Strategic Double Clicking - Page 92

Mark Rose · 2016-05-05, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by UBR47K

Requesting a TC on a Cudalucas result:

Code:

DoubleCheck=N/A,36833107,75,1

Yours was bad.

Madpoo · 2016-05-05, 04:52

I have an updated strategic DC list here... I think all of the triple-checking that Airsquirrels and I are going through is knocking a few more systems into the "bad" category, so that's fun.

Code:

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
36376999	9	2	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=36376999,71,1
36413137	3	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=36413137,71,1
39169657	3	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=39169657,71,1
39331979	9	2	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=39331979,71,1
39637811	4	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=39637811,71,1
39691349	6	2	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=39691349,71,1
39746587	4	1	4	0	4	0	DoubleCheck=39746587,71,1
39775243	5	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=39775243,71,1
39844261	3	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=39844261,71,1
39972563	3	0	2	0	1	1	DoubleCheck=39972563,71,1
39973889	9	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=39973889,71,1
40129171	3	0	2	3	2	3	DoubleCheck=40129171,72,1
40494269	6	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40494269,72,1
40503527	10	3	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=40503527,72,1
40515823	7	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40515823,72,1
40670449	3	1	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=40670449,72,1
40922939	7	2	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40922939,72,1
40935749	4	0	3	0	3	0	DoubleCheck=40935749,72,1
46659887	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=46659887,72,1
47741513	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=47741513,72,1
47786227	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=47786227,72,1
48953297	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=48953297,72,1
49584901	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=49584901,72,1
49882321	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=49882321,72,1
50542883	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=50542883,73,1
51136223	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=51136223,73,1
54177881	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=54177881,73,1
54236099	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=54236099,73,1

Prime95 · 2016-05-05, 05:11

i took these:

Code:

36376999	9	2	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=36376999,71,1
36413137	3	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=36413137,71,1
39169657	3	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=39169657,71,1
39331979	9	2	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=39331979,71,1
39637811	4	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=39637811,71,1
39691349	6	2	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=39691349,71,1
39746587	4	1	4	0	4	0	DoubleCheck=39746587,71,1
39775243	5	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=39775243,71,1

ric · 2016-05-05, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I have an updated strategic DC list here...

Code:

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
39844261	3	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=39844261,71,1
39972563	3	0	2	0	1	1	DoubleCheck=39972563,71,1
39973889	9	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=39973889,71,1
40129171	3	0	2	3	2	3	DoubleCheck=40129171,72,1
40494269	6	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40494269,72,1
40503527	10	3	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=40503527,72,1
40515823	7	1	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40515823,72,1
40670449	3	1	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=40670449,72,1
40922939	7	2	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40922939,72,1
40935749	4	0	3	0	3	0	DoubleCheck=40935749,72,1

just reserved these.

petrw1 · 2016-05-05, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I have an updated strategic DC list here... I think all of the triple-checking that Airsquirrels and I are going through is knocking a few more systems into the "bad" category, so that's fun.

[

I ass-um-e the answer is:"You personally take the leftovers."

The question: Regularly you post new list of DC's needed.
This is followed by a few "I'll take this subset...".
But I rarely see all of them spoken for.
What happens to them?

If I do not have the correct answer above then is there a list of all the leftovers; or alternatively do you occasionally re-scan for any and all DC's required?

Thx

Madpoo · 2016-05-05, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

I ass-um-e the answer is:"You personally take the leftovers."

The question: Regularly you post new list of DC's needed.
This is followed by a few "I'll take this subset...".
But I rarely see all of them spoken for.
What happens to them?

If I do not have the correct answer above then is there a list of all the leftovers; or alternatively do you occasionally re-scan for any and all DC's required?

The unclaimed ones are either naturally assigned to other folks, or they show up again the next time I generate a list.

I do occasionally take a few of these myself but right now I've been primarily working on the exponents needing triple-checks.

Mark Rose · 2016-05-05, 14:33

I've already got enough work at the moment, but I tend to not take the high ones because I don't want to wait years for a triple check, if necessary.

Are you working all every triple check needed, starting from the bottom?

airsquirrels · 2016-05-06, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

I've already got enough work at the moment, but I tend to not take the high ones because I don't want to wait years for a triple check, if necessary.

Are you working all every triple check needed, starting from the bottom?

We have worked through almost all of the triple checks below the DC churners line (40M or so). The total number of triples checks currently needed is small enough that my goal is to work all the way through them with Madpoo and then keep them caught up while tackling new problems.

