Actually, all those unclaimed exponents are currently assigned.

MadPoo, we need another list.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;438610]Actually, all those unclaimed exponents are currently assigned.

MadPoo, we need another list.[/QUOTE]

Maybe this "strategic double checking" thing would be a nice idea for another official work type, to get these tests automatically assigned. Bad machines would be discovered earlier and maybe replaced/repaired earlier by the owner. Specially if you would lose the credits for bad LL tests.

BTW I would also like to have some kind of "double check exchange". I have many exponents in my own LL history which I would like to see double checked as soon as possible. For obvious reasons I don't want to double check them by myself (somebody may think I'm cheating for credits). Thus I would do some double checks for somebody else if he does some for me.

[QUOTE=rudi_m;438614]BTW I would also like to have some kind of "double check exchange". I have many exponents in my own LL history which I would like to see double checked as soon as possible. For obvious reasons I don't want to double check them by myself (somebody may think I'm cheating for credits). Thus I would do some double checks for somebody else if he does some for me.[/QUOTE]

There is the triple check thread for that, at least. Also, MadPoo and AirSquirrels are triple checking every exponent that needs it. I'm not sure up to what range they've finished.

@madpoo
can you check the track record of this user Alex.
Thanks

36678431 LL Bad;2007-09-13;Alex;B2D9D78FCE2EE59E
36678431 LL Verified;2016-07-23;srow7;12AEFBE9B83289A5
36678431 LL Verified;2016-07-24;rudimeier;12AEFBE9B83289A5

My DC of 38957371 didn't match. Anyone like to TC it?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;438605]I queued it first position on one of my machines. Should be done by Tuesday.[/QUOTE]

Mark, thanks for the confirming triple check.

[QUOTE=richs;438809]My DC of 38957371 didn't match. Anyone like to TC it?



Mark, thanks for the confirming triple check.[/QUOTE]

That's the exponent I triple checked...

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;438837]That's the exponent I triple checked...[/QUOTE]

Might be an issue with multi quoting

An idea: Can we get a list of all suspect results and then examine each computer's LL test immediately preceding and immediately following (if the exponent has only one LL test run). Maybe a sample list for us see what kind of failure rate we might expect doing this.

I've had many mismatches for the exponents which I had picked up from this thread. Would be nice if somebody would like to triple check them:
[CODE]
41154457
41373911
41427973
41716019
42010939
46400623
46696829
46728221
46888451
47164739
69676049
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=rudi_m;438974]I've had many mismatches for the exponents which I had picked up from this thread. Would be nice if somebody would like to triple check them:
[CODE]
41154457
41373911
41427973
41716019
42010939
46400623
46696829
46728221
46888451
47164739
69676049
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Queued. I should have them done in three weeks or so.

Here's a new list... sorry, I've been busy the past couple weeks. :smile:

This is a funky list of anything with more (bad + suspect) than good and only has this one un-DC'd exponent left. In these cases, if they had a suspect result at all, whoever ran the other check had a mismatch so there's a good chance it was actually bad, so I'm basically treating those tests as bad for this run.

With only 1 unchecked exponent left, there's no chance to see if they trend better/worse, so the only way to know is to check this final one.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39652001 9 10 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=39652001,71,1
40035407 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40035407,72,1
40058047 15 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40058047,72,1
40140053 26 20 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40140053,72,1
40156199 21 17 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40156199,72,1
40340723 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40340723,72,1
40437613 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40437613,72,1
40580131 1 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=40580131,72,1
40606603 11 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40606603,72,1
40630201 38 22 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40630201,72,1
40692689 3 2 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40692689,72,1
40788833 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40788833,72,1
40878647 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40878647,72,1
40938013 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40938013,72,1
41228987 5 4 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41228987,72,1
41236483 6 2 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=41236483,72,1
41237069 5 3 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41237069,72,1
41243287 7 5 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41243287,72,1
41265361 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41265361,72,1
41267333 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41267333,72,1
41350247 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=41350247,72,1
41425513 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41425513,72,1
41512151 0 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=41512151,72,1
41519141 4 3 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41519141,72,1
41625491 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41625491,72,1
41704081 8 6 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41704081,72,1
41709623 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41709623,72,1
41734669 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41734669,72,1
41852719 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41852719,72,1
41856151 5 3 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41856151,72,1
41882227 5 5 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=41882227,72,1
42196171 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42196171,72,1
42227707 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42227707,72,1
46077929 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46077929,72,1
46210547 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46210547,72,1
46507511 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46507511,72,1
46572143 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46572143,72,1
46668989 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46668989,72,1
46736993 12 12 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46736993,72,1
46870163 2 1 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=46870163,72,1
47267977 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47267977,72,1
47553799 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47553799,72,1
48736217 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=48736217,72,1
50306941 3 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=50306941,73,1
51358999 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=51358999,73,1
51858557 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=51858557,73,1
53801659 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=53801659,73,1
53998771 7 9 1 6 1 6 DoubleCheck=53998771,73,1
55168241 0 1 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=55168241,73,1
56250991 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=56250991,73,1
58210787 1 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=58210787,73,1
58301767 3 3 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=58301767,74,1
58346689 3 2 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=58346689,73,1
60067933 0 1 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=60067933,74,1
62409043 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=62409043,74,1
62707741 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=62707741,74,1
62866681 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=62866681,74,1
64464943 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=64464943,74,1
67943873 14 10 3 6 1 8 DoubleCheck=67943873,74,1
69332441 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=69332441,74,1
69468733 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=69468733,75,1
70304293 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=70304293,75,1
72852509 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=72852509,75,1
74064449 8 5 4 0 1 3 DoubleCheck=74064449,75,1
74698067 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=74698067,75,1
74953217 0 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=74953217,75,1
75165781 0 1 0 2 1 1 DoubleCheck=75165781,75,1
75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
75322987 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75322987,75,1
75406469 1 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=75406469,75,1
75620593 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75620593,75,1
75737747 3 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=75737747,75,1
76937989 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=76937989,75,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=srow7;438670]@madpoo
can you check the track record of this user Alex.
Thanks

36678431 LL Bad;2007-09-13;Alex;B2D9D78FCE2EE59E
36678431 LL Verified;2016-07-23;srow7;12AEFBE9B83289A5
36678431 LL Verified;2016-07-24;rudimeier;12AEFBE9B83289A5[/QUOTE]

He only had 1 bad, 1 good. That was it... only ever ran 2 tests.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;438618]There is the triple check thread for that, at least. Also, MadPoo and AirSquirrels are triple checking every exponent that needs it. I'm not sure up to what range they've finished.[/QUOTE]

The triple-checking is going... slowly but surely I think we're making a dent.

Right now I have most of the 60-70M triple-checks assigned to myself and I may finish those up in 2-3 months (probably more like 3 before the last one finishes). In the meantime I've just been picking up a few other smaller ones here and there to feed my slower machines.

Once that big bunch I assigned to myself all at once (why'd I do so many at once?) finishes, I'll be able to tackle more of the smaller < 60M stuff again.

There are 1890 *available* exponents that fall into that "needs triple checking" category, although that excludes anything where AirSquirrels or I have already run one check.

