,1
55842889 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842889,73,1
56294479 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56294479,73,1
56309111 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56309111,73,1
59136463 7 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=59136463,73,1
67231393 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67231393,74,1
70203857 2 0 1 2 3 0 DoubleCheck=70203857,74,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428742]Been a while since I've posted a new list, so here goes:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
52534751 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52534751,73,1
54627319 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=54627319,73,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took these two. I'm guessing the ones above these are all taken.

Edit: BTW, I got mismatches on M50622967 and M50821703

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428742]Been a while since I've posted a new list, so here goes:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39487807 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39487807,71,1

44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
44904473 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=44904473,72,1
47035511 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47035511,72,1
47729323 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=47729323,72,1
47879687 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47879687,72,1
48132013 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=48132013,72,1
48292061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48292061,72,1
49463371 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
52078513 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52078513,73,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
Took these ten.
These two were already claimed by ANONYMOUS
[CODE]42754043 3 0 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=42754043,72,1
42898351 2 1 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=42898351,72,1[/CODE]

I got a mismatch on M52534751. Somehow, LaurV has already confirmed my residue.

[QUOTE=ET_;428085][code]
43883923 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43883923,72,1
44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
49463371 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
[/code]

mine :smile:[/QUOTE]

Mismatch on everyone :sad:

Guess I should stop double-checking with my GTX980...

[QUOTE=ET_;429193]Mismatch on everyone :sad:

Guess I should stop double-checking with my GTX980...[/QUOTE]

Mismatches are expected though... that's why these are being tested ahead of schedule.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;429190]I got a mismatch on M52534751. Somehow, LaurV has already confirmed my residue.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I see. This is the same exponent that LaurV didn't want to submit because he had a mismatch. Once a result matching his was submitted, he submitted his own result.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;429199]Oh, I see. This is the same exponent that LaurV didn't want to submit because he had a mismatch. Once a result matching his was submitted, he submitted his own result.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a bad habit of his. Several years ago he had some issues, mostly relating to test versions of CuLu IIRC, that caused several consecutive bad results. Since then he refuses to turn in mismatches unless he verifies them himself (still only reports it once though) or someone else does too, even though the overwhelming majority of his results since then have been consistently good.

:laurv: :smile:

[QUOTE=ET_;429193]Mismatch on everyone :sad:

Guess I should stop double-checking with my GTX980...[/QUOTE]
I have become very reluctant to trust my CUDALucas results on a GTX 580. I have some good results, but a very significant number of bad ones. I think part of my problem is successfully overriding factory OC, i.e.: keeping the core and memory clocks restrained. In any case, it hasn't really proven to be worth taking the card off of TF work, where it shines (and draws lots of power. :sad:)

Does CUDALucas have the Prime95 equivalents of round off and SUM(INPUTS) checking?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;429242]Does CUDALucas have the Prime95 equivalents of round off and SUM(INPUTS) checking?[/QUOTE]
Yes, at least to the first:[INDENT](from cudalucas.ini)
# RoundoffTest is a binary option. If set to 1, roundoff errors are checked at the
# beginning of each test.
# Default 0

RoundoffTest=1
[/INDENT]I always have had this set. I think I have seen it in action once. Still, proven bad results show up.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428742][CODE]
55415323 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=55415323,74,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I've taken this exponent containing only the digits 1-5.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;429190]I got a mismatch on M52534751. Somehow, LaurV has already confirmed my residue.[/QUOTE]
See [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=428291"]here[/URL]. You are late. But welcomed. :razz:
I am also 85% on the way of the other of your assignment, and I will hold if a mismatch, but report if match (in which case your work will be a waste).

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;429195]Mismatches are expected though... that's why these are being tested ahead of schedule.[/QUOTE]

Whew, what a relief :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;429293]See [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=428291"]here[/URL]. You are late. But welcomed. :razz:
I am also 85% on the way of the other of your assignment, and I will hold if a mismatch, but report if match (in which case your work will be a waste).[/QUOTE]

Next time, please get an assignment ID for your work so MadPoo doesn't include the same exponents in his next list that he makes, as what happened here.

