|
[QUOTE=Madpoo;440887]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.[/quote]
Even if I did find a way, I wouldn't advertise it: I wouldn't want to spoil the fun! |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;440887]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][/QUOTE] I queued it. |
Anyone up for doing another triple-check?
There's an undisplayed false positive in there and we need to verify one of the previous tests (mine, I hope) to confirm the false positive. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43548073"]M43548073[/URL] It may get picked up by someone doing cat 4 so hopefully one of y'all gets it first. |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;441042]Anyone up for doing another triple-check?
There's an undisplayed false positive in there and we need to verify one of the previous tests (mine, I hope) to confirm the false positive. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43548073"]M43548073[/URL] It may get picked up by someone doing cat 4 so hopefully one of y'all gets it first.[/QUOTE] Started immediately on my fastest machine. Should be done in less than two days. |
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=74097311&full=1[/url]
Low priority quad check. No other issues with this card in the past. (GTX 690) |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;440887]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.[/QUOTE] Hi, I reported the false positive M77127829 and another false positive M77178671. I think I find the problem and now I’m doing a double check of M43479427. Now I’m using CUDALucas2.05.1-CUDA8.0-Windows-x64.exe, dll’s cudart64_80.dll and cufft64_80.dll and at the ini file change BigCarry from 0 to 1. My card is a gtx 1070. I'll wait to see if the double check is correct.[FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][/FONT] Thx |
[QUOTE=airsquirrels;441091][url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=74097311&full=1[/url]
Low priority quad check. No other issues with this card in the past. (GTX 690)[/QUOTE] Added to my worktodo. Should be done in approximately two weeks |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;440887]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][/QUOTE] Matched your result. |
New list of strategic double checks...
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo 39647221 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=39647221,71,1 40056073 7 3 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=40056073,72,1 40171801 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=40171801,72,1 40951367 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=40951367,72,1 42606061 4 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42606061,72,1 42961871 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42961871,72,1 43005437 7 3 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=43005437,72,1 47123357 9 4 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=47123357,72,1 49338259 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=49338259,72,1 50802247 7 3 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=50802247,73,1 51930929 9 4 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=51930929,73,1 52166519 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=52166519,73,1 53521709 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=53521709,73,1 53700523 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=53700523,73,1 54009103 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=54009103,73,1 54886411 5 1 13 1 11 3 DoubleCheck=54886411,73,1 71227873 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=71227873,75,1 71950799 15 3 0 7 5 2 DoubleCheck=71950799,75,1 71995813 6 1 1 13 7 7 DoubleCheck=71995813,75,1 72029689 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=72029689,75,1 72101761 15 3 0 7 5 2 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 5 5 2 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1 73138057 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1 73160389 9 0 2 5 5 2 DoubleCheck=73160389,75,1 73161167 3 1 1 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=73161167,75,1 73333097 9 0 2 5 5 2 DoubleCheck=73333097,75,1 73755637 6 1 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=73755637,75,1 73888403 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=73888403,75,1 74072737 6 1 1 13 7 7 DoubleCheck=74072737,75,1 74160899 6 1 1 13 7 7 DoubleCheck=74160899,75,1 74924579 6 1 1 13 7 7 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 6 1 1 13 7 7 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 75743077 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75743077,75,1 75744649 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75744649,75,1 75744677 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75744677,75,1 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 76513189 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=76513189,75,1 79395941 9 3 6 5 6 5 DoubleCheck=79395941,75,1 [/CODE] |
[QUOTE=jpalo;441099]Hi,
I reported the false positive M77127829 and another false positive M77178671. I think I find the problem and now I’m doing a double check of M43479427. Now I’m using CUDALucas2.05.1-CUDA8.0-Windows-x64.exe, dll’s cudart64_80.dll and cufft64_80.dll and at the ini file change BigCarry from 0 to 1. My card is a gtx 1070. I'll wait to see if the double check is correct.[FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][/FONT] Thx[/QUOTE] I'm running the triple-check of M77178671 (another 33 hours to go, give or take). I figured it was a false positive as well... oddly I couldn't figure out who submitted it, so mystery solved. :) |
[QUOTE=ATH;441106]Matched your result.[/QUOTE]
Awesome... thanks for the fast turnaround. |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;441139]New list of strategic double checks...
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo 39647221 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=39647221,71,1 40056073 7 3 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=40056073,72,1 40171801 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=40171801,72,1 40951367 11 5 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=40951367,72,1 42606061 4 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42606061,72,1 42961871 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42961871,72,1 43005437 7 3 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=43005437,72,1 47123357 9 4 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=47123357,72,1 [/CODE][/QUOTE] I took these, mainly to keep them out of the hands of anonymous. They're queued on a new machine needing work. |
54886411 and below have been assigned.
Of the ones above, more than half were duplicates from previous lists, mainly suspect results. I guess I should start work on the suspect results when my queues empty out. |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;441042]Anyone up for doing another triple-check?
There's an undisplayed false positive in there and we need to verify one of the previous tests (mine, I hope) to confirm the false positive. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M43548073"]M43548073[/URL] It may get picked up by someone doing cat 4 so hopefully one of y'all gets it first.[/QUOTE] You win! |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;441241]You win![/QUOTE]
Of course. :smile: The user keeps submitting more false positives from the same Xeon systems... we're a little stumped. I'm not sure what kind of motherboard is being used... he's supplied some diagnostics and I don't remember if it says anything about the manufacturer, chipset (is there more than one for the Xeon E5 v3's?) or cpu revision #... But so far my own E5 v3 keeps spitting out matching DCs so I'm guessing it's something specific to that system... perhaps something in whatever hypervisor the Linux machines are running under and interesting things happening during some context switching? I don't really know. It certainly is concerning enough that software that runs great otherwise would be tossing out these false positives on this particular setup. Hmm... hopefully George has a flash of insight that points to where the problem could lie. |
Can't you do something like "this result is not needed due to the fact that this [system/user]sent out too many [false positives/bad results/suspicious/whatever]?
And give no credit. Then he will pay attention. :chappy: |
I have a few low exponents that need a triple, if anyone is interested:
DoubleCheck=40171801,72,1 DoubleCheck=48405233,72,1 DoubleCheck=48603307,72,1 |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;441658]I have a few low exponents that need a triple, if anyone is interested:
DoubleCheck=40171801,72,1 DoubleCheck=48405233,72,1 DoubleCheck=48603307,72,1[/QUOTE] Locked and loaded, err added to worktodo and reserved with primenet. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;441669]Locked and loaded, err added to worktodo and reserved with primenet.[/QUOTE]
Thanks! |
I just switched a big group of GPUs over from TF work to LLDC, so I have a handful of mismatches as I weed out the underperformers. Anyone for some triple checks
DoubleCheck=58980557,72,1 DoubleCheck=58980457,72,1 DoubleCheck=58978061,72,1 Looks like Madpoo is already on these two 59083813 57989489 |
[QUOTE=airsquirrels;441821]Anyone for some triple checks
DoubleCheck=58978061,72,1[/QUOTE] Those are quadruple checks actually. I'll give them a shot. Edit: should be 73, not 72 |
[QUOTE=GP2;441829]Those are quadruple checks actually. I'll give them a shot.
Edit: should be 73, not 72[/QUOTE] Thanks! I am pretty sure my answer will be the incorrect one. I actually went through the logs and found a quirk in FFT size selection on clLucas/CUDALucas for a range of exponents I was testing right around 58-60M, the code tries to use 3136K, finds an error too large, backs up and continues with 3200K and then goes back to 3136K when the error is low again. Many of those tests came back with mismatches after hundreds of good tests. |
I would like to thank
AirSquirrels ATH endless_mike MadPoo riccardo uberti rudimeier for triple checks of my double checks in the last couple of months. Especially ATH, who seems to follow up with a TC in days. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;441934]I would like to thank
AirSquirrels ATH endless_mike MadPoo riccardo uberti rudimeier for triple checks of my double checks in the last couple of months. Especially ATH, who seems to follow up with a TC in days.[/QUOTE] All of these triple checks (and the occasional quads) are mostly thankless, but ideally accelerating us towards more strategic double checks by giving us definitive records for more systems. Madpoo would have to give us updated numbers, but there should be under 2000 unassigned triple checks at this point. |
[QUOTE=airsquirrels;441936]All of these triple checks (and the occasional quads) are mostly thankless, but ideally accelerating us towards more strategic double checks by giving us definitive records for more systems. Madpoo would have to give us updated numbers, but there should be under 2000 unassigned triple checks at this point.[/QUOTE]
I'm tracking 161 unassigned exponents needing TC from this thread that I did not participate in. I've got about 50 DC needing TC, but I don't track how many are assigned. There are 125 unassigned DC from this thread from 55254491 on up. That's the list I gave to you and MadPoo. I estimate I could complete that work in about six weeks, but I'm working through a queue of about two months already. |
[QUOTE=airsquirrels;441091][url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=74097311&full=1[/url]
Low priority quad check. No other issues with this card in the past. (GTX 690)[/QUOTE] Completed. Matched your result. |
[QUOTE=endless mike;442092]Completed. Matched your result.[/QUOTE]
Thanks! What a nice relief. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;441946]I'm tracking 161 unassigned exponents needing TC from this thread that I did not participate in. I've got about 50 DC needing TC, but I don't track how many are assigned.