669 available exponents where Airsquirrels or I did a previous test (from the strategic DC stuff)... we may end up doing the triple-check of each others, but before doing that I was just waiting to see how many get auto assigned to anyone else.

There are 4559 total when I include all of the already-assigned stuff as well as the work where Airsquirrels or I did a test.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;438982]Queued. I should have them done in three weeks or so.[/QUOTE]

Thanks a lot! Hopefully my results are the correct ones :)

[QUOTE=rudi_m;438999]Thanks a lot! Hopefully my results are the correct ones :)[/QUOTE]

You're lucky. If I had visited an hour later I would have queued MadPoo's list instead lol

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439001]You're lucky. If I had visited an hour later I would have queued MadPoo's list instead lol[/QUOTE]

Now I'm feeling guilty. Let me do some triple or double checks for you!

[QUOTE=rudi_m;439007]Now I'm feeling guilty. Let me do some triple or double checks for you![/QUOTE]

It's okay. All my machines have never turned in a bad result. I'd rather we get ahead on the strategic double checks! Take the low ones before someone else does ;)

I took the triple checks because I want to make sure the five new machines they are queued on are truly reliable -- every one should match your result.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;438985]Here's a new list... sorry, I've been busy the past couple weeks. :smile:

This is a funky list of anything with more (bad + suspect) than good and only has this one un-DC'd exponent left. In these cases, if they had a suspect result at all, whoever ran the other check had a mismatch so there's a good chance it was actually bad, so I'm basically treating those tests as bad for this run.

With only 1 unchecked exponent left, there's no chance to see if they trend better/worse, so the only way to know is to check this final one.[/QUOTE]


From the list, I've claimed some from the top and a few from the bottom

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39652001 9 10 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=39652001,71,1
40035407 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40035407,72,1
40058047 15 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40058047,72,1
40140053 26 20 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40140053,72,1
40156199 21 17 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40156199,72,1
40340723 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40340723,72,1
40437613 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40437613,72,1
40580131 1 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=40580131,72,1
40606603 11 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40606603,72,1
40630201 38 22 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40630201,72,1
40692689 3 2 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40692689,72,1
40788833 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40788833,72,1
40878647 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40878647,72,1
40938013 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40938013,72,1
41228987 5 4 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41228987,72,1
41236483 6 2 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=41236483,72,1

75620593 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75620593,75,1
75737747 3 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=75737747,75,1
76937989 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=76937989,75,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=endless mike;439016]From the list, I've claimed some from the top and a few from the bottom
[/QUOTE]

I too the all other ones below 42000000.

I took these:

[CODE]42196171 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42196171,72,1
42227707 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42227707,72,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;438985]Here's a new list... sorry, I've been busy the past couple weeks. :smile:[/quote]

I took:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
46210547 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46210547,72,1
46507511 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46507511,72,1
46572143 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46572143,72,1
46668989 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46668989,72,1
46736993 12 12 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=46736993,72,1
46870163 2 1 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=46870163,72,1
47267977 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47267977,72,1
47553799 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=47553799,72,1
48736217 0 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=48736217,72,1
50306941 3 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=50306941,73,1[/CODE]

I took the ones below 65000000

Here's a new list. Might include some from previous lists that remain unassigned... enjoy. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
41734531 5 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41734531,72,1
41842247 5 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41842247,72,1
69389861 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=69389861,75,1
69417629 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=69417629,75,1
69547547 37 15 0 17 5 12 DoubleCheck=69547547,75,1
69747011 37 15 0 17 5 12 DoubleCheck=69747011,75,1
69748417 37 15 0 17 5 12 DoubleCheck=69748417,75,1
70541467 7 0 3 3 4 2 DoubleCheck=70541467,75,1
70615357 7 0 3 3 4 2 DoubleCheck=70615357,75,1
71995813 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=71995813,75,1
72101761 37 15 0 17 5 12 DoubleCheck=72101761,75,1
72850889 4 0 1 2 2 1 DoubleCheck=72850889,75,1
73115041 7 0 3 3 4 2 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1
74072737 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=74072737,75,1
74160899 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=74160899,75,1
74924579 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=74924579,75,1
75015701 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75015701,75,1
75015803 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75015803,75,1
75089249 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=75089249,75,1
75161209 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75161209,75,1
75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
75477893 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75477893,75,1
75694397 8 3 7 1 5 3 DoubleCheck=75694397,75,1
76134293 8 3 7 1 5 3 DoubleCheck=76134293,75,1
77057693 3 1 1 16 9 8 DoubleCheck=77057693,75,1[/CODE]

I took these ones
41734531
41842247

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439368]Here's a new list. Might include some from previous lists that remain unassigned... enjoy. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Only 75256669 is duplicate, from the last list. It and 11 others remain from the last list.

I've gone through everything from previous lists, and it's all been done or is currently assigned.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439390]I've gone through everything from previous lists, and it's all been done or is currently assigned.[/QUOTE]

Under "currently assigned" exponents from old lists, there are some exponents that are legitimately being worked on, albeit super slowly.

However, there's also a bunch of exponents assigned to anonymous churners, who rarely complete (or even start) them. These exponents expire on a predictable schedule, and whenever one does there's a window of availability of less than 24 hours to [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/manual_assignment"]manually assign[/URL] the exponent to yourself before it automatically falls into the hands of another anonymous churner.

Some of those exponents go through a half dozen or more churn cycles before someone finally completes them, or until the Category 3 wavefront overtakes them and they're no longer in the general pool.

I've been grabbing some of those exponents during their "window of availability", but the list I was working from was incomplete and it's now almost used up. Maybe it would be good to compile a systematic list of currently-assigned exponents left over from old lists. Some of them might take longer to expire now with the new assignment rules though.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439390]
I've gone through everything from previous lists, and it's all been done or is currently assigned.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? These ones from the previous list seem to be unassigned and not double checked yet:

DoubleCheck=67943873,74,1
DoubleCheck=69332441,74,1
DoubleCheck=69468733,75,1
DoubleCheck=70304293,75,1
DoubleCheck=72852509,75,1
DoubleCheck=74064449,75,1
DoubleCheck=74698067,75,1
DoubleCheck=74953217,75,1
DoubleCheck=75165781,75,1
DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
DoubleCheck=75322987,75,1
DoubleCheck=75406469,75,1

[QUOTE=GP2;439466]Some of those exponents go through a half dozen or more churn cycles before someone finally completes them, or until the Category 3 wavefront overtakes them and they're no longer in the general pool.[/QUOTE]

It sounds dumb and anthropomorphic, but I feel bad for the exponents that go through a lot (dozen or more) assignment/expire/assignment cycles. I call them the "abandoned orphans". :smile: When I find one that's been particularly ill-treated I try to squeeze it into my work. LOL

Particularly double-checks, or especially the ones needing triple-checking (which I definitely try to prioritize).

Been a while since I ran a query on those in particular.

Right now there are only 5 first-time checks that have been abandoned 7 times... that's not too bad. They're in the 69M range so they should be assigned to more reliable machines soon enough.