Edit: I've suspended work on M54627319 to wait and see if LaurV gets a match, and started working on M55415323 instead. As far as I can tell, nobody else is working on that one.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;429200]Yes, a bad habit of his. Several years ago he had some issues, mostly relating to test versions of CuLu IIRC, that caused several consecutive bad results. Since then he refuses to turn in mismatches unless he verifies them himself (still only reports it once though) or someone else does too, even though the overwhelming majority of his results since then have been consistently good.
[/QUOTE]

I wish *he* thought his results were good... he still checks in self-verified work that I (being OCD about it at this point) will then do an independent triple-check. He hasn't had a bad result in years, but he still insists on verifying all of his own work. :razz:

I think most of his self-verified work these days involves one clLucas and one CudaLucas run... so at least one of them is doing a shift-count, otherwise it wouldn't accept it as a verifying run... I know he'll just tell me that I don't have to do an independent check... sigh... He could double his chances of finding the next prime if he had more trust in his machine. :smile:

If he was suspicious of the reliability at all, I'd recommend doing a double-check of someone else's work about 5% of the time (or pick whatever %), just to know it's still on course.

[QUOTE=kladner;429266]Yes, at least to the first:[INDENT](from cudalucas.ini)
# RoundoffTest is a binary option. If set to 1, roundoff errors are checked at the
# beginning of each test.
# Default 0

RoundoffTest=1
[/INDENT]I always have had this set. I think I have seen it in action once. Still, proven bad results show up.[/QUOTE]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that 95% of all bad results are memory related... whether it's a bad stick in general, or it's being overclocked beyond what's safe and sane.

That's just anecdotal... I have nothing to back it up at all, but now I do have a thought to check the history of bad results and find out if the CPU was overclocked at least... if so it's a good chance the memory might be. At least on GPUs that is. I'm not sure all of the data I need is present.

I did some previous looks at whether error rates were more/less with certain app versions, but I never lumped all GPU and all CPU into opposing "teams" and compared their aggregate error rates. I do wonder if one or the other is more error prone... I'd guess GPU memory is more likely to do strange things, but that sounds like I'm picking on GPUs for no reason, and I could be wrong. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429320][B]I'll go out on a limb and speculate that 95% of all bad results are memory related... whether it's a bad stick in general, or it's being overclocked beyond what's safe and sane.[/B]

That's just anecdotal... I have nothing to back it up at all, but now I do have a thought to check the history of bad results and find out if the CPU was overclocked at least... if so it's a good chance the memory might be. At least on GPUs that is. I'm not sure all of the data I need is present.

I did some previous looks at whether error rates were more/less with certain app versions, but I never lumped all GPU and all CPU into opposing "teams" and compared their aggregate error rates. I do wonder if one or the other is more error prone... I'd guess GPU memory is more likely to do strange things, but that sounds like I'm picking on GPUs for no reason, and I could be wrong. :smile:[/QUOTE]
I concur with the bolded line, if GPU RAM is included in the list of possible culprits. I suspect that my bad results could result from [B]not reducing the VRAM clock enough. [/B]This is one of the parameters which may be reset in MSI Afterburner after a timeout or crash. (Defining "crash" as an event which locks the GPU core to 405 MHz.) Core clock may revert to the BIOS value, too. Voltage doesn't seem to reset.

EDIT: I don't think it is safe to run CUDALucas with a looping batch file. Anytime it stops for any reason one ought to check the core and VRAM clocks. This is in the context of my moderately informed opinion that consumer GPUs generally have the memory clock too high to work reliably in CuLu. That is, nVidia specifies too high for the quality of memory used on most cards. Factory OCd cards may need the core clock reduced, too.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429319]I wish *he* thought his results were good... he still checks in self-verified work... <snip>.[/QUOTE]
You won't believe, but running tests in parallel, actually [U]saves[/U] time. I still get a "bad" residue here and there, with the probabilities well known here around (due to the fact that I overclock a bit, etc), it is not that I have some "infallible" machines, the machines are normal, getting normal failure rates. Just that the bad residue is rechecked immediately when the mismatch happens, in both cards, saving a lot of time (only the time spent since the last checkpoint is lost).

Anyhow, I will be away from March 20 to April 20, therefore I am struggling now to finish all my assignments (except for R66, R967, and M666666667 which will be continued after). I only have now 3 FtLL in 67M, 68M, and 75M range respectively, to be concluded in the next ~50 hours.

The clLucas [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=68721167&full=1"]currently running[/URL] will be the last, for a while. I will retire this card (and the system) from GIMPS, momentarily having better things to do with it, but also pissed off by the fact that clLucas's performance is "cheating", the time per iteration is not calculated properly, for example it shows 2.5ms/iterations when the real wall-clock-time is 11ms per iteration. Not few percents off, but 5 times off :rant:

Msft has to fix that. The problem is easier to see when different values are given to -c switch, the iteration time changes when it should not. This also reflect in James' tables (we salute the effort of introducing AMD cards in [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php"]that table[/URL]!) where for example a 7970 looks better than a 580, when in fact it is not. At least, not until clFFT libraries will be as fast as cuda counterparts. For example, my 580s are doing 6.2ms/iter for the same range of the expos, which means that either I am doing something extremely wrong, or the 7970 is half as fast as the 580.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;429314]
Edit: I've suspended work on M54627319 to wait and see if LaurV gets a match, and started working on M55415323 instead. As far as I can tell, nobody else is working on that one.[/QUOTE]
Match. Please cancel. Sorry for the trouble caused. (I don't feel guilty, you should read the thread :razz: hehe well, joking apart, I really forgot to reserve the two on PrimeNet, that is why all the fuss).

