Most popular error codes

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 15:50

Most popular error codes in LUCAS_V.TXT and their frequency (Sept 9 2003 data)

Reminder: LUCAS_V.TXT contains verified-good results.

Code:

 count  error code
 ------ --------
 286111 00000000
 224985
   8455 80000000
   1876 00010000
   1659 00000001
    702 00020000
    395 00030000
    365 00000100
    272 01000100
    262 00000002
    250 00040000
    195 00050000
    168 02000200
    143 00060000
    139 01000001
    123 03000300
    120 01000000
    119 00070000
    117 00010001
    116 80010000
    115 00000003
     95 00080000
     68 000A0000

Linux (Unix) command to generate the above:
cut -d , -f 7 LUCAS_V.TXT | sort | uniq -c | sort -k 1 -n -r | less
(Use the "more" command if the "less" command doesn't exist on your system)

Note:
- There are a lot of old results with blank (no) error code.
- Results sometimes still turn out to be good even with errors.

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 15:55

Most popular error codes in BAD and their frequency (Sept 9 2003 data)

Reminder: BAD contains verified-bad results.

Code:

 count  error code
 ------ --------
   5011 00000000
   4397
    500 00000001
    354 80000000
    243 00000100
    239 00000002
    104 00000003
     98 00000101
     76 00000004
     73 00000200
     67 00010000
     57 00000005
     48 00000102
     43 00000006
     37 01000000
     36 00000300
     35 00000103
     30 00000201
     30 00000008
     28 00020000
     28 00010001
     25 00000007
     24 80000001

Linux (Unix) command to generate the above:
cut -d , -f 7 BAD | sort | uniq -c | sort -k 1 -n -r | less
(Use the "more" command if the "less" command doesn't exist on your system)

Note:
- There are a lot of old results with blank (no) error code.
- Results sometimes still turn out to be bad even with zero error code. In fact, a bad result is much more likely to have zero error code than any other error code.

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 16:02

Most popular error codes for BAD and LUCAS_V.TXT combined (Sept 9 2003 data),
sorted in reverse order of total occurrences of each error code.

Code:

err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00000000	5011	286111	291122	.017
*BLANK**	4397	224985	229382	.019
80000000	354	8455	8809	.040
00000001	500	1659	2159	.231
00010000	67	1876	1943	.034
00020000	28	702	730	.038
00000100	243	365	608	.399
00000002	239	262	501	.477
00030000	5	395	400	.012
01000100	5	272	277	.018
00040000	15	250	265	.056
00000003	104	115	219	.474
00050000	5	195	200	.025
02000200	5	168	173	.028
00000101	98	65	163	.601
01000000	37	120	157	.235
00060000	5	143	148	.033
00010001	28	117	145	.193
01000001	0	139	139	0
00000004	76	61	137	.554
80010000	13	116	129	.100
03000300	2	123	125	.016
00070000	5	119	124	.040
00000200	73	39	112	.651
00080000	3	95	98	.030
00000005	57	40	97	.587
00000006	43	32	75	.573
00000102	48	26	74	.648
00020001	10	63	73	.136
000A0000	2	68	70	.028
00090000	1	68	69	.014
04000400	2	66	68	.029
00010002	24	34	58	.413
000B0000	1	56	57	.017
80000001	24	31	55	.436
05000500	3	51	54	.055
000D0000	2	49	51	.039

Even if your error code was zero, you have a 1.7% chance of returning a bad result.

smh · 2003-09-14, 16:02

Now we only need to know what each error means.

I seem to remember that there are 4 counters of 2 (base 10? ) digits in there?

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 16:13

Finally, take the top 50 most frequently occuring error codes in BAD and LUCAS_V.TXT combined, and sort them in order of increasing (bad/total) ratio (Sept 9 2003 data).

Code:

err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
01000001	0	139	139	0
00030000	5	395	400	.012
00090000	1	68	69	.014
03000300	2	123	125	.016
00000000	5011	286111	291122	.017
000B0000	1	56	57	.017
01000100	5	272	277	.018
*BLANK**	4397	224985	229382	.019
00050000	5	195	200	.025
000E0000	1	37	38	.026
00100000	1	37	38	.026
000A0000	2	68	70	.028
02000200	5	168	173	.028
04000400	2	66	68	.029
00080000	3	95	98	.030
000C0000	1	32	33	.030
00060000	5	143	148	.033
00010000	67	1876	1943	.034
00020000	28	702	730	.038
000D0000	2	49	51	.039
00070000	5	119	124	.040
80000000	354	8455	8809	.040
000F0000	2	34	36	.055
02000002	2	34	36	.055
05000500	3	51	54	.055
00040000	15	250	265	.056
80010000	13	116	129	.100
80020000	5	37	42	.119
00020001	10	63	73	.136
00030001	8	34	42	.190
00010001	28	117	145	.193
00000001	500	1659	2159	.231
01000000	37	120	157	.235
00000100	243	365	608	.399
00010002	24	34	58	.413
80000001	24	31	55	.436
00000003	104	115	219	.474
00000002	239	262	501	.477
00000004	76	61	137	.554
00000007	25	19	44	.568
00000006	43	32	75	.573
00000005	57	40	97	.587
0000000A	21	14	35	.600
00000101	98	65	163	.601
00000201	30	18	48	.625
00000008	30	17	47	.638
00000102	48	26	74	.648
00000200	73	39	112	.651
00000103	35	12	47	.744
00000300	36	12	48	.750

Oddly enough you seem to have a better chance of returning a good result with an error code of 01000001 than with a zero error code. Though of course this is not statistically significant with only 139 total results having this error code.