On the double-checking side of things, there are 2 of them with 12 abandonments:
38929039
39802163

Poor things. LOL

Triple-checks, there are these 3 with 10 abandoments:
40020067
40025833
40082743

[QUOTE=rudi_m;439472]Are you sure? These ones from the previous list seem to be unassigned and not double checked yet:

DoubleCheck=67943873,74,1
DoubleCheck=69332441,74,1
DoubleCheck=69468733,75,1
DoubleCheck=70304293,75,1
DoubleCheck=72852509,75,1
DoubleCheck=74064449,75,1
DoubleCheck=74698067,75,1
DoubleCheck=74953217,75,1
DoubleCheck=75165781,75,1
DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
DoubleCheck=75322987,75,1
DoubleCheck=75406469,75,1[/QUOTE]

As the rest of my post said,

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439390]Only 75256669 is duplicate, from the last list. It and 11 others remain from the last list.[/QUOTE]

Those are 75256669 plus the 11 others.

But to add to my previous post, I've gone through and looked at every exponent mentioned in this thread. Until this point I'd only caught up on lists since January 1st.

I found over 700 exponents that are not verified. Everything under 50M has a double check or is assigned for double/triple check.

Here is a list of triple checks that haven't checked in recently for exponents mentioned in this thread:

DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41471879]41471879[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41501191]41501191[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42279269]42279269[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42648253]42648253[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42853367]42853367[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42984763]42984763[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43502383]43502383[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43696487]43696487[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43697009]43697009[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43731869]43731869[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43746137]43746137[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43780291]43780291[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43985531]43985531[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M43993823]43993823[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44155807]44155807[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44171297]44171297[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44180251]44180251[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44259209]44259209[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44273263]44273263[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44334713]44334713[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44336701]44336701[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44337253]44337253[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44352641]44352641[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44378077]44378077[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44394173]44394173[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44498599]44498599[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44710943]44710943[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44713567]44713567[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44720633]44720633[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44724431]44724431[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44726953]44726953[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44757269]44757269[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44763937]44763937[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44778887]44778887[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44792863]44792863[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44795549]44795549[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44798423]44798423[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44798993]44798993[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44768851]44768851[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M44771917]44771917[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45109879]45109879[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45252049]45252049[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45633011]45633011[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45639193]45639193[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45678559]45678559[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M46300987]46300987[/url],72,1

Here is a list of unassigned exponents below 50M mentioned in this thread needing a triple check:

DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M40340723]40340723[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M40437613]40437613[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M40692689]40692689[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41236483]41236483[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41265361]41265361[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41709623]41709623[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M41842973]41842973[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42351877]42351877[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42391309]42391309[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42393961]42393961[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M42407327]42407327[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M45532637]45532637[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M46523201]46523201[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48014177]48014177[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48019087]48019087[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48021059]48021059[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48027143]48027143[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48042073]48042073[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48044081]48044081[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48050389]48050389[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48062081]48062081[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48074977]48074977[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48099251]48099251[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48104813]48104813[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48122021]48122021[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48122471]48122471[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48140119]48140119[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48178093]48178093[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48214139]48214139[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48222241]48222241[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48223573]48223573[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48322763]48322763[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48348847]48348847[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48367097]48367097[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48372391]48372391[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48410573]48410573[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48427231]48427231[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48434123]48434123[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48517037]48517037[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48531139]48531139[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48538409]48538409[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48572059]48572059[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48573319]48573319[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48648199]48648199[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48657031]48657031[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48665891]48665891[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48685183]48685183[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48760711]48760711[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48761711]48761711[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48762059]48762059[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48805763]48805763[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M48151063]48151063[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49149887]49149887[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49280723]49280723[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49285787]49285787[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49319059]49319059[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49334413]49334413[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49342991]49342991[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49383371]49383371[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49385489]49385489[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49421369]49421369[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49458037]49458037[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49505707]49505707[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49520011]49520011[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49520501]49520501[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49536463]49536463[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49536491]49536491[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49585297]49585297[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49632463]49632463[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49722119]49722119[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49761451]49761451[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49789249]49789249[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49812869]49812869[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49899973]49899973[/url],72,1
DoubleCheck=[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M49948391]49948391[/url],72,1

I have been keeping a list and updating it with all the exponents from this thread. Once in a while I run a script to check the status of the exponents:

Right now there are 737 exponents from the list that are available that still does not have a successful double check:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html"]available.html[/URL]

and there are 304 exponents currently assigned:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html"]assigned.html[/URL]

and there are 1943 exponents we have successfully double checked. That is very nice to see:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html"]verified.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=ATH;439593]I have been keeping a list and updating it with all the exponents from this thread. Once in a while I run a script to check the status of the exponents:

Right now there are 737 exponents from the list that are available that still does not have a successful double check:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html"]available.html[/URL]

and there are 304 exponents currently assigned:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html"]assigned.html[/URL]

and there are 1943 exponents we have successfully double checked. That is very nice to see:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html"]verified.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

I was wondering why I kept seeing your name pop up with active assignments throughout the exponents. I guess I just duplicated all your work, except I've divided it between double and triple checks (I've done it for all the exponents, but I haven't posted the lists above 50M).

[QUOTE=ATH;439593]I have been keeping a list and updating it with all the exponents from this thread. Once in a while I run a script to check the status of the exponents:

Right now there are 737 exponents from the list that are available that still does not have a successful double check:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html"]available.html[/URL]

and there are 304 exponents currently assigned:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html"]assigned.html[/URL]

and there are 1943 exponents we have successfully double checked. That is very nice to see:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html"]verified.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

In the 1st of your lists you see a lot of exponents that does not have been checked once since they were mentioned in this thread. So I think these ones are still on the original "strategic double check" todo. For example these ones:
50010461
50013547
50035823
50071361
50134391
50183843
50214071
50231387
50251009
50368427
50436173
50440301
50454631
50478761
50484293
50495573
50501257
50522753
50532067
50616283

The lists I generate tend to vary here and there as more data gets collected from the machines in question. A machine which seemed "iffy" at first may prove to be a little better than expected and don't get included again next time I check.

The really easy pickings were handled early on so over time I've lowered the threshold for what I consider to be "likely bad", and I also run queries over different time periods (how well did that CPU do month-by-month, or annually, or for "all time"?)

Occasionally I'll throw in some where there's just one or two exponents left to check for a machine that merely had more-bad-than-good so we may as well check the few they had left because we're not getting any more useful predictive data anyway.