[QUOTE=LaurV;429426]Match. Please cancel. Sorry for the trouble caused. (I don't feel guilty, you should read the thread :razz: hehe well, joking apart, I really forgot to reserve the two on PrimeNet, that is why all the fuss).[/QUOTE]

I've removed it from my queue. The exponent status report shows it still being assigned to me, but it doesn't show on my assignments page. I guess I'll just leave things as they are and Primenet should eventually list it as expired.

Just to be clear, it is not my intention to take work that someone else claims via a post in this thread, even if they don't make a Primenet reservation. When MadPoo posts a new list, I guess I tend to assume it's free of exponents already claimed by someone. Anyway, I ended up doing 29% of a test for nothing - not that big of a deal to me.

I took these.
[CODE]55842821 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842821,73,1
55842847 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842847,73,1
55842889 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=55842889,73,1
56294479 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56294479,73,1
56309111 3 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=56309111,73,1
59136463 7 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=59136463,73,1
67231393 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67231393,74,1
70203857 2 0 1 2 3 0 DoubleCheck=70203857,74,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;428742][CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
55415323 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=55415323,74,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I got a mismatch on M55415323.

I calculate there are a total of 51,220 primes up to nine digits long that contain all of the digits 1-5, and none of the other digits.

Small list
 

Not a lot here, but here's a small batch.

FYI, AirSquirrels is helping me check out a certain user that [I]may[/I] have a LOT of bad results, but they're all up in the 70-80M range. The ones I've spot checked so far are showing this system with 5 or 6 to 1 bad/good for certain months, and it had been turning in 25-30 results per month. We could be looking at a couple hundred possibly bad results from this box (and it's still active) but I can't tell yet if it was just for certain periods of time, or maybe it's ongoing...

Anyway, here's that small batch:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39519401 7 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=39519401,71,1
39531431 4 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39531431,72,1
39716357 6 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=39716357,71,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429794]Anyway, here's that small batch:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39519401 7 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=39519401,71,1
39531431 4 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39531431,72,1
39716357 6 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=39716357,71,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Mine.

[QUOTE=endless mike;428813]Took these ten.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39487807 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39487807,71,1

44588437 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=44588437,72,1
44904473 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=44904473,72,1
47035511 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47035511,72,1
[COLOR="Red"]47729323 2 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=47729323,72,1[/COLOR]
47879687 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=47879687,72,1
48132013 2 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=48132013,72,1
48292061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48292061,72,1
49463371 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=49463371,72,1
52078513 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=52078513,73,1[/CODE]

[/QUOTE]

Finished. [COLOR="Red"]One mismatch[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=endless mike;429841]Finished. [COLOR="Red"]One mismatch[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Oh drat, I would have hoped for more mismatches out of those 10. Bummer.

Well, here's a large batch. This includes every machine with:
- Zero good results
- One or more bad results
- Only one exponent left to double-check

Could be bad, could be good... who knows... I pulled these by looking at a calendar year of results, not just one month since a lot of systems only spit out a couple per month anyway.

There's a few juicy ones buried in there, plus you can read between the lines on some. If they have some results marked "suspect" and that's also how many they have in the "mismatch" column, it's a good bet those were bad too.

Oh, and get on those juicy ones fast... they're in the churn zone for category 4 assignments.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35884609 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35884609,71,1
36487301 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36487301,71,1
36607201 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36607201,71,1
38311837 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38311837,71,1
38358601 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38358601,71,1
38390609 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38390609,71,1
38543671 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38543671,71,1
38949367 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38949367,71,1
38998537 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38998537,71,1
39088471 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39088471,71,1
39184127 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39184127,71,1
39205577 2 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=39205577,71,1
39217681 1 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=39217681,71,1
39269129 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39269129,71,1
39469769 1 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=39469769,71,1
39545789 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39545789,71,1
39552749 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39552749,71,1
39712003 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39712003,71,1
40494269 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40494269,72,1
40575707 2 0 3 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=40575707,72,1
41495353 4 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=41495353,72,1
45677771 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=45677771,72,1
46051601 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46051601,72,1
46562809 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46562809,72,1
46629571 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46629571,72,1
47160913 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47160913,72,1
47312383 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47312383,72,1
47477237 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47477237,72,1
47673583 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47673583,72,1
51247711 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=51247711,73,1
59695729 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=59695729,73,1
63119129 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=63119129,74,1
67362901 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67362901,75,1
67665181 1 0 0 3 1 2 DoubleCheck=67665181,75,1
77900497 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=77900497,74,1[/CODE]