There are 125 unassigned DC from this thread from 55254491 on up. That's the list I gave to you and MadPoo. I estimate I could complete that work in about six weeks, but I'm working through a queue of about two months already.[/QUOTE] The stuff needing triple-checks... well, I'm working on a bunch and so is AirSquirrels. Besides the ones we've managed to generate from strategic double-checking (where I assume *our* results are the correct ones), there are a bunch more. If people are really anxious to do the necessary triple-checks, I can post a big list on here and let you pick your poison, as long as it wasn't one where you did one of the previous checks of course. :smile: There were 2000+ unassigned of those, I think. The churn in the 40M-45M range is where a bunch of new stuff seems to show up weekly, and I expect that's normal... of all the double-checks being turned in daily, I guess I'd expect 4-5% of those to mismatch and need a triple check (given the average historical error rate). A large % of the mismatches come from the first result being suspect, so it was handed out pretty quick for another "first time" check. Maybe 80% of the mismatches are like that, give or take. The ones where neither result was suspect are interesting, since it means some machine was spewing bad stuff and was blissfully unaware of it, but I haven't found resolving those to be any more or less useful in finding unknown bad systems. Anyway, my own little goal is to hopefully clear out the backlog of these mismatches and maybe, or maybe not, keep pace with the new ones that come in. They may come in faster than I can test them... who knows, but it's kind of fun to essentially pick the winner and loser in the contest, as tiebreaker. LOL |
This has probably been explained in the 100 pages of previous posts on this thread,
but I am too lazy to read them all. Why doesn't primenet keep assigning an exponent until it gets two residue matches from different users? So the triple checks could be handled by the entire pool of prime95 users. Not really complaining but so much is automated already why not this little extra part also? |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;442173]This has probably been explained in the 100 pages of previous posts on this thread,
but I am too lazy to read them all. Why doesn't primenet keep assigning an exponent until it gets two residue matches from different users? So the triple checks could be handled by the entire pool of prime95 users. Not really complaining but so much is automated already why not this little extra part also?[/QUOTE] As far as I know, it does. Some of us are just impatient. I once was staring at approximately 60 mismatched exponents on my results page. It's down into the teens now. A lot of them were from doing strategic double checking from this thread. It would have taken quite some time for the double checking to catch up to them and give confirmation. |
[QUOTE=endless mike;442178]As far as I know, it does. Some of us are just impatient.
I once was staring at approximately 60 mismatched exponents on my results page. It's down into the teens now. A lot of them were from doing strategic double checking from this thread. It would have taken quite some time for the double checking to catch up to them and give confirmation.[/QUOTE] I think that is the main purpose for a lot of us doing triple checks. Generally we're running faster, dedicated checks than the churn that would normallly pick them up. Perhaps making all triple checks the equivalent of DC Cat 0 would have the same effect of ensure users with hardware trouble know as soon as possible. It is also nice to work on an obtainable subgoal vs. just keep going on the decades of checks remaining in the overall queue. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;442173]This has probably been explained in the 100 pages of previous posts on this thread,
but I am too lazy to read them all. Why doesn't primenet keep assigning an exponent until it gets two residue matches from different users? So the triple checks could be handled by the entire pool of prime95 users. Not really complaining but so much is automated already why not this little extra part also?[/QUOTE] I think that's exactly what it does. As far as I know, PrimeNet doesn't treat triple checks any differently than double checks. They get assigned "in due course". The problem is that the overwhelming majority of PrimeNet users are anonymous churners, who abandon exponents before completing them (or in many cases, even starting them). Eventually the exponent expires, and often it gets assigned to another anonymous churner, and the cycle repeats. Or sometimes the exponent does run to completion, but on a very slow machine. Collectively the churners make a very important contribution, since there are so many of them, and some percentage of exponents do run to completion. However, any individual exponent might get churned half a dozen times or more over the course of many months or even a few years. Madpoo et al. seek to short-circuit this process by manual assignment of triple checks to themselves, to get them done with higher priority. Maybe there could be some automation of this process, maybe PrimeNet could identify triple checks and classify them as Category 1 and hand them out to people who agree to do them, or something like that. But probably when the existing backlog is cleared out it will be easy to keep up with the pace of creation of new triple checks and keep on handling them manually. |
[QUOTE=GP2;442181]I think that's exactly what it does.
As far as I know, PrimeNet doesn't treat triple checks any differently than double checks. They get assigned "in due course". The problem is that the overwhelming majority of PrimeNet users are anonymous churners, who abandon exponents before completing them (or in many cases, even starting them). Eventually the exponent expires, and often it gets assigned to another anonymous churner, and the cycle repeats. Or sometimes the exponent does run to completion, but on a very slow machine. Collectively the churners make a very important contribution, since there are so many of them, and some percentage of exponents do run to completion. However, any individual exponent might get churned half a dozen times or more over the course of many months or even a few years. Madpoo et al. seek to short-circuit this process by manual assignment of triple checks to themselves, to get them done with higher priority. Maybe there could be some automation of this process, maybe PrimeNet could identify triple checks and classify them as Category 1 and hand them out to people who agree to do them, or something like that. But probably when the existing backlog is cleared out it will be easy to keep up with the pace of creation of new triple checks and keep on handling them manually.[/QUOTE] ^^^ Yes, that. :smile: I kind of like doing the triple-checks because I know when some people do a double-check and it mismatches, they start to wonder "is [B]my[/B] machine bad?" and some of them are tempted to do their own additional test. I think it's weird to have people verify their own work (there was that whole project to "fix" those) so this is kind of my way of helping out. I recently recall going through a bit batch of endless_mike's mismatches (I wasn't picking those out on purpose, it just happened to fall in the range I was doing at the time) and I'm sure he appreciated knowing for sure his were correct. It would be kind of cool to have a "triple check" option for getting assignments... I guess if the pool of suitable work were large enough that would be worth a long term effort, but ideally we can get the backlog cleared out soon (end of year perhaps, if it's just AirSquirrels and myself? Sooner if others want to help?) By happy coincidence, most of the new mismatches are smack-dab in the middle of the cat4 DC range since that's where most new results are showing up. That makes it more likely that they'll be reassigned automatically anyway... Eventually, once this backlog is done, I foresee most of the manual effort being the cleanout of the occasional mismatch in the higher ranges (when some slow, expired assignment turns in *after* the newly assigned worker turns theirs in), or the stuff in cat2/cat3 which doesn't get handed out as swiftly. |
Quad checks needed
By the way, if anyone feels like doing a quad-check on something, these exponents are currently unassigned. I did one of the previous checks on each of them so I'm ineligible. :smile:
[CODE]41931817 40788089 43125469 44529083 59999201 60025513 61433279[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;442312]By the way, if anyone feels like doing a quad-check on something ...[/QUOTE]
I took them all. |
One more time....
67728877 C - Mismatch
|
[QUOTE=petrw1;442427]67728877 C - Mismatch[/QUOTE]
I'll queue it. |
I have 25 exponents that need a triple check, if anyone is interested:
DoubleCheck=40056073,72,1 DoubleCheck=40455187,72,1 DoubleCheck=50442449,73,1 DoubleCheck=50725481,73,1 DoubleCheck=50835227,73,1 DoubleCheck=52548817,73,1 DoubleCheck=53386631,73,1 DoubleCheck=54236099,73,1 DoubleCheck=61756243,74,1 DoubleCheck=61841803,74,1 DoubleCheck=61843973,74,1 DoubleCheck=61844329,74,1 DoubleCheck=61846193,74,1 DoubleCheck=61995611,74,1 DoubleCheck=62012707,74,1 DoubleCheck=62796527,74,1 DoubleCheck=63773497,74,1 DoubleCheck=64071221,74,1 DoubleCheck=67876027,74,1 DoubleCheck=68804809,74,1 DoubleCheck=70869973,75,1 DoubleCheck=71069681,75,1 DoubleCheck=71642387,75,1 DoubleCheck=76417333,75,1 DoubleCheck=77133689,75,1 |
I queued up these on the Titan (40056073 was taken):
DoubleCheck=40455187,72,1 DoubleCheck=50442449,73,1 DoubleCheck=50725481,73,1 DoubleCheck=50835227,73,1 DoubleCheck=52548817,73,1 DoubleCheck=53386631,73,1 DoubleCheck=54236099,73,1 My CPU is tied up for a while. I'll take some more later, if they are still available. |
Thanks!
|
I grabbed the rest of the list. You (among others) have helped whittle down my list of exponents needing a triple check, so I can help with some of yours.
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;442429]I have 25 exponents that need a triple check, if anyone is interested: DoubleCheck=61756243,74,1 DoubleCheck=61841803,74,1 DoubleCheck=61843973,74,1 DoubleCheck=61844329,74,1 DoubleCheck=61846193,74,1 DoubleCheck=61995611,74,1 DoubleCheck=62012707,74,1 DoubleCheck=62796527,74,1 DoubleCheck=63773497,74,1 DoubleCheck=64071221,74,1 DoubleCheck=67876027,74,1 DoubleCheck=68804809,74,1 DoubleCheck=70869973,75,1 DoubleCheck=71069681,75,1 DoubleCheck=71642387,75,1 DoubleCheck=76417333,75,1 DoubleCheck=77133689,75,1[/QUOTE] |
Thanks!
It's looking like with the combined efforts of everyone we may have everything from this thread TC'ed in less than six months. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;442566]Thanks!