Well, with all that said, here's a new list... it's a mix of all the different criteria I mentioned above. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39110789 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39110789,71,1
39600287 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39600287,71,1
39840851 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39840851,71,1
39923197 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39923197,71,1
39998071 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39998071,71,1
39999763 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39999763,71,1
40059067 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=40059067,72,1
40090997 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=40090997,72,1
40094797 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40094797,72,1
40094909 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40094909,72,1
40154327 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=40154327,72,1
40282651 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=40282651,72,1
40357469 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=40357469,72,1
40455187 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40455187,72,1
40682749 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40682749,72,1
40693207 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=40693207,72,1
40924393 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40924393,72,1
40967081 2 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40967081,72,1
41000893 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41000893,72,1
41011319 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41011319,72,1
41091527 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41091527,72,1
41115257 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41115257,72,1
41401181 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41401181,72,1
41449861 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=41449861,72,1
41486197 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41486197,72,1
41585671 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41585671,72,1
41591327 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=41591327,72,1
41730151 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41730151,72,1
42220699 4 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=42220699,72,1
42265469 2 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42265469,72,1
42295639 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42295639,72,1
42341239 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42341239,72,1
42430721 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42430721,72,1
42693701 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42693701,72,1
43060453 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=43060453,72,1
43347061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43347061,72,1
45531323 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=45531323,72,1
45902009 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=45902009,72,1
46683467 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46683467,72,1
46686749 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=46686749,72,1
46785359 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46785359,72,1
47017771 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=47017771,72,1
47869397 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47869397,72,1
49435933 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=49435933,72,1
50152231 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=50152231,73,1
51728737 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=51728737,73,1
52046131 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=52046131,73,1
52591499 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=52591499,73,1
56874541 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=56874541,73,1
65789629 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789629,74,1
65789653 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789653,74,1
67173527 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67173527,74,1
67728877 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67728877,74,1
67852633 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852633,74,1
67852639 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852639,74,1
70541467 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=70541467,75,1
70615357 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=70615357,75,1
71992741 2 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=71992741,75,1
72850889 4 0 1 2 2 1 DoubleCheck=72850889,75,1
73115041 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1
73138057 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1
74683481 2 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=74683481,75,1
75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
75818773 2 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=75818773,75,1
76193773 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=76193773,75,1
77888123 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=77888123,75,1
78401023 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78401023,75,1
78931819 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78931819,75,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439636]
Well, with all that said, here's a new list... it's a mix of all the different criteria I mentioned above. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I took the ones below 42M.

Took the 42-43M ones, namely:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439636]

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
42220699 4 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=42220699,72,1
42265469 2 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42265469,72,1
42295639 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42295639,72,1
42341239 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42341239,72,1
42430721 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42430721,72,1
42693701 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42693701,72,1
43060453 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=43060453,72,1
43347061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43347061,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

One of Curtis Cooper's results is bad, though it is 7 years old so that machine probably don't exist anymore: [URL="http://mersenne.org/M41425513"]http://mersenne.org/M41425513[/URL]

It just made me wonder if any of his current machines have mostly bad results? and if yes do you report it to him?

[QUOTE=ATH;439745]One of Curtis Cooper's results is bad, though it is 7 years old so that machine probably don't exist anymore: [URL="http://mersenne.org/M41425513"]http://mersenne.org/M41425513[/URL]

It just made me wonder if any of his current machines have mostly bad results? and if yes do you report it to him?[/QUOTE]

I wonder if mersenne server would send an email in this case?

Nowadays we have this setting on the "CPU page":
"Send an email if computer returns a suspicious LL result"
Would be nice that we also get this email if someone else proves later that our first check was bad.

[QUOTE=ATH;439745]One of Curtis Cooper's results is bad, though it is 7 years old so that machine probably don't exist anymore: [URL="http://mersenne.org/M41425513"]http://mersenne.org/M41425513[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

Dozens if not hundreds of Curtis Cooper's results are bad, or suspected bad. I think he's just using whatever machines are available on campus and inevitably some of them turn out to be bad, given the sheer volume of his production.

Here are some verified bad, there are many more mismatches pending triple checks:

[URL="http://mersenne.org/M36850763"]36850763[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M38577367"]38577367[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M39006397"]39006397[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M39553141"]39553141[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M39637811"]39637811[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M39933337"]39933337[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40325119"]40325119[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40405793"]40405793[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40538203"]40538203[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40575707"]40575707[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40673887"]40673887[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M40775263"]40775263[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M41144893"]41144893[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M41299637"]41299637[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M42240043"]42240043[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M43681081"]43681081[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M45921637"]45921637[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M46328993"]46328993[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M47492827"]47492827[/URL]
[URL="http://mersenne.org/M49510871"]49510871[/URL]

I just confirmed [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=77900497]M77900497[/url]. The initial result was turned in way back in 2003.

It took me less than six days. I can only imagine how many months it took the initial user.

All done.

[COLOR="Red"]Red is mismatch[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Blue is a mismatch, already triple checked and verified[/COLOR]


[QUOTE=endless mike;439016]From the list, I've claimed some from the top and a few from the bottom

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39652001 9 10 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=39652001,71,1
40035407 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40035407,72,1
40058047 15 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40058047,72,1
40140053 26 20 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40140053,72,1
40156199 21 17 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40156199,72,1
[COLOR="Red"]40340723 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40340723,72,1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]40437613 2 2 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40437613,72,1[/COLOR]
40580131 1 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=40580131,72,1
40606603 11 8 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40606603,72,1
40630201 38 22 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40630201,72,1
[COLOR="Red"]40692689 3 2 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40692689,72,1[/COLOR]
40788833 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40788833,72,1
40878647 1 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40878647,72,1
40938013 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40938013,72,1
[COLOR="Blue"]41228987 5 4 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41228987,72,1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]41236483 6 2 1 4 1 4 DoubleCheck=41236483,72,1[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Red"]75620593 2 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75620593,75,1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]75737747 3 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=75737747,75,1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]76937989 0 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=76937989,75,1[/COLOR][/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439772]I just confirmed [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=77900497]M77900497[/url]. The initial result was turned in way back in 2003.[/QUOTE]

From the datamines:

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=77900461&exp_hi=&full=1"]M77900461[/URL]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=77909869&exp_hi=&full=1"]M77909869[/URL]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=77909939&exp_hi=&full=1"]M77909939[/URL]

Thirteen year old unfinished business:

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=1447[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=1203[/url]

Stay tuned...

[QUOTE=ATH;439745]One of Curtis Cooper's results is bad, though it is 7 years old so that machine probably don't exist anymore: [URL="http://mersenne.org/M41425513"]http://mersenne.org/M41425513[/URL]

It just made me wonder if any of his current machines have mostly bad results? and if yes do you report it to him?[/QUOTE]

On the whole, his machines are generally decent... across all of them they're about average, because, let's face it, the number of machines he's had over the years basically defines the average. :smile:

There were only one or two older machines (no longer producing) that were more bad than good, if I'm remembering it right (I looked at his stats a while ago).

Let's see... doing a fresh look...

He's had nearly 10,200 cpu ids since Primenet version 5 went live in 2008'ish. Not to say there were that many unique machines (although it wouldn't surprise me), since reinstalling Windows or other changes make Primenet generate a new id.

Out of those 10,200, only 146 have at least 1 bad result, and only 107 of them have Bad >= Good.

Of course, 5418 of them have zero bad, zero good. Just haven't had any confirmations yet. 15 of those have a suspect result which mismatched on a double-check, so... probably bad? Might have to do some speculative checks on systems like that and see which way they go.

Anyone interested in settling an interesting quad check?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1[/URL]

Both AirSquirrels and I did a check on this already, and I have my fingers crossed that my result is correct, but... we'll see?

We've been trying to do triple-checks of each others results when needed, but in this case we need someone else to weigh in. LOL

The worktodo line would be:
DoubleCheck=73500677,75,1

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439828]Anyone interested in settling an interesting quad check?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1[/URL]

Both AirSquirrels and I did a check on this already, and I have my fingers crossed that my result is correct, but... we'll see?

We've been trying to do triple-checks of each others results when needed, but in this case we need someone else to weigh in. LOL

The worktodo line would be:
DoubleCheck=73500677,75,1[/QUOTE]

Sure. I'll have it done next week.