I'll queue this one:
39205577 2 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=39205577,71,1

[QUOTE=endless mike;429841]Finished. [COLOR="Red"]One mismatch[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429921]Oh drat, I would have hoped for more mismatches out of those 10. Bummer.[/QUOTE]

Two of them got triple checks from me.

44588437 and 49463371

had results submitted 2016-03-15 that didn't match the first time tests. On both of those, I matched the double check and not the first time check.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429921]Well, here's a large batch.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35884609 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35884609,71,1
36487301 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36487301,71,1
36607201 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36607201,71,1
38311837 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38311837,71,1
38358601 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38358601,71,1
38390609 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38390609,71,1
38543671 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38543671,71,1
38949367 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38949367,71,1
38998537 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38998537,71,1
39088471 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39088471,71,1
39184127 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39184127,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Mine.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429921]
[CODE]
39217681 1 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=39217681,71,1
39269129 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39269129,71,1
39469769 1 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=39469769,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took these 3.

77143147 (from March 4 list) got a mismatch.

[QUOTE=endless mike;429941]Two of them got triple checks from me.

44588437 and 49463371

had results submitted 2016-03-15 that didn't match the first time tests. On both of those, I matched the double check and not the first time check.[/QUOTE]

Oh... does that mean Luigi ran them but forgot to get the assignments? That's too bad. Well, at least they got the triple-checks they would eventually need, but still...

Reminder to people here in general... if you're going to work on these, make sure you get it assigned first so we don't have these situations. :smile:

Either do it manually on the website if it's cat 4 work (or cat 3 if you've checked the magic box). Or put it on a Prime95 box and start work, then communicate with the server... it should create the assignment even if it's cat 1 or 2.

A few more... 2 bad, zero good.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
45487219 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=45487219,72,1
48799057 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=48799057,72,1
49520011 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=49520011,72,1
49528057 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=49528057,72,1
53998811 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=53998811,73,1
53999773 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=53999773,73,1
54008893 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=54008893,73,1
54009271 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=54009271,73,1
54010013 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=54010013,73,1
54063469 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=54063469,73,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;430202]A few more... 2 bad, zero good.[/QUOTE]
I grabbed the rest of these.

Here's an interesting list... I've been micro-segmenting the results for each computer, putting them into year+app version or even a per-month grouping. But some systems simply don't have the power to generate more than a couple exponents per month (or in some cases maybe only spit out a couple per year).

To analyze those, I really needed to ignore anything besides just the CPU to see if there was some bad machine that was playing the long and slow game. Turns out, there probably are. Or in some cases, the bad results were spanning a year or month boundary, so looking past that opened up new possibilities.

I tried to spot check some of these to make sure it would give just those machines that were slow to turn in results and not just faster machines without a long history yet. I limited it to systems with sufficiently bad/good ratios (over 2:1) and had 9 or fewer "solo checked" exponents left.