It's looking like with the combined efforts of everyone we may have everything from this thread TC'ed in less than six months.[/QUOTE] Probably less, since AirSquirrels and I are still working on having *all* mismatches TC'd before then. :smile: Of course, every one that you post here and someone else grabs means one less I have to, and I can work on other "natural" mismatches instead. LOL |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;442568]Probably less, since AirSquirrels and I are still working on having *all* mismatches TC'd before then. :smile:
Of course, every one that you post here and someone else grabs means one less I have to, and I can work on other "natural" mismatches instead. LOL[/QUOTE] Personally I'm not that interested in Triple Checks. But I'd like to see some of my own first time checks validated quickly. So maybe you would give me similar amount of your TC jobs and queue my double checks instead? These exponents were done on two new Skylake machines before Intel firmware update. Both machines already had one bad LL during that time: 70443673 70468133 70282367 70241827 70272173 70212341 332301763 |
[QUOTE=airsquirrels;441821]I just switched a big group of GPUs over from TF work to LLDC, so I have a handful of mismatches as I weed out the underperformers. Anyone for some triple checks
DoubleCheck=[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=58980557&full=1"]58980557[/URL],72,1 DoubleCheck=[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=58980457&exp_hi=&full=1"]58980457[/URL],72,1 DoubleCheck=[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=58978061&exp_hi=&full=1"]58978061[/URL],72,1[/QUOTE] All three of your results were bad. [QUOTE=airsquirrels;441821] Looks like Madpoo is already on these two [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=59083813&exp_hi=&full=1"]59083813[/URL] [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=57989489&exp_hi=&full=1"]57989489[/URL][/QUOTE] Those were both verified good (by Madpoo). |
Since MadPoo is doing so much work, there are many exponents from this thread where he got a mismatch that is outside the ideal range for AirSquirrels' AMD GPUs. It's probably most efficient if we leave the other TCs to MadPoo (I should have thought about that before I posted the list where I needed a TC). If anyone wants to TC MadPoo, here is the current list:
DoubleCheck=50060831,73,1 DoubleCheck=50180477,73,1 DoubleCheck=50312729,73,1 DoubleCheck=50399549,73,1 DoubleCheck=50404819,73,1 DoubleCheck=50485727,73,1 DoubleCheck=50500493,73,1 DoubleCheck=50725429,73,1 DoubleCheck=50818837,73,1 DoubleCheck=50836231,73,1 DoubleCheck=50856731,73,1 DoubleCheck=52356599,73,1 DoubleCheck=52594121,73,1 DoubleCheck=52708763,73,1 DoubleCheck=52823003,73,1 DoubleCheck=52825231,73,1 DoubleCheck=52870133,73,1 DoubleCheck=52941061,73,1 DoubleCheck=53004233,73,1 DoubleCheck=53146861,73,1 DoubleCheck=53320051,73,1 DoubleCheck=53401553,73,1 DoubleCheck=53401583,73,1 DoubleCheck=53418059,73,1 DoubleCheck=53418073,73,1 DoubleCheck=53692733,73,1 DoubleCheck=53740301,73,1 DoubleCheck=53771789,73,1 DoubleCheck=53808919,73,1 DoubleCheck=53809331,73,1 DoubleCheck=53816729,73,1 DoubleCheck=53829631,73,1 DoubleCheck=54025849,73,1 DoubleCheck=54067477,73,1 DoubleCheck=54068747,73,1 DoubleCheck=54072163,73,1 DoubleCheck=54072253,73,1 DoubleCheck=54072643,73,1 DoubleCheck=54141611,73,1 DoubleCheck=54363629,73,1 DoubleCheck=54412313,73,1 DoubleCheck=54412541,73,1 DoubleCheck=54468251,73,1 DoubleCheck=54649009,73,1 DoubleCheck=54662459,73,1 DoubleCheck=54669541,73,1 DoubleCheck=55125053,73,1 DoubleCheck=61947623,74,1 DoubleCheck=62092003,74,1 DoubleCheck=62328697,74,1 DoubleCheck=62409043,74,1 DoubleCheck=62426713,74,1 DoubleCheck=62472979,74,1 DoubleCheck=62604559,74,1 DoubleCheck=62664593,74,1 DoubleCheck=62813917,74,1 DoubleCheck=62903677,74,1 DoubleCheck=62917957,74,1 DoubleCheck=62933617,74,1 DoubleCheck=63213977,74,1 DoubleCheck=63233917,74,1 DoubleCheck=63306389,74,1 DoubleCheck=63377273,74,1 DoubleCheck=63433957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63706957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63716957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63792917,74,1 DoubleCheck=63836893,74,1 DoubleCheck=63965269,74,1 DoubleCheck=66357407,74,1 DoubleCheck=66407683,74,1 DoubleCheck=66703957,74,1 DoubleCheck=67080833,74,1 DoubleCheck=67623947,74,1 DoubleCheck=68099063,74,1 DoubleCheck=69203977,74,1 DoubleCheck=69912917,74,1 |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;442621]If anyone wants to TC MadPoo, here is the current list:
[/QUOTE] I take all <53M. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;442621]If anyone wants to TC MadPoo, here is the current list:
[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure MadPoo has never gotten a legitimate bad result. He did seemingly get a few earlier but those turned out to be caused by an obscure rare zeroing bug that George fixed. So I'd consider those TCs to be low priority, we already have a practically guaranteed valid residue for those exponents. Personally I have 163 triple checks pending, some assigned, some not (plus another 54 old TCs already verified), but it's not a priority because I smugly assume all my results are good. Cloud servers use ECC memory after all, and no doubt the same is true of Madpoo's machines. Besides, Amazon and Google and Microsoft would suffer a PR debacle if computation errors wrecked their corporate clients' expensive modeling and simulations, where a lot more is at stake than just hobbyist math. So I assume my results are good because their reputation is riding on it. Instead of reducing the number of triple checks left to be done, I'm busy creating more of them. :grin: |
I've never had a bad result either. Everything eventually needs a successful DC at some point.
I do agree these are lower priority, but MadPoo and AirSquirrels are trying to do all the TC+ work for fun, and this is a way to help if anyone wants to. |
[QUOTE=GP2;442625]I'm pretty sure MadPoo has never gotten a legitimate bad result. He did seemingly get a few earlier but those turned out to be caused by an obscure rare zeroing bug that George fixed. So I'd consider those TCs to be low priority, we already have a practically guaranteed valid residue for those exponents.
Personally I have 163 triple checks pending, some assigned, some not (plus another 54 old TCs already verified), but it's not a priority because I smugly assume all my results are good. Cloud servers use ECC memory after all, and no doubt the same is true of Madpoo's machines. Besides, Amazon and Google and Microsoft would suffer a PR debacle if computation errors wrecked their corporate clients' expensive modeling and simulations, where a lot more is at stake than just hobbyist math. So I assume my results are good because their reputation is riding on it. Instead of reducing the number of triple checks left to be done, I'm busy creating more of them. :grin:[/QUOTE] I also go off the assumption that my results are always correct. Yeah, ECC and running in a nice air-conditioned datacenter floor are enormously beneficial. So far, knock on wood, the only mismatches were as you mentioned, with a little bug that only came up if the shift count was smaller than the exponent or something like that. George gave me the okay to remove those bad results. :smile: Right now I have a grand total of 333 unassigned mismatches out there (510 total, including the assigned stuff). I've been busy apparently. I was doing a lot of these strategic double-checks on the side before I realized it would be good to have other people involved. By way of reminder, when I look at the history of machines to see if they're "good" or "bad", I look at a few different things...[LIST=1][*]Their counts of confirmed good/bad results[*]If they have any unresolved mismatches, is the other computer "awesome" (very few or no bad results, and a lot of good ones)? If the other one is awesome, then this result is [I]probably[/I] bad, so I add a tick-mark to the "bad" count.[*]I run reports of CPUs over different time periods... total, or an annual count, or even by year and month. If I'm looking at the year+month counts, some systems don't have a lot of history at all so I've found it helpful to also look at that machine's total counts, or see if it trended bad/good in recent months. I'm doing that manually currently... haven't worked out a good system to automate that, but I haven't really focused on that yet.[/LIST] In summary, if you have a history of producing good results, then I don't personally consider it an urgent thing to get any mismatches resolved anytime soon, because I probably already consider your result to be correct. I'm somewhat generous right now in what I consider an "awesome" system... like when looking at the total history over the life of a CPU or just it's annual count, if it has zero bad and 10+ good, then any mismatches are judged in it's favor. When looking at year+month totals, it only takes 6 good results in a month. Not many single CPUs pump out 6+ good results monthly, but enough do that it's helpful. I've tweaked those #'s here and there to see if it shakes anything out, but when I've manually eyeballed the good/bad counts of mismatching residues, most of the time it's a case where neither machine has much track record... they might only have a handful of total tests and there's really no good way to guess the winner. That's why I figured I might as well see if I can clear out all of the mismatches in the backlog. :smile: |
5 of 6 match...