By the way, are you going to be queuing all the low triple checks again sometime soon? If so, I'll keep grabbing double checks. If not, I'll start grabbing triple checks from this thread to get a positive answer sooner.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439830]Sure. I'll have it done next week.

By the way, are you going to be queuing all the low triple checks again sometime soon? If so, I'll keep grabbing double checks. If not, I'll start grabbing triple checks from this thread to get a positive answer sooner.[/QUOTE]

I think Madpoo has a couple months more on his current hopper, I just pulled in another batch of TCs however I'm trying to hit the AMD GPU FFT sweet spots so it's mostly in the 50s, only 20 left in the 3x and the 4x are for the churners right now.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439831]I think Madpoo has a couple months more on his current hopper, I just pulled in another batch of TCs however I'm trying to hit the AMD GPU FFT sweet spots so it's mostly in the 50s, only 20 left in the 3x and the 4x are for the churners right now.[/QUOTE]

Can you tell me which range specifically is best for you? I'm using CPUs, so I'll stick to what's outside of it. In the <50M range, I'm chewing through about 100/month now.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439834]Can you tell me which range specifically is best for you? I'm using CPUs, so I'll stick to what's outside of it. In the <50M range, I'm chewing through about 100/month now.[/QUOTE]

Based on loads of data, these are the FFT sizes and corresponding ranges that do well on AMD clFFT:

2048K 37.13 - 39.53
2560K 46.17 - 49.25
3072K 55.18 - 58.85
3200K 58.85 - 61.22
3456K 64.23 - 65.95
4000K/4096K 73.18 - 77.99

The 39-46M range is not great for my GPUs, 61-64M and 66M-73M are the other big dead spots.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439873]Based on loads of data, these are the FFT sizes and corresponding ranges that do well on AMD clFFT:

2048K 37.13 - 39.53
2560K 46.17 - 49.25
3072K 55.18 - 58.85
3200K 58.85 - 61.22
3456K 64.23 - 65.95
4000K/4096K 73.18 - 77.99

The 39-46M range is not great for my GPUs, 61-64M and 66M-73M are the other big dead spots.[/QUOTE]

The below 46M for this thread is basically currently assigned or already done. There are 40 unassigned triple checks needed below 49.25M if you would like to queue them:

[code]
DoubleCheck=48014177,72,1
DoubleCheck=48019087,72,1
DoubleCheck=48021059,72,1
DoubleCheck=48027143,72,1
DoubleCheck=48042073,72,1
DoubleCheck=48044081,72,1
DoubleCheck=48050389,72,1
DoubleCheck=48062081,72,1
DoubleCheck=48074977,72,1
DoubleCheck=48099251,72,1
DoubleCheck=48104813,72,1
DoubleCheck=48122021,72,1
DoubleCheck=48122471,72,1
DoubleCheck=48140119,72,1
DoubleCheck=48178093,72,1
DoubleCheck=48214139,72,1
DoubleCheck=48222241,72,1
DoubleCheck=48223573,72,1
DoubleCheck=48322763,72,1
DoubleCheck=48348847,72,1
DoubleCheck=48367097,72,1
DoubleCheck=48372391,72,1
DoubleCheck=48410573,72,1
DoubleCheck=48427231,72,1
DoubleCheck=48434123,72,1
DoubleCheck=48517037,72,1
DoubleCheck=48531139,72,1
DoubleCheck=48538409,72,1
DoubleCheck=48572059,72,1
DoubleCheck=48573319,72,1
DoubleCheck=48648199,72,1
DoubleCheck=48657031,72,1
DoubleCheck=48665891,72,1
DoubleCheck=48685183,72,1
DoubleCheck=48760711,72,1
DoubleCheck=48761711,72,1
DoubleCheck=48762059,72,1
DoubleCheck=48805763,72,1
DoubleCheck=48151063,72,1
DoubleCheck=49149887,72,1
[/code]

I'll focus on work below 55.18, which should keep me busy for a few months.

Dumb question, but since I am doing this work on GPUs how, other than contacting madpoo, do I "reserve" these?

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439897]Dumb question, but since I am doing this work on GPUs how, other than contacting madpoo, do I "reserve" these?[/QUOTE]

Get a new mprime install, configure your PrimeNet user id in prime.txt, add the lines above to worktodo.add and run `./mprime -c`. If they are not reserved, you'll end up with lines like:

DoubleCheck=DEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEF,12345678,72,1

and if they're already reserved,

DoubleCheck=N/A,12345678,72,1

in worktodo.txt.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439897]Dumb question, but since I am doing this work on GPUs how, other than contacting madpoo, do I "reserve" these?[/QUOTE]

If you want, I can create the assignments for these like the others. In the batch I made previously I picked all of the 57M and larger in those ranges, plus a few in the sub 39M. There are a few hundred more in those other more-ideal ranges, (and a couple thousand more triple checks to go, in general).

We'll get to them all eventually. :smile:

If anyone else is interested in doing large* batches of triple-checks, I can create the assignments for you and PM the worktodo. The benefit of doing that is I can make sure you're not one of the previous testers.

* - by large # of assignments I mean in excess of maybe 40-50 exponents, for the simple reason that it's a manual process to modify my scripts for a particular user and pick out a good batch of exponents. I have scripts setup for AirSquirrels and myself which is nice when doing 300+ assignments at a time. :smile:

I do wonder how many assignments you two do on a monthly basis.


Also, Madpoo, how many machines have now completed an LL test without having a DC currently assigned or completed? That would be a nice number to have a countdown of.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439919]I do wonder how many assignments you two do on a monthly basis.


Also, Madpoo, how many machines have now completed an LL test without having a DC currently assigned or completed? That would be a nice number to have a countdown of.[/QUOTE]

I would be an advocate of formalizing our goals around the various strategic check projects and hopefully getting others onboard to help reach them. Madpoo, if you want to reserve the ideal-range chunk Mark gave for me I'll put them on my new system for a quality burn in.

Over the past three months I've completed 1650 LL tests, 550 a month. Not all of those are on GPUs, but I estimate around 80% are. ~66% of those are verified DCs, 20% unverified LLs, and 10% open mismatches.

Two bad results so far in the past three months, one from a FuryX about to drown and 2 (counting one where I didn't match madpoo) from the GTX1080. Either it or CUDA8 RC are not 100% reliable.

I have 17 Verified, 2 bad, and 12 mismatches from that card. If anyone wants to TC. So far all the 7xM tests that card has done have mismatched.

[CODE]
38096281 M
38133923 M
38324009 M
38324521 M
39299047 M
39334423 M
73602083 M
73648273 M
37569533 M
38096281 M
73500677 Madpoo mismatch,
74049323 M
[/CODE]

Yeah, I wish I were more familiar with Microsoft databases so I could just help write these things.

Tuning MySQL is basically a hobby of mine.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439925]I have 17 Verified, 2 bad, and 12 mismatches from that card. If anyone wants to TC. So far all the 7xM tests that card has done have mismatched.

[CODE]
38096281 M
38133923 M
38324009 M
38324521 M
39299047 M
39334423 M
73602083 M
73648273 M
37569533 M
38096281 M
73500677 Madpoo mismatch,
74049323 M
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I grabbed the low exponents, except for 37569533 and 39334423 which were already assigned.