I think we'll have some good stuff in here... I've checked a few like these on my own and had good results (as in, I got mismatches). :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36178067 9 3 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=36178067,71,1
38138561 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38138561,71,1
38278963 5 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38278963,71,1
38531473 23 9 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=38531473,71,1
38577533 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38577533,71,1
38620357 3 1 3 2 3 2 DoubleCheck=38620357,71,1
38636827 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38636827,71,1
38816809 3 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=38816809,71,1
39093833 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39093833,71,1
39138989 3 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39138989,71,1
39158261 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39158261,71,1
39258337 3 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=39258337,71,1
39285943 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39285943,71,1
39428419 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39428419,71,1
43263379 7 3 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=43263379,72,1
45364643 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=45364643,72,1
46172479 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=46172479,72,1
46175693 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=46175693,72,1
46742713 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46742713,72,1
46964263 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46964263,72,1
47035271 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47035271,72,1
47143319 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=47143319,72,1
47160433 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47160433,72,1
47191007 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47191007,72,1
47567999 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=47567999,72,1
47755963 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=47755963,72,1
48073099 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=48073099,72,1
48075583 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=48075583,73,1
48353167 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=48353167,72,1
48555343 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=48555343,72,1
48842197 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=48842197,72,1
48854059 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=48854059,72,1
49144339 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=49144339,72,1
49446899 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=49446899,72,1
49777733 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=49777733,72,1
49868771 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=49868771,72,1
49994851 3 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=49994851,72,1
50198279 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=50198279,73,1
50309141 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=50309141,73,1
50353883 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=50353883,73,1
50442449 14 5 2 9 3 8 DoubleCheck=50442449,73,1
50588729 3 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=50588729,73,1
50759039 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=50759039,73,1
51592631 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=51592631,73,1
51992483 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=51992483,73,1
52577947 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=52577947,73,1
53386631 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=53386631,73,1
53590577 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=53590577,73,1
53770421 14 5 2 9 3 8 DoubleCheck=53770421,73,1
55319633 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=55319633,73,1
58322179 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=58322179,73,1
58926823 7 1 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=58926823,73,1
59168777 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=59168777,73,1
60039523 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=60039523,74,1
60387667 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=60387667,74,1
61756243 7 1 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=61756243,74,1
61847957 10 4 6 3 6 3 DoubleCheck=61847957,74,1
62796527 7 1 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=62796527,74,1
63236297 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=63236297,74,1
63773497 7 1 7 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=63773497,74,1
64071221 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=64071221,74,1
67665181 14 5 2 9 3 8 DoubleCheck=67665181,75,1
68578777 7 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=68578777,74,1
68804809 5 2 5 0 3 2 DoubleCheck=68804809,75,1
68845211 5 2 5 0 3 2 DoubleCheck=68845211,75,1
69676049 22 5 8 0 2 6 DoubleCheck=69676049,74,1
69676169 22 5 8 0 2 6 DoubleCheck=69676169,74,1
70869973 7 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=70869973,74,1
71444189 12 3 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=71444189,75,1
71642387 7 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=71642387,75,1
73675429 5 2 5 0 3 2 DoubleCheck=73675429,75,1
74072737 5 1 0 12 7 5 DoubleCheck=74072737,75,1
74132521 3 0 0 3 3 0 DoubleCheck=74132521,75,1
74160899 5 1 0 12 7 5 DoubleCheck=74160899,75,1
76011787 5 1 0 12 7 5 DoubleCheck=76011787,75,1
76417333 7 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=76417333,75,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;430639]
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36178067 9 3 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=36178067,71,1
38138561 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38138561,71,1
38278963 5 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38278963,71,1
38531473 23 9 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=38531473,71,1
38577533 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38577533,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I've reserved these.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;430639]Here's an interesting list...

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38620357 3 1 3 2 3 2 DoubleCheck=38620357,71,1
38636827 16 7 8 0 5 3 DoubleCheck=38636827,71,1
38816809 3 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=38816809,71,1
39093833 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39093833,71,1
39138989 3 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39138989,71,1
39158261 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39158261,71,1
39258337 3 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=39258337,71,1
39285943 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39285943,71,1
39428419 15 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39428419,71,1

45364643 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=45364643,72,1
46172479 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=46172479,72,1
46175693 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=46175693,72,1
46742713 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46742713,72,1
46964263 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46964263,72,1
47035271 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47035271,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Taking the above 15

[QUOTE=Madpoo;430639]
[CODE]43263379 7 3 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=43263379,72,1
[/CODE]
[/QUOTE]

This one's already assigned to ANONYMOUS

I grabbed the next 10, namely
[CODE]47143319 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=47143319,72,1
47160433 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47160433,72,1
47191007 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=47191007,72,1
47567999 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=47567999,72,1
47755963 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=47755963,72,1
48073099 6 2 10 0 8 2 DoubleCheck=48073099,72,1
48075583 5 1 9 1 9 1 DoubleCheck=48075583,73,1
48353167 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=48353167,72,1
48555343 12 3 12 3 9 6 DoubleCheck=48555343,72,1
48842197 27 12 13 5 8 10 DoubleCheck=48842197,72,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;429921][CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39217681 1 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=39217681,71,1
39269129 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39269129,71,1
39469769 1 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=39469769,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Finished these three. Only 39217681 had a mismatch.

I haven't had an update in a while... I've been trying to nail down trends in this one bad systems other date ranges, but except for the few ranges I've identified, the rest is still too hit-and-miss to tell for sure. Oh well... we'll get it sorted as more data comes in.