I believe I reported the Mismatch earlier and I believe it is already in progress by Mark
[CODE] 65789629 C - Verified 2016-09-15 23:57 30.1 EB2578877A8D36__ 159.5855 65789653 C - Verified 2016-09-16 05:19 30.3 327BE646390EAE__ 159.5856 67173527 C - Verified 2016-09-16 18:00 30.8 869862553933EF__ 169.7997 *** 67728877 C - Mismatch 2016-09-13 18:27 27.8 1045546FEBD96B__ 171.2036 67852633 C - Verified 2016-09-16 15:25 30.6 B853BC50507995__ 171.5164 67852639 C - Verified 2016-09-11 09:38 25.4 FAA9A6FDB0E8C3__ 171.5164 [/CODE] |
strategic double-checks
Here's a new list of strategic double-check candidates
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo 38297671 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38297671,71,1 40326467 9 3 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=40326467,72,1 41187761 9 3 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=41187761,72,1 42711077 7 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42711077,72,1 42985729 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=42985729,72,1 44451599 3 1 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=44451599,72,1 50855969 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=50855969,73,1 50958491 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=50958491,73,1 52400167 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=52400167,73,1 53027263 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=53027263,73,1 53242361 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=53242361,73,1 53768821 3 1 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=53768821,73,1 56851807 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=56851807,73,1 56857753 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=56857753,73,1 56857859 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=56857859,73,1 61407433 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=61407433,74,1 64177651 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=64177651,74,1 64336931 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=64336931,74,1 64351387 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=64351387,74,1 64398407 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=64398407,74,1 65021563 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=65021563,74,1 65022787 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=65022787,74,1 65022829 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=65022829,74,1 65022913 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=65022913,74,1 65070311 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65070311,74,1 65070331 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65070331,74,1 65070547 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65070547,74,1 65070689 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65070689,74,1 65070727 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65070727,75,1 65434511 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65434511,74,1 65434597 4 1 7 0 7 0 DoubleCheck=65434597,74,1 66437677 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=66437677,74,1 66437729 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=66437729,74,1 66437773 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=66437773,74,1 66437809 3 1 7 1 7 1 DoubleCheck=66437809,74,1 66455297 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=66455297,74,1 66823261 13 4 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=66823261,75,1 67943873 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=67943873,74,1 68002423 13 4 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=68002423,74,1 68565313 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=68565313,75,1 68685511 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=68685511,74,1 68841527 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=68841527,74,1 68912377 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=68912377,74,1 69021133 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=69021133,74,1 69414973 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=69414973,74,1 69614147 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=69614147,74,1 69636493 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=69636493,74,1 70351027 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=70351027,74,1 70402373 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=70402373,74,1 70402417 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=70402417,74,1 70663909 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=70663909,74,1 71227873 11 3 6 5 7 4 DoubleCheck=71227873,75,1 71274391 3 1 13 1 13 1 DoubleCheck=71274391,75,1 71861917 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=71861917,75,1 71862187 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=71862187,75,1 71862229 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=71862229,75,1 72029689 3 1 2 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=72029689,75,1 72054019 3 1 14 3 16 1 DoubleCheck=72054019,75,1 72162301 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72162301,75,1 72237013 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72237013,75,1 72486503 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72486503,75,1 72486509 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72486509,75,1 72638201 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72638201,75,1 72639043 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72639043,75,1 72639407 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=72639407,75,1 72832189 11 3 6 5 7 4 DoubleCheck=72832189,75,1 73135091 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73135091,75,1 73138057 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1 73139081 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73139081,75,1 73143079 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73143079,75,1 73146001 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146001,75,1 73146041 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146041,75,1 73146043 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146043,75,1 73146079 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146079,75,1 73146841 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146841,75,1 73146901 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73146901,75,1 73147051 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73147051,75,1 73148011 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73148011,75,1 73154539 7 1 2 3 2 3 DoubleCheck=73154539,75,1 73333049 3 0 6 0 3 3 DoubleCheck=73333049,75,1 73446011 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73446011,75,1 73469003 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73469003,75,1 73469057 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73469057,75,1 73477013 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73477013,75,1 73481381 3 1 2 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=73481381,75,1 73491073 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73491073,75,1 73499077 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73499077,75,1 73514201 3 0 6 0 3 3 DoubleCheck=73514201,75,1 73647019 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73647019,75,1 73648027 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73648027,75,1 73649033 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73649033,75,1 73649089 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73649089,75,1 73659077 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73659077,75,1 73692011 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73692011,75,1 73692041 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73692041,75,1 73692083 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73692083,75,1 73694801 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73694801,75,1 73697053 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73697053,75,1 73697069 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73697069,75,1 73698103 79 20 40 0 40 0 DoubleCheck=73698103,75,1 73755637 7 1 2 3 2 3 DoubleCheck=73755637,75,1 73888403 11 3 6 5 7 4 DoubleCheck=73888403,75,1 74262719 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74262719,75,1 74271289 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74271289,75,1 74332723 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74332723,75,1 74374409 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74374409,75,1 74396849 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74396849,75,1 74417531 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74417531,75,1 74683481 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=74683481,75,1 75089249 9 1 1 10 6 5 DoubleCheck=75089249,75,1 75256669 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1 75694397 13 3 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=75694397,75,1 75743077 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75743077,75,1 75744649 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75744649,75,1 75744677 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=75744677,75,1 75818773 4 1 9 0 8 1 DoubleCheck=75818773,75,1 75875957 3 0 6 0 3 3 DoubleCheck=75875957,75,1 75896173 6 1 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=75896173,75,1 76134293 13 3 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=76134293,75,1 76176511 11 3 6 5 7 4 DoubleCheck=76176511,75,1 76513189 5 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=76513189,75,1 79395941 11 3 6 5 7 4 DoubleCheck=79395941,75,1 [/CODE] |
Helpful triple-checking
Since there seemed to be some interest in triple-checking with other people here, I came up with this next group.
It's a list of exponents that need a triple-check and there's not enough history on either system to "guess" the correct residue. Doing a verifying 3rd check can help push the matching system into the "good" category (10 or more good results, zero bad) and/or bump the losing system into the "probably bad" category that lets us zoom in on them. My approach to triple-checking has just been methodical... tackle them all. But if you want a more targeted approach for fun, here they are. Just be careful if you work on any that you didn't do one of the original tests. :smile: [CODE]exponent worktodo 42905069 DoubleCheck=42905069,72,1 42917263 DoubleCheck=42917263,72,1 42929317 DoubleCheck=42929317,72,1 42958469 DoubleCheck=42958469,72,1 42966571 DoubleCheck=42966571,72,1 42985493 DoubleCheck=42985493,72,1 42994879 DoubleCheck=42994879,72,1 43000721 DoubleCheck=43000721,72,1 43021193 DoubleCheck=43021193,72,1 43029247 DoubleCheck=43029247,72,1 43029307 DoubleCheck=43029307,72,1 43030081 DoubleCheck=43030081,72,1 43030921 DoubleCheck=43030921,72,1 43045459 DoubleCheck=43045459,72,1 43065563 DoubleCheck=43065563,72,1 43110401 DoubleCheck=43110401,72,1 43273631 DoubleCheck=43273631,72,1 43287953 DoubleCheck=43287953,72,1 43292497 DoubleCheck=43292497,72,1 43297061 DoubleCheck=43297061,72,1 43312639 DoubleCheck=43312639,72,1 43384801 DoubleCheck=43384801,72,1 43414927 DoubleCheck=43414927,72,1 43423663 DoubleCheck=43423663,72,1 43727513 DoubleCheck=43727513,72,1 43775617 DoubleCheck=43775617,72,1 43803289 DoubleCheck=43803289,72,1 43832177 DoubleCheck=43832177,72,1 43906003 DoubleCheck=43906003,72,1 43963379 DoubleCheck=43963379,72,1 44022317 DoubleCheck=44022317,72,1 44034379 DoubleCheck=44034379,72,1 44093321 DoubleCheck=44093321,72,1 44113039 DoubleCheck=44113039,72,1 44113099 DoubleCheck=44113099,72,1 44166319 DoubleCheck=44166319,72,1 44177209 DoubleCheck=44177209,72,1 44270489 