Recently we did some strategic double checks and some checks on machines with no good or bad record. We definitely have one user with some very bad machines turning in a significant number of results. I wonder if we shouldn't attempt to reach out to that user?

Madpoo · 2016-05-06, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by airsquirrels

We have worked through almost all of the triple checks below the DC churners line (40M or so). The total number of triples checks currently needed is small enough that my goal is to work all the way through them with Madpoo and then keep them caught up while tackling new problems.

In fact, I've been snagging everything below 44M. But then again that 40M-44M range is in the middle of the cat4 stuff and the exponents needing triple-checks are usually already assigned or they get picked up pretty quick.

Quote:

Recently we did some strategic double checks and some checks on machines with no good or bad record. We definitely have one user with some very bad machines turning in a significant number of results. I wonder if we shouldn't attempt to reach out to that user?

I kind of wondered about that with some of these... in many cases, the *really* bad computers haven't checked anything in for a long time, but in this case, he's still submitting stuff even this month, but at least its recent track record is doing better than it was even just a year ago.

Still, when you have a box that does 30+ LL tests a month and in any given month a VERY high percentage is coming up bad... do we alert them, or is it up to them to keep on top of things?

Primenet does have an option you can check to be alerted when any of your results turned out to be bad, although it's per CPU, not per account. Hmm... or maybe it's only if it returns a "suspicious" result, like it says? Anyway, I'm afraid that option is so obscure it's not much use...it'd be better as an account-wide option that sends an email when any past result of yours turns out bad, even if it's still an opt-in thing.

Mark Rose · 2016-05-14, 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I have an updated strategic DC list here... I think all of the triple-checking that Airsquirrels and I are going through is knocking a few more systems into the "bad" category, so that's fun.

Code:

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
46659887	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=46659887,72,1
47741513	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=47741513,72,1
47786227	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=47786227,72,1
48953297	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=48953297,72,1
49584901	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=49584901,72,1
49882321	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=49882321,72,1
50542883	3	1	7	0	7	0	DoubleCheck=50542883,73,1
51136223	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=51136223,73,1
54177881	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=54177881,73,1
54236099	3	1	5	2	4	3	DoubleCheck=54236099,73,1

I took these, what was left of the list.

Madpoo · 2016-05-14, 18:56

Here are a few more... looking at the CPU's lifetime history and picked any that had more than zero bad, zero good, and only one or two non-doublechecked results. Could be interesting...

For example, there are systems that have only ever checked in two results and one of them was bad... I have to think there are good odds their other one is bad as well.

Code:

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
39837151	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=39837151,71,1
39931043	1	0	1	2	1	2	DoubleCheck=39931043,71,1
40013153	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=40013153,72,1
40196521	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40196521,72,1
40502323	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40502323,72,1
40502723	4	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=40502723,72,1
40542419	4	0	1	1	1	1	DoubleCheck=40542419,72,1
40575707	3	0	2	1	1	2	DoubleCheck=40575707,72,1
46350407	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=46350407,72,1
46548809	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=46548809,72,1
46585949	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=46585949,72,1
58412941	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=58412941,73,1
59690401	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=59690401,73,1
60351829	1	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=60351829,74,1
60475663	1	0	2	1	2	1	DoubleCheck=60475663,74,1
67295311	1	0	1	2	1	2	DoubleCheck=67295311,75,1
67876027	1	0	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=67876027,75,1
68844197	1	0	0	8	1	7	DoubleCheck=68844197,75,1
69564647	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=69564647,75,1
70481273	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=70481273,74,1
72285691	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=72285691,75,1
77778251	1	0	3	0	2	1	DoubleCheck=77778251,75,1
79272667	1	0	1	0	1	0	DoubleCheck=79272667,75,1

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Double-Double Arithmetic	Mysticial	Software	52	2021-04-23 06:51
Clicking an exponent leads to 404 page	marigonzes	Information & Answers	2	2017-02-14 16:56
x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th?	jasong	jasong	7	2015-08-17 10:56
What about double-checking TF/P-1?	137ben	PrimeNet	6	2012-03-13 04:01
Double the area, Double the volume.	Uncwilly	Puzzles	8	2006-07-03 16:02

2016-05-05, 14:33	#1008
Mark Rose "/X\(‘-‘)/X\" Jan 2013 2·5·293 Posts	I've already got enough work at the moment, but I tend to not take the high ones because I don't want to wait years for a triple check, if necessary. Are you working all every triple check needed, starting from the bottom?