Meanwhile, here's more... sorry, we're just running out of the easy pickings in the lower exponent ranges. We were too awesome in finding them. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39721681 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39721681,71,1
39726443 3 0 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=39726443,71,1
70373707 3 0 0 2 2 0 DoubleCheck=70373707,75,1
70410673 3 0 0 2 2 0 DoubleCheck=70410673,75,1
73546027 3 1 13 0 13 0 DoubleCheck=73546027,75,1
73643701 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73643701,74,1
73645031 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73645031,75,1
73645051 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73645051,74,1
73646059 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646059,74,1
73646107 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646107,75,1
73646141 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646141,75,1
73646491 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646491,75,1
73646501 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646501,75,1
73646801 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646801,74,1
73646857 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646857,75,1
73646861 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646861,75,1
73685083 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73685083,75,1
73685099 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73685099,75,1
73801619 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73801619,74,1
73802039 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802039,74,1
73802059 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802059,74,1
73802803 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802803,74,1
73802809 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802809,74,1
73802903 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802903,74,1
73802987 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73802987,74,1
73804903 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73804903,74,1
73806097 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73806097,75,1
73806199 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73806199,74,1
73809013 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73809013,74,1
73809097 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73809097,74,1
73811047 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73811047,75,1
73812071 6 0 33 0 33 0 DoubleCheck=73812071,75,1
78012091 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78012091,74,1
78031027 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78031027,75,1
78119023 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78119023,75,1
78119059 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78119059,75,1
78121013 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78121013,75,1
78121049 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78121049,75,1
78143071 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78143071,75,1
78171013 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78171013,75,1
78171031 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78171031,75,1
78205999 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78205999,74,1
78206027 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78206027,74,1
78206041 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78206041,75,1
78206047 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78206047,75,1
78206059 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78206059,75,1
78226081 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78226081,74,1
78331013 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78331013,75,1
78331051 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78331051,75,1
78331063 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78331063,75,1
78331111 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78331111,75,1
78333091 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78333091,75,1
78338011 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78338011,74,1
78347809 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78347809,74,1
78409057 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409057,75,1
78409061 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409061,75,1
78409361 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409361,75,1
78483023 5 1 28 0 28 0 DoubleCheck=78483023,75,1[/CODE]

I propose we simply toss all 70+M exponents, meeting some criteria that we agree on, back in the first-time assignment pool. We could run a nightly or weekly stored procedure to do this.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431280]I haven't had an update in a while... I've been trying to nail down trends in this one bad systems other date ranges, but except for the few ranges I've identified, the rest is still too hit-and-miss to tell for sure. Oh well... we'll get it sorted as more data comes in.

Meanwhile, here's more... sorry, we're just running out of the easy pickings in the lower exponent ranges. We were too awesome in finding them. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39721681 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39721681,71,1
39726443 3 0 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=39726443,71,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Mine.

[QUOTE=Prime95;431282]I propose we simply toss all 70+M exponents, meeting some criteria that we agree on, back in the first-time assignment pool. We could run a nightly or weekly stored procedure to do this.[/QUOTE]

Another option would be to create a DC category of "probably bad". Like for getting smallest exponents. I imagine it would be popular since it would increase the chances of finding a prime by doing smaller exponents. With the mandatory DC now in place I think we'll uncover a lot more bad results soon.

48000619 - Verified?
 

Sorry if I'm in the wrong thread but is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=48000619&full=1"]48000619[/URL] really verified as it says?
I did 2 tests on my own, Titan 1 and Titan 2. 1x with assignment, 1x without.
Feel free to do a triple check...

[QUOTE=Brain;431285]Sorry if I'm in the wrong thread but is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=48000619&full=1"]48000619[/URL] really verified as it says?
I did 2 tests on my own, Titan 1 and Titan 2. 1x with assignment, 1x without.
Feel free to do a triple check...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that one popped up in my query on self-verified results, so I've already scheduled it for an independent triple-check.

[QUOTE=Prime95;431282]I propose we simply toss all 70+M exponents, meeting some criteria that we agree on, back in the first-time assignment pool. We could run a nightly or weekly stored procedure to do this.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, although I'd be more comfortable, personally, setting the assignment type back to 'first time check' manually, since the queries and thresholds I use to look for potentially bad stuff is an ever evolving and somewhat fluid concept. :smile:

For those 70+M exponents, AirSquirrels expressed an interest in doing some strategic DC in the 4M FFT size which would be in that general range, and I've been tackling a few of them myself here and there.

Right now my goal is to finish doing at least one double-check of all his exponents for each month of each year, just to get an idea of badness/goodness. And then ideally, if I find a bad one, do a second one to determine if there's a trend or not, or if the bad result was a fluke.

There's another user with a similar track record, although not as many turned in each month, but also in that 65-75M range, but it's a little weirder because there's no discernible pattern to his results. Might be good for a few months, bad for a few months, good again, etc. Over the course of several years. Weird.