DoubleCheck=44270489,72,1 44372983 DoubleCheck=44372983,72,1 44483221 DoubleCheck=44483221,72,1 44486753 DoubleCheck=44486753,72,1 44596351 DoubleCheck=44596351,72,1 44624287 DoubleCheck=44624287,72,1 44636663 DoubleCheck=44636663,72,1 44644627 DoubleCheck=44644627,72,1 44677049 DoubleCheck=44677049,72,1 44706679 DoubleCheck=44706679,72,1 44720113 DoubleCheck=44720113,72,1 44775023 DoubleCheck=44775023,72,1 44775091 DoubleCheck=44775091,72,1 45055537 DoubleCheck=45055537,72,1 45156557 DoubleCheck=45156557,72,1 45160733 DoubleCheck=45160733,72,1 45368117 DoubleCheck=45368117,72,1 45375179 DoubleCheck=45375179,72,1 45378871 DoubleCheck=45378871,72,1 45534913 DoubleCheck=45534913,72,1 47149033 DoubleCheck=47149033,72,1 49336333 DoubleCheck=49336333,72,1 49346161 DoubleCheck=49346161,72,1 49377131 DoubleCheck=49377131,72,1 49412849 DoubleCheck=49412849,72,1 49417847 DoubleCheck=49417847,72,1 49427243 DoubleCheck=49427243,72,1 49487027 DoubleCheck=49487027,72,1 49536199 DoubleCheck=49536199,72,1 49546039 DoubleCheck=49546039,72,1 49552747 DoubleCheck=49552747,72,1 49584517 DoubleCheck=49584517,72,1 49591639 DoubleCheck=49591639,73,1 49618357 DoubleCheck=49618357,72,1 49666307 DoubleCheck=49666307,72,1 49725281 DoubleCheck=49725281,73,1 49808791 DoubleCheck=49808791,72,1 49837103 DoubleCheck=49837103,72,1 49888981 DoubleCheck=49888981,72,1 49900171 DoubleCheck=49900171,72,1 49947619 DoubleCheck=49947619,72,1 50000429 DoubleCheck=50000429,73,1 50028227 DoubleCheck=50028227,73,1 50030707 DoubleCheck=50030707,73,1 50059861 DoubleCheck=50059861,73,1 50066651 DoubleCheck=50066651,73,1 50073451 DoubleCheck=50073451,73,1 50214673 DoubleCheck=50214673,73,1 50219087 DoubleCheck=50219087,73,1 50290931 DoubleCheck=50290931,73,1 50292971 DoubleCheck=50292971,73,1 50308267 DoubleCheck=50308267,73,1 50316529 DoubleCheck=50316529,73,1 50317901 DoubleCheck=50317901,73,1 50368427 DoubleCheck=50368427,73,1 50436173 DoubleCheck=50436173,73,1 50456453 DoubleCheck=50456453,73,1 50457371 DoubleCheck=50457371,73,1 50478761 DoubleCheck=50478761,73,1 50506513 DoubleCheck=50506513,73,1 50509889 DoubleCheck=50509889,73,1 50516021 DoubleCheck=50516021,73,1 50539081 DoubleCheck=50539081,73,1 50552189 DoubleCheck=50552189,73,1 50557649 DoubleCheck=50557649,73,1 50581847 DoubleCheck=50581847,73,1 50592107 DoubleCheck=50592107,73,1 50647801 DoubleCheck=50647801,73,1 50658007 DoubleCheck=50658007,73,1 50663017 DoubleCheck=50663017,73,1 50668547 DoubleCheck=50668547,73,1 50672927 DoubleCheck=50672927,73,1 50734591 DoubleCheck=50734591,73,1 50743633 DoubleCheck=50743633,73,1 50744017 DoubleCheck=50744017,73,1 50745449 DoubleCheck=50745449,73,1 50793713 DoubleCheck=50793713,73,1 50797427 DoubleCheck=50797427,73,1 50828207 DoubleCheck=50828207,73,1 50843557 DoubleCheck=50843557,73,1 50867627 DoubleCheck=50867627,73,1 50883047 DoubleCheck=50883047,73,1 50884123 DoubleCheck=50884123,73,1 50902693 DoubleCheck=50902693,73,1 50921669 DoubleCheck=50921669,73,1 51032617 DoubleCheck=51032617,73,1 51035741 DoubleCheck=51035741,73,1 51044563 DoubleCheck=51044563,73,1 51057593 DoubleCheck=51057593,73,1 51064217 DoubleCheck=51064217,73,1 51081739 DoubleCheck=51081739,73,1 51172777 DoubleCheck=51172777,73,1 51186683 DoubleCheck=51186683,73,1 51235097 DoubleCheck=51235097,73,1 51246539 DoubleCheck=51246539,73,1 51266177 DoubleCheck=51266177,73,1 51467033 DoubleCheck=51467033,73,1 51556919 DoubleCheck=51556919,73,1 51578927 DoubleCheck=51578927,73,1 51669581 DoubleCheck=51669581,73,1 51681379 DoubleCheck=51681379,73,1 51779813 DoubleCheck=51779813,73,1 51815233 DoubleCheck=51815233,73,1 51815333 DoubleCheck=51815333,73,1 51822109 DoubleCheck=51822109,73,1 51832447 DoubleCheck=51832447,73,1 51866929 DoubleCheck=51866929,73,1 51884299 DoubleCheck=51884299,73,1 51888547 DoubleCheck=51888547,73,1 51891767 DoubleCheck=51891767,73,1 51904753 DoubleCheck=51904753,73,1 51938401 DoubleCheck=51938401,73,1 52035307 DoubleCheck=52035307,73,1 52042883 DoubleCheck=52042883,73,1 52065547 DoubleCheck=52065547,73,1 52139369 DoubleCheck=52139369,73,1 52216181 DoubleCheck=52216181,73,1 52224163 DoubleCheck=52224163,73,1 52316987 DoubleCheck=52316987,73,1 52339823 DoubleCheck=52339823,73,1 52339831 DoubleCheck=52339831,73,1 52339897 DoubleCheck=52339897,73,1 52447189 DoubleCheck=52447189,73,1 52504339 DoubleCheck=52504339,73,1 52510981 DoubleCheck=52510981,73,1 52593661 DoubleCheck=52593661,73,1 52643273 DoubleCheck=52643273,73,1 52696961 DoubleCheck=52696961,73,1 52719923 DoubleCheck=52719923,73,1 52845029 DoubleCheck=52845029,73,1 52852621 DoubleCheck=52852621,73,1 52864069 DoubleCheck=52864069,73,1 52903927 DoubleCheck=52903927,73,1 52970681 DoubleCheck=52970681,73,1 52974241 DoubleCheck=52974241,73,1 52981391 DoubleCheck=52981391,73,1 52998149 DoubleCheck=52998149,73,1 53029423 DoubleCheck=53029423,73,1 53032453 DoubleCheck=53032453,73,1 53060783 DoubleCheck=53060783,73,1 53068003 DoubleCheck=53068003,73,1 53117791 DoubleCheck=53117791,73,1 53212171 DoubleCheck=53212171,73,1 53243039 DoubleCheck=53243039,73,1 53381869 DoubleCheck=53381869,73,1 53531579 DoubleCheck=53531579,73,1 53553653 DoubleCheck=53553653,73,1 53915971 DoubleCheck=53915971,73,1 54091283 DoubleCheck=54091283,73,1 54149929 DoubleCheck=54149929,73,1 54169501 DoubleCheck=54169501,73,1 54247343 DoubleCheck=54247343,73,1 54259943 DoubleCheck=54259943,73,1 54295231 DoubleCheck=54295231,73,1 54394909 DoubleCheck=54394909,73,1 54408253 DoubleCheck=54408253,73,1 54543523 DoubleCheck=54543523,73,1 54675391 DoubleCheck=54675391,73,1 54677989 DoubleCheck=54677989,73,1 54691459 DoubleCheck=54691459,73,1 54757223 DoubleCheck=54757223,73,1 54853223 DoubleCheck=54853223,73,1 54998873 DoubleCheck=54998873,73,1 67909469 DoubleCheck=67909469,75,1 68675701 DoubleCheck=68675701,75,1 68686721 DoubleCheck=68686721,75,1 68906209 DoubleCheck=68906209,75,1 68927317 DoubleCheck=68927317,75,1 68951633 DoubleCheck=68951633,75,1 68959643 DoubleCheck=68959643,75,1 69355379 DoubleCheck=69355379,75,1 70011913 DoubleCheck=70011913,75,1 70011917 DoubleCheck=70011917,75,1 70011983 DoubleCheck=70011983,75,1 70012049 DoubleCheck=70012049,75,1 70012157 DoubleCheck=70012157,75,1 70027759 DoubleCheck=70027759,75,1 70622249 DoubleCheck=70622249,75,1 70962769 DoubleCheck=70962769,75,1 70981831 DoubleCheck=70981831,74,1 70989679 DoubleCheck=70989679,74,1 71031599 DoubleCheck=71031599,75,1 71599117 DoubleCheck=71599117,75,1 71605847 DoubleCheck=71605847,75,1 71644427 DoubleCheck=71644427,75,1 71900821 DoubleCheck=71900821,75,1 72045161 DoubleCheck=72045161,75,1 72067649 DoubleCheck=72067649,75,1 72208783 DoubleCheck=72208783,75,1 72230801 DoubleCheck=72230801,75,1 72292699 DoubleCheck=72292699,75,1 72313103 DoubleCheck=72313103,75,1 72356909 DoubleCheck=72356909,75,1 72414893 DoubleCheck=72414893,75,1 72429977 DoubleCheck=72429977,75,1 72572233 DoubleCheck=72572233,75,1 72637949 DoubleCheck=72637949,75,1 72839617 DoubleCheck=72839617,75,1 72841751 DoubleCheck=72841751,75,1 72985813 DoubleCheck=72985813,75,1 73143253 DoubleCheck=73143253,75,1[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;443181]Here's a new list of strategic double-check candidates
[/QUOTE] I took the ones below 60M. |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;443182][CODE]
67909469 DoubleCheck=67909469,75,1 68675701 DoubleCheck=68675701,75,1 [/CODE][/QUOTE] I took the next two (indicated in the quote box) |
[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;443202]I took the next two (indicated in the quote box)[/QUOTE]
Somehow I didn't realize MadPoo published two new lists, and the exponents I took were not from the same list as the one rudi took from. Oops. Anyway, I decided to take two from the double-check list as well as the previous two that I took from the triple-check list. [QUOTE][CODE] 61407433 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=61407433,74,1 64177651 3 1 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=64177651,74,1 [/CODE][/QUOTE] |
I would like to know if any of my machines are producing bad results.
Is there a way to find out? |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;443263]I would like to know if any of my machines are producing bad results.
Is there a way to find out?[/QUOTE] Go to [url]http://www.mersenne.org/cpus/[/url] and look at the reliability rating. A CPU with no verified results will get a reliability rating of 0.98, as that's the average. If you want to test your CPUs, configure your machines to run some double checks. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;443263]I would like to know if any of my machines are producing bad results.
Is there a way to find out?[/QUOTE] Your only verified bad result in the database is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=39761383&full=1"]M39761383[/URL]. The machine was "opt24". You can log into mersenne.org and look at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/results/[/url] to see your own results. Any mismatches are prominently flagged; if so, obviously it could be your result that's bad, or the other result, or both. To see them all you might need to increase the default of "100" in the "Show up to _____ results" field. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;443263]I would like to know if any of my machines are producing bad results.
Is there a way to find out?[/QUOTE] Run double checks. Add up the preponderance of results. Some of this may require triple checks to resolve. If you get verified results (matching someone else's results), and no proven bad results (two others match, but not you), you are in pretty good shape. If some machine not only mismatches, but is proven wrong, it is time to start testing and adjusting. [Cross posted with GP2. That information is informed, while my response is entirely general.] |
I'll do these it's all the triples below 44M from that list
[QUOTE=Madpoo;443182] [CODE]exponent worktodo 42905069 DoubleCheck=42905069,72,1 42917263 DoubleCheck=42917263,72,1 42929317 DoubleCheck=42929317,72,1 42958469 DoubleCheck=42958469,72,1 42966571 DoubleCheck=42966571,72,1 42985493 DoubleCheck=42985493,72,1 42994879 DoubleCheck=42994879,72,1 43000721 DoubleCheck=43000721,72,1 43021193 DoubleCheck=43021193,72,1 43029247 DoubleCheck=43029247,72,1 43029307 DoubleCheck=43029307,72,1 43030081 DoubleCheck=43030081,72,1 43030921 DoubleCheck=43030921,72,1 43045459 DoubleCheck=43045459,72,1 43065563 DoubleCheck=43065563,72,1 43110401 DoubleCheck=43110401,72,1 43273631 DoubleCheck=43273631,72,1 43287953 DoubleCheck=43287953,72,1 43292497 DoubleCheck=43292497,72,1 43297061 DoubleCheck=43297061,72,1 43312639 DoubleCheck=43312639,72,1 43384801 DoubleCheck=43384801,72,1 43414927 DoubleCheck=43414927,72,1 43423663 DoubleCheck=43423663,72,1 43727513 DoubleCheck=43727513,72,1 43775617 DoubleCheck=43775617,72,1 43803289 DoubleCheck=43803289,72,1 43832177 DoubleCheck=43832177,72,1 43906003 DoubleCheck=43906003,72,1 43963379 DoubleCheck=43963379,72,1[/CODE][/QUOTE] |
1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;443264]Go to [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/cpus/[/URL] and look at the reliability rating. A CPU with no verified results will get a reliability rating of 0.98, as that's the average.[/QUOTE]
Do not see reliability rating. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;443309]Do not see reliability rating.[/QUOTE]
Click on a computer name for computer properties. |
[QUOTE=GP2;443266]Your only verified bad result in the database is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=39761383&full=1"]M39761383[/URL]. The machine was "opt24".