I've already been working on 73500677 for a couple of days. It should be done about Tuesday. MadPoo has 74049323 and I imagine he'll pick up the other two 73M exponents soon.

The 73M exponents were all done by a user with a crappy machine. Most of the exponents I've DC'ed by that user have mismatched.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439928]...I've already been working on 73500677 for a couple of days. It should be done about Tuesday. MadPoo has 74049323 and I imagine he'll pick up the other two 73M exponents soon.

The 73M exponents were all done by a user with a crappy machine. Most of the exponents I've DC'ed by that user have mismatched.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I picked up a few triple-checks recently where AirSquirrels was the most recent test. I don't remember why I picked those in particular, but I think there's just a couple left.

I looked at my past 3 months of LL results and I have 12,107. But the HUGE asterisk there is that includes a bunch of extra checks on smaller exponents... :smile: Excluding those, I have 1832 in the past 3 months, but working in different ranges.

Looking at it another way, over the past 90 days, I have 150208.30 of GHz-days and Airsquirrels has 164551.29 so he has me beat fair and square. LOL

Our power output honestly comes from a pretty small number of systems. I know I'm only running 25 total systems, albeit stuffed to the brim with GPUs. I often wonder what would happen if someone like NVIDIA decided to just burn in a rack full of P100 systems on CUDALucas. They could easily turn in 100+ results a day.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;439919]Also, Madpoo, how many machines have now completed an LL test without having a DC currently assigned or completed? That would be a nice number to have a countdown of.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of a fuzzy metric... there are a *lot* of old machines that no longer participate, so, for example, they're not going to get DC work as part of the new assignment rules. We're on our own to go through those.

I should do more work on those systems and see what other things I can get out of them to see if they're good or bad. Right now with zero bad/zero good, the only other thing to look at is if they had suspect results (or mismatches for any other reason). Otherwise it's just a matter of doing a verification on one of them to see if it's good or bad, but even then it only helps find new bad machines if they have more than one solo-checked exponent.

The thing is, we'd be doing all of that testing and probably get a far lower success rate in finding bad tests than we currently can by going after the machines with some kind of known-to-be-bad track record.

At some point we'd exhaust that kind of work so we'd have to go searching for the undiscovered bad systems, I just don't know if we're there quite yet. :smile:

There are 17330 systems with zero good, zero bad and at least one result that has never been DC'd. That's a lot.

On the other hand, there are only 363 with zero good/zero bad but at least one mismatch or suspect result. That's more manageable as a start, and 318 of those have more than 1 solo-checked result, so at least if we mismatch the test run, there will be at least one more we can take advantage of our new found knowledge.

Systems with a mismatch in their history doesn't really mean they're bad...I'd have to look at their mismatch and see if their result was first or second or look at the other machine to get a better idea.

33 of those have a suspect result which also matches how many mismatches they have. Those 33 machines represent 287 solo checked exponents, so who knows... maybe?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439950]There are 17330 systems with zero good, zero bad and at least one result that has never been DC'd. That's a lot.[/QUOTE]

How many of these were active in the last 6 months or 12 months? Unless it is too complicated to search for.

One more where the 1080 is likely to have been wrong. I did a driver update and hopefully stabilized the card, time will tell.

73381873

David, did you queue that list of TC work? I don't see assignments for those exponents. If you have queued them, we should get them assigned so that we don't duplicate work.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440013]David, did you queue that list of TC work? I don't see assignments for those exponents. If you have queued them, we should get them assigned so that we don't duplicate work.[/QUOTE]

I think I've done this. That process was significantly more of a pain than expected since it appears to only let me reserve a few exponents per worker. Is there not a better way?

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440037]I think I've done this. That process was significantly more of a pain than expected since it appears to only let me reserve a few exponents per worker. Is there not a better way?[/QUOTE]

That's odd.

Maybe try adding `UnreserveDays=99999` to prime.txt.

Unless someone else has ideas?

When I used to have "tons of work" reserved in the past, I always had to add to prime.txt the two magic lines

MaxExponents=100
UnreserveDays=365

(or more, depending on your work list), before adding the work (using worktodo.add or alternative, [U]stopping and exiting[/U] P95 and directly modifying the worktodo.txt file), to avoid P95 unreserving them at the first server check. Also, add them with the N/A key if you want to work them "unassigned". If they are not assigned, and if they are in assignable range, then add them without a key and P95 will try to reserve them at the first server connection (i.e. get a valid key for them). If you add them with N/A key, them P95 will not try to assign them, and it will not get a valid key, but work them in "unassigned" mode. However, at the end of each, the results will be properly reported to the server.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439828]Anyone interested in settling an interesting quad check?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=73500677&full=1[/URL]

Both AirSquirrels and I did a check on this already, and I have my fingers crossed that my result is correct, but... we'll see?

We've been trying to do triple-checks of each others results when needed, but in this case we need someone else to weigh in. LOL

The worktodo line would be:
DoubleCheck=73500677,75,1[/QUOTE]

You won!

It is official - the NVIDIA 1080 throws out garbage for 7xM and up exponents, seems solid on lower DC work though. I will wait for CUDA 8.0 final and retest.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439636]The lists I generate tend to vary here and there as more data gets collected from the machines in question. A machine which seemed "iffy" at first may prove to be a little better than expected and don't get included again next time I check.

The really easy pickings were handled early on so over time I've lowered the threshold for what I consider to be "likely bad", and I also run queries over different time periods (how well did that CPU do month-by-month, or annually, or for "all time"?)

Occasionally I'll throw in some where there's just one or two exponents left to check for a machine that merely had more-bad-than-good so we may as well check the few they had left because we're not getting any more useful predictive data anyway.

Well, with all that said, here's a new list... it's a mix of all the different criteria I mentioned above. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
39110789 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39110789,71,1
39600287 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39600287,71,1
39840851 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39840851,71,1
39923197 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=39923197,71,1
39998071 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=39998071,71,1
39999763 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=39999763,71,1
40059067 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=40059067,72,1
40090997 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=40090997,72,1
40094797 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40094797,72,1
40094909 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40094909,72,1
40154327 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=40154327,72,1
40282651 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=40282651,72,1
40357469 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=40357469,72,1
40455187 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40455187,72,1
40682749 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=40682749,72,1
40693207 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=40693207,72,1
40924393 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=40924393,72,1
40967081 2 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=40967081,72,1
41000893 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41000893,72,1
41011319 3 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41011319,72,1
41091527 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41091527,72,1
41115257 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41115257,72,1
41401181 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41401181,72,1
41449861 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=41449861,72,1
41486197 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41486197,72,1
41585671 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=41585671,72,1
41591327 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=41591327,72,1
41730151 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41730151,72,1
42220699 4 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=42220699,72,1
42265469 2 0 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42265469,72,1
42295639 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42295639,72,1
42341239 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=42341239,72,1
42430721 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42430721,72,1
42693701 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42693701,72,1
43060453 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=43060453,72,1
43347061 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43347061,72,1
45531323 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=45531323,72,1
45902009 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=45902009,72,1
46683467 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46683467,72,1
46686749 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=46686749,72,1
46785359 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=46785359,72,1
47017771 2 0 8 0 8 0 DoubleCheck=47017771,72,1
47869397 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47869397,72,1
49435933 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=49435933,72,1
50152231 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=50152231,73,1
51728737 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=51728737,73,1
52046131 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=52046131,73,1
52591499 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=52591499,73,1
56874541 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=56874541,73,1
65789629 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789629,74,1
65789653 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789653,74,1
67173527 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67173527,74,1
67728877 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67728877,74,1
67852633 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852633,74,1
67852639 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852639,74,1
70541467 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=70541467,75,1
70615357 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=70615357,75,1
71992741 2 0 0 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=71992741,75,1
72850889 4 0 1 2 2 1 DoubleCheck=72850889,75,1
73115041 8 0 2 3 3 2 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1
73138057 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1
74683481 2 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=74683481,75,1
75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
75818773 2 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=75818773,75,1
76193773 2 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=76193773,75,1
77888123 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=77888123,75,1
78401023 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78401023,75,1
78931819 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78931819,75,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Took these 6....