In a case like that I'd feel bad marking his past results as reassigned as first-time checks, because maybe half of his are good and half are bad.

When I started the strategic double-checking, it was easy to find systems with 20 or even 30 bad for every good result (if they had any at all), and now it's down to systems with 2:1 or maybe just even odds on bad/good, with a few exceptions like the above.

What would help more in the long run is probably to try and do at least one double-check of every CPU that's turned in a result, and then maybe one double-check for each year of that CPU's history.

To give you an idea of what's involved, there are 21,413 machines without any good or bad results at all. 976 of those have at least one mismatched or suspect result, but nothing proven (or guessed) either way.

Breaking it down by cpu *and* year, it's 46,250 total, and 2,046 with at least one mismatch/suspect result.

If we did something to make it a priority of some kind to verify at least one result from each of those, given a historical 5% average of bad results, we'd discover quite a few previously unknown bad apples out there with who knows how many collective results to go through.

That's why AirSquirrels and I are having some fun going through all the exponents needing triple-checks and trying to clear a bunch. We've currently assigned (between the two of us) just about all of those under 40M, then there's another 2500 or so higher than that. Roughly 5% of those will result in a quad check needed, and quite a few results are going to push one of the older runs or the other into the "bad" category.

So that might be another fun work option... "request triple checks". :smile:

With some combined effort we could make a dent in ensuring every machine has had at least one result checked. The GPU72 project is about 150+/- days from reaching the caught up point, at which point some more of at least my energy can turn towards LL.

Right now at current levels it would probably take Madpoo and I 2-3 years to independently give every machine at least one check, accounting for those exponents being larger than current DC work. In the process we probably discover a good number of new bad actors to triple check. With the Strategic Double group all aiding in that effort we could catch up much faster. It seems like worthwhile effort to increase the confidence that there aren't primes missing in the DC haystack.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;431326]...
Right now at current levels it would probably take Madpoo and I 2-3 years to independently give every machine at least one check, accounting for those exponents being larger than current DC work. In the process we probably discover a good number of new bad actors to triple check. With the Strategic Double group all aiding in that effort we could catch up much faster. It seems like worthwhile effort to increase the confidence that there aren't primes missing in the DC haystack.[/QUOTE]

Maybe Curtis would be interested in devoting a wee smidgen of time for that, although in fairness he'd be limited to doing DC work on machines besides his own... still a lot to choose from though. :)

Right now, Curtis' systems have a ratio of 3430 first time to 193 DCs, and he's just using "whatever makes sense" if I recall correctly, leaving the assignment choice up to Primenet. If he (or anyone else) was on board with doing a couple months of "strategic DC" work, I think we'd make some awesome progress.

I'm just thinking of other heavy LL workers out there that might be interested in a short term boost of DC effort. Maybe George and/or others wouldn't be keen to miss out on a couple months of first-time LL work from Dr. Cooper, or maybe it would be hard to implement... I'm just thinking some pie-in-the-sky wishlist stuff. :smile:

Well, with the default setting of getting one DC per year, I imagine most of his machines will grab a DC assignment soon, no? So it would only be his retired machines we'd have to adjust.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431335]Well, with the default setting of getting one DC per year, I imagine most of his machines will grab a DC assignment soon, no? So it would only be his retired machines we'd have to adjust.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I expect we'll get more DC assignments in general, but it'd be nice to have a selected pool of exponents being handed out that specifically advance our knowledge of good/bad machines... a guy can dream, right? :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431345]Yeah, I expect we'll get more DC assignments in general, but it'd be nice to have a selected pool of exponents being handed out that specifically advance our knowledge of good/bad machines... a guy can dream, right? :smile:[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. If I weren't dedicating most of my CPU to SoB, I'd be doing "strategic double checks" if the option existed.

I think any result from a machine with no double check, a result with no match, etc., could be lumped into one category of being strategic. When a result is returned, update a new "strategic" column in the exponents table appropriately. Then filter by that column when getting assignments based on a toggle setting like for smallest DC. And you could join-update the strategic column based on your manual analysis, making getting strategic DC automagic.

Requesting double checks on:
[code]
Doublecheck=N/A,37767209,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,37713733,74,1
[/code]

[QUOTE=UBR47K;431366]Requesting double checks on:
[code]
Doublecheck=N/A,37767209,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,37713733,74,1
[/code][/QUOTE]


edit: never mind, madpoo got them.