You can log into mersenne.org and look at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/results/[/url] to see your own results. Any mismatches are prominently flagged; if so, obviously it could be your result that's bad, or the other result, or both. To see them all you might need to increase the default of "100" in the "Show up to _____ results" field.[/QUOTE] That's the only one I saw also (and was delighted to see that my result was the tie-breaker in that 3-way race, but then I tried to snag all the quad checks that I could). I see a total of 32 different systems from him that had returned an LL result at some point or another. That particular system with the bad result has 160 good (one is "assumed" good based on the other system being sketchier), and 24 still unknown. |
[QUOTE=GP2;443266]Your only verified bad result in the database is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=39761383&full=1"]M39761383[/URL]. The machine was "opt24".
[/QUOTE] I checked the results.txt for that exponent but there were no special case messages. Some exponents get this message [QUOTE] Trying 1000 iterations for exponent 37059551 using 1920K FFT. If average roundoff error is above 0.24245, then a larger FFT will be used. Final average roundoff error is 0.22443, using 1920K FFT for exponent 37059551.[/QUOTE] Thanks everyone for the tips on checking machine stability. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;443445]I checked the results.txt for that exponent but there were no special case messages.[/QUOTE]
That's because it was not known at the time that the result was wrong. If you look at the report for [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=39761383&full=1"]M39761383[/URL], you can see that you checked in your result on 2016-01-21, and it was not until Madpoo checked in his quadruple-check result on 2016-02-22 that it was known that your result was wrong. However, if you log in to mersenne.org and look at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/results/[/url] (not the results.txt file on your disk), then it should flag any mismatches or bad results. Again, to see all your old results you might need to increase the default of "100" in the "Show up to _____ results" field. |
Everything below 50M from the triple check list has been assigned.
|
It looks like these all finished within the last few days while I was at work. I matched you on all of them.
[QUOTE=endless mike;442563]I grabbed the rest of the list. You (among others) have helped whittle down my list of exponents needing a triple check, so I can help with some of yours.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mark Rose;442429]I have 25 exponents that need a triple check, if anyone is interested: DoubleCheck=61756243,74,1 DoubleCheck=61841803,74,1 DoubleCheck=61843973,74,1 DoubleCheck=61844329,74,1 DoubleCheck=61846193,74,1 DoubleCheck=61995611,74,1 DoubleCheck=62012707,74,1 DoubleCheck=62796527,74,1 DoubleCheck=63773497,74,1 DoubleCheck=64071221,74,1 DoubleCheck=67876027,74,1 DoubleCheck=68804809,74,1 DoubleCheck=70869973,75,1 DoubleCheck=71069681,75,1 DoubleCheck=71642387,75,1 DoubleCheck=76417333,75,1 DoubleCheck=77133689,75,1[/QUOTE] |
[QUOTE=endless mike;443625]It looks like these all finished within the last few days while I was at work. I matched you on all of them.[/QUOTE]
Thank you! Also thanks to ATH! |
Here is the list of unassigned Double Checks from this thread:
DoubleCheck=50454631,73,1 DoubleCheck=55299799,73,1 DoubleCheck=55435829,73,1 DoubleCheck=55516297,73,1 DoubleCheck=55551479,73,1 DoubleCheck=55555963,73,1 DoubleCheck=55623727,73,1 DoubleCheck=55635631,73,1 DoubleCheck=55875949,73,1 DoubleCheck=55984871,73,1 DoubleCheck=56020733,73,1 DoubleCheck=56020819,73,1 DoubleCheck=56114419,73,1 DoubleCheck=56131703,73,1 DoubleCheck=56385377,73,1 DoubleCheck=56443847,73,1 DoubleCheck=56458279,73,1 DoubleCheck=56702339,73,1 DoubleCheck=56715583,73,1 DoubleCheck=56754437,73,1 DoubleCheck=56801161,73,1 DoubleCheck=56826013,73,1 DoubleCheck=56958299,73,1 DoubleCheck=57014579,73,1 DoubleCheck=57143551,73,1 DoubleCheck=57484201,73,1 DoubleCheck=57652883,73,1 DoubleCheck=57664729,73,1 DoubleCheck=57670841,73,1 DoubleCheck=57792487,73,1 DoubleCheck=58374847,73,1 DoubleCheck=58773223,73,1 DoubleCheck=58974449,73,1 DoubleCheck=65021563,75,1 DoubleCheck=65022787,75,1 DoubleCheck=65022829,75,1 DoubleCheck=65022913,75,1 DoubleCheck=65070311,75,1 DoubleCheck=65070547,75,1 DoubleCheck=65070689,75,1 DoubleCheck=65070727,75,1 DoubleCheck=65095861,74,1 DoubleCheck=65434511,75,1 DoubleCheck=65434597,75,1 DoubleCheck=66437677,75,1 DoubleCheck=66437729,75,1 DoubleCheck=66437773,75,1 DoubleCheck=66437809,75,1 DoubleCheck=66455297,75,1 DoubleCheck=66823261,75,1 DoubleCheck=67943873,74,1 DoubleCheck=67943873,75,1 DoubleCheck=68002423,75,1 DoubleCheck=68565313,75,1 DoubleCheck=68685511,75,1 DoubleCheck=68841527,75,1 DoubleCheck=68912377,75,1 DoubleCheck=69021133,75,1 DoubleCheck=69332441,74,1 DoubleCheck=69414973,75,1 DoubleCheck=69614147,75,1 DoubleCheck=69636493,75,1 DoubleCheck=70351027,75,1 DoubleCheck=70402373,75,1 DoubleCheck=70402417,75,1 DoubleCheck=70663909,75,1 DoubleCheck=71227873,75,1 DoubleCheck=71274391,75,1 DoubleCheck=71861917,75,1 DoubleCheck=72029689,75,1 DoubleCheck=72054019,75,1 DoubleCheck=72116249,75,1 DoubleCheck=72162301,75,1 DoubleCheck=72237013,75,1 DoubleCheck=72486503,75,1 DoubleCheck=72486509,75,1 DoubleCheck=72638201,75,1 DoubleCheck=72639043,75,1 DoubleCheck=72639407,75,1 DoubleCheck=72832189,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000217,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000237,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000241,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000267,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000273,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000289,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000471,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000549,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000561,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000583,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000607,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000619,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000639,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000687,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000883,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000913,75,1 DoubleCheck=73000927,75,1 DoubleCheck=73001119,75,1 DoubleCheck=73003673,75,1 DoubleCheck=73116257,75,1 DoubleCheck=73116607,75,1 DoubleCheck=73135091,75,1 DoubleCheck=73138057,75,1 DoubleCheck=73139081,75,1 DoubleCheck=73143079,75,1 DoubleCheck=73143311,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146001,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146041,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146043,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146079,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146841,75,1 DoubleCheck=73146901,75,1 DoubleCheck=73147051,75,1 DoubleCheck=73148011,75,1 DoubleCheck=73333049,75,1 DoubleCheck=73385537,75,1 DoubleCheck=73385681,75,1 DoubleCheck=73446011,75,1 DoubleCheck=73469003,75,1 DoubleCheck=73469057,75,1 DoubleCheck=73477013,75,1 DoubleCheck=73481381,75,1 DoubleCheck=73491073,75,1 DoubleCheck=73499077,75,1 DoubleCheck=73514201,75,1 DoubleCheck=73566947,75,1 DoubleCheck=73647019,75,1 DoubleCheck=73648027,75,1 DoubleCheck=73649033,75,1 DoubleCheck=73649089,75,1 DoubleCheck=73659077,75,1 DoubleCheck=73692011,75,1 DoubleCheck=73692041,75,1 DoubleCheck=73692083,75,1 DoubleCheck=73694801,75,1 DoubleCheck=73697053,75,1 DoubleCheck=73697069,75,1 DoubleCheck=73698103,75,1 DoubleCheck=73755637,75,1 DoubleCheck=73888403,75,1 DoubleCheck=74064449,75,1 DoubleCheck=74271289,75,1 DoubleCheck=74396849,75,1 DoubleCheck=74417531,75,1 DoubleCheck=74683481,75,1 DoubleCheck=74953217,75,1 DoubleCheck=75015701,75,1 DoubleCheck=75015803,75,1 DoubleCheck=75089249,75,1 DoubleCheck=75161209,75,1 DoubleCheck=75256669,75,1 DoubleCheck=75322987,75,1 DoubleCheck=75477893,75,1 DoubleCheck=75694397,75,1 DoubleCheck=75818773,75,1 DoubleCheck=75875957,75,1 DoubleCheck=76006829,75,1 DoubleCheck=76077787,75,1 DoubleCheck=76134293,75,1 DoubleCheck=76141001,75,1 DoubleCheck=76176511,75,1 DoubleCheck=76193773,75,1 DoubleCheck=77187083,75,1 DoubleCheck=77187181,75,1 DoubleCheck=77888123,75,1 DoubleCheck=79395941,75,1 And three suspect results that will be assigned for a new first-time LL: DoubleCheck=71862187,75,1 DoubleCheck=71862229,75,1 DoubleCheck=73154539,75,1 |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;443630]Here is the list of unassigned Double Checks from this thread:
DoubleCheck=50454631,73,1[/QUOTE] I guess this one is correct. I've checked many exponents from "Jan van Niekerk", posted firstly here [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=413651&highlight=50454631#post413651[/url] |
[QUOTE=rudi_m;443631]I guess this one is correct. I've checked many exponents from "Jan van Niekerk", posted firstly here
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=413651&highlight=50454631#post413651[/url][/QUOTE] I was wondering why it was no longer reserved by you :) |
From the triple check listed Madpoo posted I took