65789629 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789629,74,1
65789653 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=65789653,74,1
67173527 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67173527,74,1
67728877 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67728877,74,1
67852633 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852633,74,1
67852639 3 1 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=67852639,74,1

All lower are already assigned or complete....

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440037]I think I've done this. That process was significantly more of a pain than expected since it appears to only let me reserve a few exponents per worker. Is there not a better way?[/QUOTE]

I believe you missed:

DoubleCheck=48122021,72,1
DoubleCheck=48214139,72,1
DoubleCheck=48348847,72,1

Folks, please check your workload files!
[CODE]LL 37625827

Status Date User Residue
Verified 2007-06-15 Bruce Leenstra 39ED7F077856D61D
Bad 2016-06-18 rudimeier 0D257DF1B2B80370
Verified 2016-08-14 MadPoo 39ED7F077856D61D
Verified 2016-08-17 AirSquirrels 39ED7F077856D61D[/CODE]

I've noticed that AirSquirrels' assignment was expired and MadPoo got it a few hours later.

Here's an updated list of strategic double-checks:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38068489 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38068489,71,1
39649277 20 6 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39649277,71,1
39917399 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39917399,71,1
42587591 4 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=42587591,72,1
42730117 3 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42730117,72,1
43728863 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43728863,72,1
47551523 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=47551523,72,1
48536557 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48536557,72,1
48975889 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48975889,72,1
69547547 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=69547547,75,1
69747011 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=69747011,75,1
69748417 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=69748417,75,1
70444961 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=70444961,75,1
70541467 9 0 2 4 4 2 DoubleCheck=70541467,75,1
70569787 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=70569787,75,1
70615357 9 0 2 4 4 2 DoubleCheck=70615357,75,1
71227873 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=71227873,75,1
71950799 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=71950799,75,1
71995813 5 1 1 14 9 6 DoubleCheck=71995813,75,1
72029689 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=72029689,75,1
72101761 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=72101761,75,1
72832189 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=72832189,75,1
72850889 5 0 0 2 1 1 DoubleCheck=72850889,75,1
73115041 9 0 2 4 4 2 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1
73138057 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1
73160389 9 0 2 4 4 2 DoubleCheck=73160389,75,1
73161167 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=73161167,75,1
73755637 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=73755637,75,1
73888403 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=73888403,75,1
74072737 5 1 1 14 9 6 DoubleCheck=74072737,75,1
74160899 5 1 1 14 9 6 DoubleCheck=74160899,75,1
74924579 5 1 1 14 9 6 DoubleCheck=74924579,75,1
75015701 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75015701,75,1
75015803 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75015803,75,1
75089249 5 1 1 14 9 6 DoubleCheck=75089249,75,1
75161209 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75161209,75,1
75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1
75477893 5 2 7 0 4 3 DoubleCheck=75477893,75,1
75694397 9 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=75694397,75,1
75896173 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=75896173,75,1
76134293 9 3 6 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=76134293,75,1
76176511 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=76176511,75,1
78401023 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78401023,75,1
78931819 25 6 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=78931819,75,1
79395941 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=79395941,75,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=rudi_m;440212]Folks, please check your workload files!
[CODE]LL 37625827

Status Date User Residue
Verified 2007-06-15 Bruce Leenstra 39ED7F077856D61D
Bad 2016-06-18 rudimeier 0D257DF1B2B80370
Verified 2016-08-14 MadPoo 39ED7F077856D61D
Verified 2016-08-17 AirSquirrels 39ED7F077856D61D[/CODE]

I've noticed that AirSquirrels' assignment was expired and MadPoo got it a few hours later.[/QUOTE]

Well, hmm... That 37M exponent must have been in cat0 territory and it didn't get started within 10 days or whatever so it expired quicker.

I may need to pay attention to that when creating cat0 type assignments for him. I know he'll complete them in time but I forgot about that "needs to start in xx days" clause.

I tend to trawl through the exponents needing triple-checks every other day or so and I must have seen that one and snagged it...

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440380]Here's an updated list of strategic double-checks:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38068489 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38068489,71,1
39649277 20 6 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39649277,71,1
39917399 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=39917399,71,1
42587591 4 0 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=42587591,72,1
42730117 3 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42730117,72,1
43728863 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=43728863,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Grabbed these before anonymous got them. Should have the first three done for possible triple checks within a few days.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440380]Here's an updated list of strategic double-checks:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
47551523 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=47551523,72,1
48536557 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48536557,72,1
48975889 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=48975889,72,1
70444961 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=70444961,75,1
70569787 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=70569787,75,1
71227873 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=71227873,75,1
71950799 44 15 0 10 5 5 DoubleCheck=71950799,75,1
72029689 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=72029689,75,1
72832189 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=72832189,75,1
73160389 9 0 2 4 4 2 DoubleCheck=73160389,75,1
73161167 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=73161167,75,1
73755637 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=73755637,75,1
73888403 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=73888403,75,1
75896173 5 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=75896173,75,1
76176511 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=76176511,75,1
79395941 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=79395941,75,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

These are the remaining new exponents that haven't appeared on lists before.

38068489 needs a TC

DoubleCheck=38068489,71,1

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440475]38068489 needs a TC

DoubleCheck=38068489,71,1[/QUOTE]

Queued it after my current one. Should done in about 36 hours.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440129]It is official - the NVIDIA 1080 throws out garbage for 7xM and up exponents, seems solid on lower DC work though. I will wait for CUDA 8.0 final and retest.[/QUOTE]

Is this just for LL or TF too?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440381]Well, hmm... That 37M exponent must have been in cat0 territory and it didn't get started within 10 days or whatever so it expired quicker.

I may need to pay attention to that when creating cat0 type assignments for him. I know he'll complete them in time but I forgot about that "needs to start in xx days" clause.

I tend to trawl through the exponents needing triple-checks every other day or so and I must have seen that one and snagged it...[/QUOTE]

No, it expired after 30 days. I was watching that exponent because I already guessed that my double check could be bad.