[QUOTE=kladner;429936]I'll queue this one:
.....DoubleCheck=39205577,71,1[/QUOTE]
This one finally finished with a mismatch.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431350]I completely agree. If I weren't dedicating most of my CPU to SoB, I'd be doing "strategic double checks" if the option existed.

I think any result from a machine with no double check, a result with no match, etc., could be lumped into one category of being strategic. When a result is returned, update a new "strategic" column in the exponents table appropriately. Then filter by that column when getting assignments based on a toggle setting like for smallest DC. And you could join-update the strategic column based on your manual analysis, making getting strategic DC automagic.[/QUOTE]

True enough. Right now my calculations of good/bad machines is being done ad-hoc using some temp tables. If this ever became "a thing" then these types of stats could/should be generated nightly or something and then queried as part of the process to figure out which exponents to assign...

There are some interesting options to explore along these lines, it just comes down to what's workable (and finding time to set some of this up if we go that direction).

good old fashioned strategic double-checking
 

Here's an updated list. 3:1 or worse bad-to-good.

You'll note a lot of these are the larger exponents (mostly from that bad system I've been chipping away at to corroborate the trend). I guess it should be suspicious when someone turns in as many as 40 LL results in that 70-80M range in a single month... they were probably overclocking too the extreme and thus ran way over the redline. Some months were definitely better than others.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39721681 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39721681,71,1
39726443 3 0 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=39726443,71,1
70373707 3 0 0 2 2 0 DoubleCheck=70373707,75,1
70410673 3 0 0 2 2 0 DoubleCheck=70410673,75,1
72301507 4 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=72301507,75,1
73546027 4 1 12 0 12 0 DoubleCheck=73546027,75,1
73612841 3 0 9 0 9 0 DoubleCheck=73612841,74,1
73613261 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73613261,74,1
73613279 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73613279,74,1
73613453 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73613453,74,1
73613669 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73613669,74,1
73614041 3 0 9 0 9 0 DoubleCheck=73614041,74,1
73614077 3 0 9 0 9 0 DoubleCheck=73614077,74,1
73614589 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73614589,74,1
73615211 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73615211,74,1
73615261 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73615261,74,1
73618801 3 0 22 0 22 0 DoubleCheck=73618801,74,1
73619087 3 0 9 0 9 0 DoubleCheck=73619087,74,1
73643701 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73643701,74,1
73645031 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73645031,75,1
73645051 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73645051,74,1
73646059 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646059,74,1
73646107 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646107,75,1
73646141 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646141,75,1
73646491 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646491,75,1
73646501 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646501,75,1
73646801 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646801,74,1
73646857 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646857,75,1
73646861 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73646861,75,1
73685083 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73685083,75,1
73685099 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=73685099,75,1
73801619 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73801619,74,1
73802039 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802039,74,1
73802059 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802059,74,1
73802803 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802803,74,1
73802809 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802809,74,1
73802903 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802903,74,1
73802987 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73802987,74,1
73804903 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73804903,74,1
73806097 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73806097,75,1
73806199 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73806199,74,1
73809013 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73809013,74,1
73809097 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73809097,74,1
73811047 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73811047,75,1
73812071 7 0 32 0 32 0 DoubleCheck=73812071,75,1
78012091 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78012091,74,1
78031027 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78031027,75,1
78119023 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78119023,75,1
78119059 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78119059,75,1
78121013 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78121013,75,1
78121049 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78121049,75,1
78143071 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78143071,75,1
78171013 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78171013,75,1
78171031 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78171031,75,1
78205999 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78205999,74,1
78206027 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78206027,74,1
78206041 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78206041,75,1
78206047 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78206047,75,1
78206059 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78206059,75,1
78226081 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78226081,74,1
78331013 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78331013,75,1
78331051 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78331051,75,1
78331063 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78331063,75,1
78331111 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78331111,75,1
78333091 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78333091,75,1
78338011 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78338011,74,1
78347809 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78347809,74,1
78409057 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409057,75,1
78409061 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409061,75,1
78409361 6 1 24 0 24 0 DoubleCheck=78409361,75,1
78483023 6 1 27 0 27 0 DoubleCheck=78483023,75,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431775]Here's an updated list. 3:1 or worse bad-to-good.

You'll note a lot of these are the larger exponents (mostly from that bad system I've been chipping away at to corroborate the trend). I guess it should be suspicious when someone turns in as many as 40 LL results in that 70-80M range in a single month... they were probably overclocking too the extreme and thus ran way over the redline. Some months were definitely better than others.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39721681 3 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39721681,71,1
39726443 3 0 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=39726443,71,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I grabbed these two.

Has anything interesting come from the mandatory DC work change, by the way?