[CODE]50000429 DoubleCheck=50000429,73,1 50028227 DoubleCheck=50028227,73,1 50030707 DoubleCheck=50030707,73,1 50059861 DoubleCheck=50059861,73,1 50066651 DoubleCheck=50066651,73,1 50073451 DoubleCheck=50073451,73,1 50214673 DoubleCheck=50214673,73,1 50219087 DoubleCheck=50219087,73,1 50290931 DoubleCheck=50290931,73,1 50292971 DoubleCheck=50292971,73,1 50308267 DoubleCheck=50308267,73,1 50316529 DoubleCheck=50316529,73,1 50317901 DoubleCheck=50317901,73,1 50368427 DoubleCheck=50368427,73,1 50436173 DoubleCheck=50436173,73,1 50456453 DoubleCheck=50456453,73,1 50457371 DoubleCheck=50457371,73,1 50478761 DoubleCheck=50478761,73,1 50506513 DoubleCheck=50506513,73,1 50509889 DoubleCheck=50509889,73,1 50516021 DoubleCheck=50516021,73,1 50539081 DoubleCheck=50539081,73,1 50552189 DoubleCheck=50552189,73,1 50557649 DoubleCheck=50557649,73,1 50581847 DoubleCheck=50581847,73,1 50592107 DoubleCheck=50592107,73,1 50647801 DoubleCheck=50647801,73,1 50658007 DoubleCheck=50658007,73,1 50663017 DoubleCheck=50663017,73,1 50668547 DoubleCheck=50668547,73,1 50672927 DoubleCheck=50672927,73,1 50734591 DoubleCheck=50734591,73,1 50743633 DoubleCheck=50743633,73,1 50744017 DoubleCheck=50744017,73,1 50745449 DoubleCheck=50745449,73,1 50793713 DoubleCheck=50793713,73,1 50797427 DoubleCheck=50797427,73,1 50828207 DoubleCheck=50828207,73,1 50843557 DoubleCheck=50843557,73,1 50867627 DoubleCheck=50867627,73,1 50883047 DoubleCheck=50883047,73,1 50884123 DoubleCheck=50884123,73,1 50902693 DoubleCheck=50902693,73,1 50921669 DoubleCheck=50921669,73,1 51032617 DoubleCheck=51032617,73,1 51035741 DoubleCheck=51035741,73,1 51044563 DoubleCheck=51044563,73,1 51057593 DoubleCheck=51057593,73,1 51064217 DoubleCheck=51064217,73,1 51081739 DoubleCheck=51081739,73,1 51172777 DoubleCheck=51172777,73,1 51186683 DoubleCheck=51186683,73,1[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=rudi_m;443631]I guess this one is correct. I've checked many exponents from "Jan van Niekerk", posted firstly here
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=413651&highlight=50454631#post413651[/url][/QUOTE] When datamining for juicy double-check targets, you look at some user+computer names and it seems like a promising vein because there is a pretty high ratio of bad results or mismatches. So you start double-checking all the other exponents returned by that user+computer, only to find them all turning out good, one after another... Often the explanation is simple. LL results that have an associated error code are more likely to be bad (to be more precise, the ones with asymmetric error codes), so those got double-checked right away, while the results without an error code only get checked considerably later. So the statistics for a given user+computer can get front-loaded with bad results, making it look like a very promising vein to mine... and then you start double-checking the normal non-error-code results and they're all good.... Of course, for some other user+computer names, it turns out that they mostly churned out errors regardless of whether the error code got set or not... and then you've found the motherlode. |
[QUOTE=GP2;443641]When datamining for juicy double-check targets, you look at some user+computer names and it seems like a promising vein because there is a pretty high ratio of bad results or mismatches. So you start double-checking all the other exponents returned by that user+computer, only to find them all turning out good, one after another...
Often the explanation is simple. LL results that have an associated error code are more likely to be bad (to be more precise, the ones with asymmetric error codes), so those got double-checked right away, while the results without an error code only get checked considerably later. So the statistics for a given user+computer can get front-loaded with bad results, making it look like a very promising vein to mine... and then you start double-checking the normal non-error-code results and they're all good.... Of course, for some other user+computer names, it turns out that they mostly churned out errors regardless of whether the error code got set or not... and then you've found the motherlode.[/QUOTE] Sometimes that is indeed the case, although I've noticed that for some really bad systems, the bad stuff they check in tend to be "error free" as far as they know. More often what happens is that sometimes I don't have enough info on a system to break it down into results by year or month (they may only turn in a few per year) so instead I wind up looking at their total results over their lifespan. In those cases, there may in fact be only a small period of time over a few scattered months or a year where it spat out bad results, but up until then it was doing okay. I find that I have the strongest predictability when a machine spits out a lot of results each month. That simply provides more data to go on and it's kind of simple to see how it trends good/bad over time. For the low output systems, the full picture only reveals itself as more double-checks are done, and by the time we know if they were trending good or bad, we may have finished all of their double-checks. :smile: By way of example, consider a computer that ran for 2 years and turned in 10 first time checks. Maybe one of them was found bad and the rest were unknown. Speculatively, I may have picked the lowest unchecked exponent of theirs and did another test, finding it bad as well. Now I have 2 of them and I start to think "aha!" and distribute their other work to the group. But then we start getting more and more good results turning up. Once they're all done, I could look back and see that the 2 bad results were actually the last two it turned in over that 2 year span, and the other 8 were done earlier and the machine must have been stable. But that 2 year span could in fact span 3 calendar years, and no one month in there had more than a single result, so there really is no trend to work from besides a hunch. That's actually far more common that you might imagine... lots of folks just run (or ran) Prime95 for fun on a low end machine...it wasn't fast, but it ran all the time and turned in a decent amount of work before going off to silicon heaven. We only find out years down the road that it had some bad times... That's why I'm hopeful the new assignment rules will help out. Assigning periodic double-checks by default to make sure systems are on the straight and narrow should help us find out about these things further in advance. Now that AirSquirrels and I have the end of the triple-checking backlog in sight, and the low hanging fruit of the strategic double-checking has been spotted, I may turn my attention to doing those validation runs again of systems that have never had a single result double-checked. I'm sure most of them will turn out okay (should be 95%, if the statistics hold true) but I may also find new bad machines in the process. My methodology on that is pretty simple... just find machines without any double-checks being done on their work and pick their lowest exponent to DC. Oh, and only for systems with more than X amount of unverified work. Doesn't make much sense to go after systems with only 1 or 2 results because by the time you've spotted a trend, it's all over. LOL I guess I could pick their *last* or *first* result rather than the lowest exponent... I just do the smallest one because it'll test quicker. :smile: Their last result tends to be larger and I want to cover more ground. |
[QUOTE=Madpoo;443703] I just do the smallest one because it'll test quicker. :smile: Their last result tends to be larger and I want to cover more ground.[/QUOTE]
That's understandable, but larger exponents may have higher probability of having bad results. Maybe we should go for something better like "validating at least 100 GHz-Days of each machines past calculations". Also we could try to check exponents first which were checked during the hot times of the year :smile: Is there any statistics about the bad-LL distribution other the months? |
[QUOTE=rudi_m;443707]...
Also we could try to check exponents first which were checked during the hot times of the year :smile: Is there any statistics about the bad-LL distribution other the months?[/QUOTE]You would have to know where the machines are to be able to do that. Jacob |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;441658]I have a few low exponents that need a triple, if anyone is interested:
DoubleCheck=40171801,72,1 DoubleCheck=48405233,72,1 DoubleCheck=48603307,72,1[/QUOTE] These are done and matched your results. I should mention the machine doing these checks had its first "C - Bad" result a couple of days ago. |
[QUOTE=bgbeuning;444047]These are done and matched your results.
I should mention the machine doing these checks had its first "C - Bad" result a couple of days ago.[/QUOTE] Thanks! |
My DC of 38830153 is likely wrong. I ran it with CUDALucas with what likely turns out to be a too small FFT size. I'll let someone else TC it.
|
[QUOTE=frmky;444076]My DC of 38830153 is likely wrong. I ran it with CUDALucas with what likely turns out to be a too small FFT size. I'll let someone else TC it.[/QUOTE]
Queued. Should have a result in a couple of days. |
[QUOTE=frmky;444076]I ran it with CUDALucas with what likely turns out to be a too small FFT size.[/QUOTE]
mprime is usually pretty good at choosing the appropriate FFT size, does CUDALucas require carefully manually setting this parameter? |
I grabbed some more from the triple check list. They should be done by the first week of November.