[QUOTE=rudi_m;440485]No, it expired after 30 days. I was watching that exponent because I already guessed that my double check could be bad.[/QUOTE]

We've been generating a queue of about 30 days for my GPUs, which don't check in until they are completed so I could see how we could miss the window by a few days in that category. We might need to take slightly smaller chunks.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;440483]Is this just for LL or TF too?[/QUOTE]

TF still doesn't work because of a CUDA 8 bug in the RC. So for now this card is being used for <4K FFT triple checks which seem to work out better.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440491]TF still doesn't work because of a CUDA 8 bug in the RC. So for now this card is being used for <4K FFT triple checks which seem to work out better.[/QUOTE]

Was it that card that did [url=http://www.mersenne.org/M38324009]38324009[/url] though?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440495]Was it that card that did [url=http://www.mersenne.org/M38324009]38324009[/url] though?[/QUOTE]

I had not noticed that one yet. It does seem that the card is less than reliable with the current CUDA framework. It does have a decent number of successes...

It is working on triple checks only, so is it better to keep it going and 2/3rds of the time it clears an exponent but 1/3rd of the time it wastes its time vs. sitting idle? Hopefully the CUDA 8.0 final resolves the issue. Shame as it is a very fast and efficient card.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440490]We've been generating a queue of about 30 days for my GPUs, which don't check in until they are completed so I could see how we could miss the window by a few days in that category. We might need to take slightly smaller chunks.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think I just need to watch out for the cat 0/cat 1 stuff and maybe see if you can get those done first or something. Ah well.

There was another instance where AirSquirrels and I had a crossover exponent... same situation where he had it first, then it expired and I got the next assignment. Fortunately I noticed his result checked in before I'd started so no duplicated effort there.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;440497]I had not noticed that one yet. It does seem that the card is less than reliable with the current CUDA framework. It does have a decent number of successes...

It is working on triple checks only, so is it better to keep it going and 2/3rds of the time it clears an exponent but 1/3rd of the time it wastes its time vs. sitting idle? Hopefully the CUDA 8.0 final resolves the issue. Shame as it is a very fast and efficient card.[/QUOTE]

Maybe try underclocking the card and see if that fixes it? It could be a hardware issue.

Quick triple check needed
 

Hi all,

Would anyone care to run a quick triple-check on this?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43408411"]43408411[/URL]

There's a weird thing about the previous check and I just wanted to make sure mine matches before digging too deep. I'm pretty sure mine's right, but always best to make sure.

I also just checked in a mismatching triple-check, so now it needs a quad check:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M40792159"]40792159[/URL]

No real urgency on that one except it's fun to do quad checks. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440501]Hi all,

Would anyone care to run a quick triple-check on this?
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43408411"]43408411[/URL]

There's a weird thing about the previous check and I just wanted to make sure mine matches before digging too deep. I'm pretty sure mine's right, but always best to make sure.

I also just checked in a mismatching triple-check, so now it needs a quad check:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M40792159"]40792159[/URL]

No real urgency on that one except it's fun to do quad checks. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Queued them both. 43408411 is running right now and should be done in about 42 hours. 40792159 will be a couple of weeks.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440502]Queued them both. 43408411 is running right now and should be done in about 42 hours. 40792159 will be a couple of weeks.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I have a hunch that when you turn in your result for 43408411 you'll see the weird thing I'm talking about (assuming you match my result). :smile:

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/M40682749]40682749[/url] is a low exponent that needs a triple check

DoubleCheck=40682749,72,1

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440527]Thanks. I have a hunch that when you turn in your result for 43408411 you'll see the weird thing I'm talking about (assuming you match my result). :smile:[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43408411"]M43408411[/URL]

Hmmm, I see what you mean: [B][U]DD[/U][/B]3D1B[B][U]00[/U][/B]3CBD[B][U]FF88[/U][/B]. Four out of the eight pairs consist of two identical hexadecimal digits. The odds of that are only one percent (actually 0.990%). :grin:

[QUOTE=GP2;440645][URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43408411"]M43408411[/URL]
The odds of that are only one percent (actually 0.990%). :grin:[/QUOTE]

Yup! Even funnier, quite a few similar "low odds" results in the last few days, in the same range. One flaky (and fast, certainly fast) machine, perhaps? Or "premature optimization" (from iteration 1, jump straight to the last :smile:)?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440527]Thanks. I have a hunch that when you turn in your result for 43408411 you'll see the weird thing I'm talking about (assuming you match my result). :smile:[/QUOTE]

Ohhh, I see! Did the alerting system work?

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440649]Ohhh, I see! Did the alerting system work?[/QUOTE]

It did in fact. :smile:

Unfortunately this same user has been having issues with a (small) subset of machines returning false positives (while doing double checks), so I've been doing a lot of triple-checks recently to make sure. This one just happened to need a quad check because the first result was also bad.

We're (well, George really) trying to figure out how these false positives are showing up since it's using the latest mprime 28.9 and a Xeon E5-2697 v3 (same CPU I have on one system that hasn't had any issues).

Anyway, thanks for the quad check just so we could make sure to close the books on that one.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440669]It did in fact. :smile:

Unfortunately this same user has been having issues with a (small) subset of machines returning false positives (while doing double checks), so I've been doing a lot of triple-checks recently to make sure. This one just happened to need a quad check because the first result was also bad.

We're (well, George really) trying to figure out how these false positives are showing up since it's using the latest mprime 28.9 and a Xeon E5-2697 v3 (same CPU I have on one system that hasn't had any issues).

Anyway, thanks for the quad check just so we could make sure to close the books on that one.[/QUOTE]

I'm really surprised to hear of an issue with a Xeon - I also have some 2697v3s + ECC memory and had always worked under the sssumption that system would never make mistakes.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;440669]It did in fact. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I should really get around to building my own automated system to alert me when a potential prime is reported.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;439925]I have 17 Verified, 2 bad, and 12 mismatches from that card. If anyone wants to TC. So far all the 7xM tests that card has done have mismatched.[/QUOTE]

Final tally: 3 verified, 9 bad (out of 12 mismatches)

[CODE]
38096281 bad
38133923 [B]good[/B]
38324009 bad
38324521 bad
39299047 [B]good[/B]
39334423 bad
73602083 [B]good[/B]
73648273 bad
37569533 bad
38096281 bad
73500677 bad
74049323 bad
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;440672]I should really get around to building my own automated system to alert me when a potential prime is reported.[/QUOTE]

LOL... well, hopefully if things are working right on the server, there won't be any hints of what the exponent is until it's been officially announced.

Speaking of primes though, we have some additional false positives from that one batch of systems... We're down to just one unconfirmed one but it's in a weird category from that user where it has a zero residue but it knows it wasn't prime. Not sure how that works... the code may have identified issues during the run and even though it's zero at the end, it knows it's not prime?

In other words, it's been a mix of "is prime!" with a zero residue, and "is not prime" with zero residue. How bizarre.

And there's another one that I'd like to get a triple-check on if possible. It's from that wonky version of CUDALucas that was generating false positives... I've done my double-check so I'm sure it's not prime but a triple-check will put my mind at ease.

It's this:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M77127829"]M77127829[/URL]

Ignore the active assignment... that's the user that reported the false positive and since it was manually reported, there's fortunately a system in place to keep "is prime" results from being auto processed manually. Instead we get notified to look into it and make sure it's legit.

Kind of funny, all the false positives lately...hopefully we figure out that one user's issue soon.