NickGlover · 2003-09-14, 19:31

I'm guessing the results with blank error codes are from different programs (not George's) and older versions that didn't return the error code.

Note that error codes of the form 0X000X00 typically indicate repeatable (i.e. not a hardware problem) roundoff errors that were corrected by using a slower, more accurate method for the iteration in question. These only occur near the FFT limits. Tests with these error codes shouldn't be much more likely to be bad than normal tests.

Prime95 · 2003-09-14, 21:45

Error analysis is trickier than the results posted thusfar.

1) Version WUx had a bug where the errors were not counted properly. So many of the 00000000 reports really had errors.

2) 80000000 means some of the run occured with a version that did not count errors and some of the run was with a version that did count errors.

3) As someone already noted, the top byte indicates repeatable errors. This is quite normal near the upper limits of each FFT length.

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 22:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Prime95

1) Version WUx had a bug where the errors were not counted properly. So many of the 00000000 reports really had errors.

OK, we can partly re-do the analysis eliminating those cases where the program used was WUx.

The odds of getting a bad result even when the error code was zero:

Old estimate: 5011/(5011+286111) = .017 [results from all programs]
New estimate: 2536/(2536+212157) = .011 [excluding results from program WUx]

GP2 · 2003-09-14, 22:50

Results for which the error code was zero,
broken down by the type of program that returned them:

Note:
xx0 = Win 3.1
xx1 = Win 95
xx2 = Linux
xx5 = Win NT service
xx6 = FreeBSD
xx7 = OS/2

Code:

prog	bad	good	total	bad/total
---	----	-----	-----	-----

G29	1	0	1	1.000

WT1	294	24768	25062	.011
WT2	39	4290	4329	.009
WT5	29	5236	5265	.005
WT7	1	124	125	.008

WU0	1	23	24	.041
WU1	1934	47911	49845	.038
WU2	355	11324	11679	.030
WU5	170	14032	14202	.011
WU7	15	664	679	.022

WV1	463	30893	31356	.014
WV2	123	7504	7627	.016
WV5	74	10133	10207	.007
WV6	10	451	461	.021

WW1	326	29098	29424	.011
WW2	131	10278	10409	.012
WW5	71	10261	10332	.006

WX1	368	24326	24694	.014
WX2	106	8917	9023	.011
WX5	103	7679	7782	.013
WX6	8	237	245	.032

WY1	271	18711	18982	.014
WY2	51	5915	5966	.008
WY5	5	4849	4854	.001
WY6	1	96	97	.010
WY7	0	13	13	0

WZ1	59	6136	6195	.009
WZ2	2	1808	1810	.001
WZ5	0	408	408	0
WZ6	0	17	17	0
WZ7	0	9	9	0

We can see the spike in the error rate for WUx. Other than that, the data don't seem to show anything.

Note again: this is for results where the error code was zero. The overall error rate is higher, since nonzero error codes sometimes (often) produce higher rates of error.

apocalypse · 2003-09-15, 23:03

As far as I can tell, the last digit in the error code seems to be a count of SUMIN != SUMOUT errors.

only_human · 2003-12-26, 11:50

I've tried to rearrange the data in this thread according to error type.

Code:

error code = AABBCCDD (in hex)

AA = top bit on means "test was started using a version that did not count errors", remaining 7 bits is count of errors that were reproducible.
BB = count of ILLEGAL SUMOUTS
CC = count of round off > 0.4 errors
DD = count of SUM(IMPUTS) != SUM (OUTPUTS)


err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00000000	2536	212157	214693	.011 [excluding results from program WUx]
00000000	5011	286111	291122	.017 [results from all programs]
*BLANK**	4397	224985	229382	.019


ILLEGAL SUMOUTS
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00010000	67	1876	1943	.034
00020000	28	702	730	.038
00030000	5	395	400	.012
00040000	15	250	265	.056
00050000	5	195	200	.025
00060000	5	143	148	.033
00070000	5	119	124	.040
00080000	3	95	98	.030
00090000	1	68	69	.014
000A0000	2	68	70	.028
000B0000	1	56	57	.017
000C0000	1	32	33	.030
000D0000	2	49	51	.039
000E0000	1	37	38	.026
000F0000	2	34	36	.055


round off > 0.4 errors --- that had a "reproduceable" count in the most significant byte.
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
01000100	5	272	277	.018
02000200	5	168	173	.028
03000300	2	123	125	.016
04000400	2	66	68	.029
05000500	3	51	54	.055

round off > 0.4 errors
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00000100	243	365	608	.399
00000200	73	39	112	.651
00000300	36	12	48	.750


SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) --- that had a "reproduceable" count in the most significant byte.
01000001	0	139	139	0
02000002	2	34	36	.055

SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS)
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00000001	500	1659	2159	.231
00000002	239	262	501	.477
00000003	104	115	219	.474
00000004	76	61	137	.554
00000005	57	40	97	.587
00000006	43	32	75	.573
00000007	25	19	44	.568
00000008	30	17	47	.638
...
0000000A	21	14	35	.600


MIXED ERRORS
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
00010001	28	117	145	.193       1 ILLEGAL SUMOUT error , also  1 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) error
00020001	10	63	73	.136       2 ILLEGAL SUMOUT errors, also  1 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) error
00010002	24	34	58	.413       1 ILLEGAL SUMOUT error , also  2 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) errors
00000101	98	65	163	.601       1 round off > 0.4 error, also  1 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) error
00000102	48	26	74	.648       1 round off > 0.4 error, also  2 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) errors
00000103	35	12	47	.744       1 round off > 0.4 error, also  3 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) errors


Tests started with a version that did not count errors.
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
80000000	354	8455	8809	.040       test was started using a version that did not count errors
80010000	13	116	129	.100       1 ILLEGAL SUMOUT error
80020000	5	37	42	.119       2 ILLEGAL SUMOUT errors
80000001	24	31	55	.436       1 SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) error


I am unsure about the meaning of this error code
err code	bad	good	total	bad/total
--------	----	-----	------	----
01000000	37	120	157	.235

2003-09-14, 15:50	#1
GP2 Sep 2003 3²·7·41 Posts	Most popular error codes Most popular error codes in LUCAS_V.TXT and their frequency (Sept 9 2003 data) Reminder: LUCAS_V.TXT contains verified-good results. Code: count error code ------ -------- 286111 00000000 224985 8455 80000000 1876 00010000 1659 00000001 702 00020000 395 00030000 365 00000100 272 01000100 262 00000002 250 00040000 195 00050000 168 02000200 143 00060000 139 01000001 123 03000300 120 01000000 119 00070000 117 00010001 116 80010000 115 00000003 95 00080000 68 000A0000 Linux (Unix) command to generate the above: cut -d , -f 7 LUCAS_V.TXT \| sort \| uniq -c \| sort -k 1 -n -r \| less (Use the "more" command if the "less" command doesn't exist on your system) Note: - There are a lot of old results with blank (no) error code. - Results sometimes still turn out to be good even with errors. Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2003-09-14 at 15:51

2003-09-14, 15:55	#2
GP2 Sep 2003 3²·7·41 Posts	Most popular error codes in BAD and their frequency (Sept 9 2003 data) Reminder: BAD contains verified-bad results. Code: count error code ------ -------- 5011 00000000 4397 500 00000001 354 80000000 243 00000100 239 00000002 104 00000003 98 00000101 76 00000004 73 00000200 67 00010000 57 00000005 48 00000102 43 00000006 37 01000000 36 00000300 35 00000103 30 00000201 30 00000008 28 00020000 28 00010001 25 00000007 24 80000001 Linux (Unix) command to generate the above: cut -d , -f 7 BAD \| sort \| uniq -c \| sort -k 1 -n -r \| less (Use the "more" command if the "less" command doesn't exist on your system) Note: - There are a lot of old results with blank (no) error code. - Results sometimes still turn out to be bad even with zero error code. In fact, a bad result is much more likely to have zero error code than any other error code.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Leyland in Popular Culture	wblipp	Lounge	21	2012-03-18 02:38
Error Codes?	Antonio	Information & Answers	6	2011-09-27 13:20
Alt codes : should shift = +32 in them ?	science_man_88	Programming	13	2011-06-24 06:52
Data On Error Codes	dave_0273	Data	1	2004-05-02 15:08
Any popular way to describe the size of M40?	Jorgen	Lounge	28	2003-12-08 16:35

2003-09-14, 16:02	#4
smh "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 29·41 Posts	Now we only need to know what each error means. I seem to remember that there are 4 counters of 2 (base 10? ) digits in there?

2003-09-14, 19:31	#6
NickGlover Aug 2002 Richland, WA 2²·3·11 Posts	I'm guessing the results with blank error codes are from different programs (not George's) and older versions that didn't return the error code. Note that error codes of the form 0X000X00 typically indicate repeatable (i.e. not a hardware problem) roundoff errors that were corrected by using a slower, more accurate method for the iteration in question. These only occur near the FFT limits. Tests with these error codes shouldn't be much more likely to be bad than normal tests.

2003-09-14, 21:45	#7
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 7315₁₀ Posts	Error analysis is trickier than the results posted thusfar. 1) Version WUx had a bug where the errors were not counted properly. So many of the 00000000 reports really had errors. 2) 80000000 means some of the run occured with a version that did not count errors and some of the run was with a version that did count errors. 3) As someone already noted, the top byte indicates repeatable errors. This is quite normal near the upper limits of each FFT length.

2003-09-15, 23:03	#10
apocalypse Feb 2003 256₈ Posts	As far as I can tell, the last digit in the error code seems to be a count of SUMIN != SUMOUT errors.