[CODE]51235097 DoubleCheck=51235097,73,1 51246539 DoubleCheck=51246539,73,1 51266177 DoubleCheck=51266177,73,1 51467033 DoubleCheck=51467033,73,1 51556919 DoubleCheck=51556919,73,1 51578927 DoubleCheck=51578927,73,1 51669581 DoubleCheck=51669581,73,1 51681379 DoubleCheck=51681379,73,1 51779813 DoubleCheck=51779813,73,1 51815233 DoubleCheck=51815233,73,1 51815333 DoubleCheck=51815333,73,1 51822109 DoubleCheck=51822109,73,1 51832447 DoubleCheck=51832447,73,1 51866929 DoubleCheck=51866929,73,1 51884299 DoubleCheck=51884299,73,1 51888547 DoubleCheck=51888547,73,1 51891767 DoubleCheck=51891767,73,1 51904753 DoubleCheck=51904753,73,1 51938401 DoubleCheck=51938401,73,1 52035307 DoubleCheck=52035307,73,1 52042883 DoubleCheck=52042883,73,1 52065547 DoubleCheck=52065547,73,1 52139369 DoubleCheck=52139369,73,1 52216181 DoubleCheck=52216181,73,1 52224163 DoubleCheck=52224163,73,1 52316987 DoubleCheck=52316987,73,1 52339823 DoubleCheck=52339823,73,1 52339831 DoubleCheck=52339831,73,1 52339897 DoubleCheck=52339897,73,1 52447189 DoubleCheck=52447189,73,1 52504339 DoubleCheck=52504339,73,1 52510981 DoubleCheck=52510981,73,1 52593661 DoubleCheck=52593661,73,1 52643273 DoubleCheck=52643273,73,1 52696961 DoubleCheck=52696961,73,1 52719923 DoubleCheck=52719923,73,1 52845029 DoubleCheck=52845029,73,1 52852621 DoubleCheck=52852621,73,1 52864069 DoubleCheck=52864069,73,1 52903927 DoubleCheck=52903927,73,1 52970681 DoubleCheck=52970681,73,1 52974241 DoubleCheck=52974241,73,1 52981391 DoubleCheck=52981391,73,1 52998149 DoubleCheck=52998149,73,1 53029423 DoubleCheck=53029423,73,1 53032453 DoubleCheck=53032453,73,1 53060783 DoubleCheck=53060783,73,1 53068003 DoubleCheck=53068003,73,1 53117791 DoubleCheck=53117791,73,1 53212171 DoubleCheck=53212171,73,1 53243039 DoubleCheck=53243039,73,1 53381869 DoubleCheck=53381869,73,1 53531579 DoubleCheck=53531579,73,1 53553653 DoubleCheck=53553653,73,1 53915971 DoubleCheck=53915971,73,1 54091283 DoubleCheck=54091283,73,1 54149929 DoubleCheck=54149929,73,1 54169501 DoubleCheck=54169501,73,1 54247343 DoubleCheck=54247343,73,1 54259943 DoubleCheck=54259943,73,1 54295231 DoubleCheck=54295231,73,1 54394909 DoubleCheck=54394909,73,1 54408253 DoubleCheck=54408253,73,1 54543523 DoubleCheck=54543523,73,1 54675391 DoubleCheck=54675391,73,1 54677989 DoubleCheck=54677989,73,1 54691459 DoubleCheck=54691459,73,1 54757223 DoubleCheck=54757223,73,1 [/CODE] |
For those playing along at home, these are the remaining triple check assignments I'm aware of:
DoubleCheck=50800363,75,1 DoubleCheck=50856193,75,1 DoubleCheck=51930929,73,1 DoubleCheck=52166519,73,1 DoubleCheck=52219579,73,1 DoubleCheck=52732837,73,1 DoubleCheck=52741279,73,1 DoubleCheck=52806191,73,1 DoubleCheck=52806323,73,1 DoubleCheck=52881599,73,1 DoubleCheck=53205589,73,1 DoubleCheck=53801659,73,1 DoubleCheck=54083921,73,1 DoubleCheck=54537607,73,1 DoubleCheck=61947623,74,1 DoubleCheck=62092003,74,1 DoubleCheck=62328697,74,1 DoubleCheck=62426713,74,1 DoubleCheck=62472979,74,1 DoubleCheck=62604559,74,1 DoubleCheck=62664593,74,1 DoubleCheck=62813917,74,1 DoubleCheck=62903677,74,1 DoubleCheck=62917957,74,1 DoubleCheck=62933617,74,1 DoubleCheck=63213977,74,1 DoubleCheck=63233917,74,1 DoubleCheck=63306389,74,1 DoubleCheck=63377273,74,1 DoubleCheck=63433957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63706957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63716957,74,1 DoubleCheck=63792917,74,1 DoubleCheck=63836893,74,1 DoubleCheck=63965269,74,1 DoubleCheck=66357407,74,1 DoubleCheck=66407683,74,1 DoubleCheck=66703957,74,1 DoubleCheck=67080833,74,1 DoubleCheck=67623947,74,1 DoubleCheck=68099063,74,1 DoubleCheck=69203977,74,1 DoubleCheck=69912917,74,1 DoubleCheck=70304293,75,1 DoubleCheck=72852509,75,1 DoubleCheck=73115041,75,1 DoubleCheck=73160389,75,1 DoubleCheck=73333097,75,1 ATH's lists at hoegge.dk have grown stale. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;444139]For those playing along at home, these are the remaining triple check assignments I'm aware of:.,,[/QUOTE]
There are 1300 unassigned triple-checks at the moment. I just assigned another batch to AirSquirrels and I took a batch the other day as well. I think we'll have it under 1000 unassigned by end of month. Plus, all of the 60M + stuff has been done (mostly), so the remaining stuff should go faster. Most of it is in the 40M-50M range where all the DC'ing fun is currently. New DC mismatches seem to show up at a rate of between 5-15 daily... I don't know if there should be something setup long term to give priority to those, or make it some kind of optional work type. Or just let some enterprising souls catch up on those again at some future date. :smile: The good news is that since most of the new mismatches are smack dab in the cat 4 range, they also get assigned back out for the triple-check fairly soon as well. It was just the backlog of larger mismatches that needed some TLC really. |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;444139]ATH's lists at hoegge.dk have grown stale.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I haven't updated them on the site, I didn't know people was expecting me to. Now they are updated, there are 223 available, 617 assigned and 2583 verified so far from this thread: [URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html[/URL] [URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html[/URL] [URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html[/URL] |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;444081]Queued. Should have a result in a couple of days.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, your result was the erroneous one. |
[QUOTE=ATH;444234]Yeah, I haven't updated them on the site, I didn't know people was expecting me to. Now they are updated, there are 223 available, 617 assigned and 2583 verified so far from this thread:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/available.html[/URL] [URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/assigned.html[/URL] [URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html"]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.html[/URL][/QUOTE] I think a couple of people may have been using them to find more work. I use them as a sanity check :) |
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;444235]Unfortunately, your result was the erroneous one.[/QUOTE]
I expected as much. Thanks! |
[QUOTE=GP2;444109]mprime is usually pretty good at choosing the appropriate FFT size, does CUDALucas require carefully manually setting this parameter?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm just using an older version that I know is reliable and using a fixed FFT size appropriate for the DC's I had been doing. The range just crept up to the borderline without me noticing it at first. |
[QUOTE=frmky;444252]No, I'm just using an older version that I know is reliable and using a fixed FFT size appropriate for the DC's I had been doing. The range just crept up to the borderline without me noticing it at first.[/QUOTE]
I have noticed something in my rounds of tests. When cudaLucas (and maybe clLucas, since it was a port) start getting higher errors at a small FFT size they back up and repeat the last X iterations with the next largest FFT size. At some point if the errors stay low it returns to the previous smaller FFT size. Whenever this happens there a roughly 1/5 chance my final result is wrong. I have yet to look for a way to force it to either continue at new larger size, or even restart at the new larger size. |
You can specify the FFT for each line in worktodo file. I used to do that in the past due to different (type of) cards having different speeds at the same FFT size, so I used to select the FFT for each exponent per each card. Later versions of cudaLucas came with auto-tuning facilities (which you still [U]have to run![/U] for your card, when you install cudaLucas) and I don't do it anymore, but it is still possible. You also could use the default FFT settings in the ini file.
|
[QUOTE=LaurV;444292]Later versions of cudaLucas came with auto-tuning facilities (which you still [U]have to run![/U] for your card, when you install cudaLucas) and I don't do it anymore, but it is still possible. You also could use the default FFT settings in the ini file.[/QUOTE]
But there are no FFT settings in the CUDALucas.ini file, other than an obsolete FFTLength parameter which applies to all exponents if it is set. From the documentation, running with the -cufftbench option writes a file <gpu> fft.txt with parameters for FFT length selection. However, this file is not read by the CUDALucas program. It seems to be for information only, for human visual inspection. If you don't want to rely on automatic selection of FFT lengths, you have manually specify the FFT length for each exponent (as a command line option, or in the worktodo.txt line the same way that mprime does it). There seems to be no way to add the fft.txt information to CUDALucas.ini, to change the way the program automatically selects FFT lengths. |
In my experience if you have run the -cufftbench and it created a <GPU> fft.txt you can rely on the auto select if it is far from a "border" exponent, but these limits are set rather high, so near the "borders" I manually choose the higher one.
For example: 2048 38492887 1.2845 2592 48471289 1.6135 2744 51250889 2.0056 3136 58404433 2.0937 3200 59570449 2.4195 4000 74106457 2.4631 4096 75846319 2.5115 4320 79902611 3.2614 if I had an exponent above 48.2M or even 48M I would use 2744K instead of 2592K, even if it says the border is 48.47M |
[QUOTE=ATH;444315]...if I had an exponent above 48.2M or even 48M I would use 2744K instead of 2592K, even if it says the border is 48.47M[/QUOTE]
Prime95 has the concept already of doing a test around certain FFT boundaries to see if the lower size is safe or not. I wonder if that could be adapted for GPU? It sounds like it could be important. |
I could probably lower all the boundaries manually with 200k in the .txt file, I just haven't tried it yet.
|
[QUOTE=ATH;444406]I could probably lower all the boundaries manually with 200k in the .txt file, I just haven't tried it yet.[/QUOTE]
Do you (or anyone else) know the [B]exact[/B] exponent sizes that cudalucas uses for it's FFT breakpoints? Firstly, that would help me better pick optimal exponents for AirSquirrels... I'm using the default thresholds from Prime95 although now I don't remember if I picked them from the SSE or AVX settings. Secondly, if this is really an area of concern, where exponents near the upper end of an FFT range can experience issues, maybe that's something to scan for in the history (results turned in by cudalucas near the boundaries, and their general error rate). It could be predictive in helping find unknown bad results. In AirSquirrel's case, the results I've triple-checked from him where his ended up being bad had the dubious distinction of not having any error code set. Does cudalucas not generally track that kind of thing? Prime95 will track things like rolling back and retrying with a larger FFT, even if it's reproducible. I just wonder if there's a way I can look at unknown cudalucas results and tell if they had any rollbacks or not. Incidentally, in his particular case, he's noticed that his AMD cards do HORRIBLE at certain FFT sizes. Like, really really bad. So bad, it seemed to me like it could run a test faster by going to a larger FFT size. Is that a known issue? One other "complaint" about cudalucas is the lack of a shift count feature... fortunately it doesn't happen much, but 2 or 3 times I've accidentally assigned work to him that was done on cudalucas and was also previously done by cudalucas... so both runs had a zero shift count. Whoops. I've done my own triple-check on those. It would sure be nice if it could do that just like other software, but it's not a huge deal. I just have to remember to exclude anything where either of the two possible mismatching results has a shift count of zero. |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 10:00. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.