mersenneforum.org > Data Trippple Checks
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2017-09-21, 00:05   #639
GP2

Sep 2003

22·647 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ATH I managed to run my own double check by mistake. I forgot to check them: http://mersenne.org/M44356541 If anyone got time at some point to do another run.
I will run it.

 2017-10-08, 17:49 #640 GP2     Sep 2003 22×647 Posts Some triple checks where Madpoo mismatched the first test. His result is almost certainly correct. Anyone want these? DoubleCheck=54515387,73,1 DoubleCheck=54556591,73,1 DoubleCheck=55096187,73,1 DoubleCheck=55239377,73,1 DoubleCheck=55633247,73,1 DoubleCheck=55866413,73,1 DoubleCheck=56035241,73,1 DoubleCheck=57031193,73,1 DoubleCheck=57076309,73,1 DoubleCheck=58156037,73,1 DoubleCheck=58996009,73,1 DoubleCheck=59086387,73,1 DoubleCheck=59095571,73,1 DoubleCheck=59108381,73,1
2017-10-08, 19:16   #641
Mark Rose

"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

3×977 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 Some triple checks where Madpoo mismatched the first test. His result is almost certainly correct. Anyone want these? DoubleCheck=54515387,73,1 DoubleCheck=54556591,73,1 DoubleCheck=55096187,73,1 DoubleCheck=55239377,73,1 DoubleCheck=55633247,73,1 DoubleCheck=55866413,73,1 DoubleCheck=56035241,73,1 DoubleCheck=57031193,73,1 DoubleCheck=57076309,73,1 DoubleCheck=58156037,73,1 DoubleCheck=58996009,73,1 DoubleCheck=59086387,73,1 DoubleCheck=59095571,73,1 DoubleCheck=59108381,73,1
Queued.

2017-10-09, 03:24   #642
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

37·89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 Some triple checks where Madpoo mismatched the first test. His result is almost certainly correct. ...
Thanks for spotting those. I block out my own results when looking for mismatches to run...I forget about the ones I've done strategic double-checking on and got mismatches. Of course, I assume mine are right, so...

 2017-10-18, 16:27 #643 Madpoo Serpentine Vermin Jar     Jul 2014 37·89 Posts quad check needed These are always fun... M45075623
 2017-10-18, 19:49 #644 moebius     Jul 2009 Germany 19×29 Posts This one is funny too... 45305951
 2017-11-06, 16:34 #645 Madpoo Serpentine Vermin Jar     Jul 2014 1100110111012 Posts triple (and a quad) checks available These 4 tests need a triple (and 44611877 needs a quad) check... I did one of the tests already. Code: DoubleCheck=42051857,72,1 DoubleCheck=44611877,72,1 DoubleCheck=56713931,73,1 DoubleCheck=68842393,75,1 No rush, since I'm pretty sure mine is correct, but just in case anyone felt like finishing those off.
2017-11-07, 01:29   #646
rudi_m

Jul 2005

18210 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo These 4 tests need a triple (and 44611877 needs a quad) check...
I've queued them.

 2017-11-13, 10:52 #647 GP2     Sep 2003 1010000111002 Posts Can someone poach M47092121 and complete the triple check quickly? Code: AdvancedTest=47092121 This is the first LL test I ran on the new c5 instance type on AWS, and it didn't match the first-time test. The trouble is, this wasn't a strategic double check. The machine that did the first-time check has no prior bad results (although it has only two verified results, in the 26M and 27M ranges). On the c4 instance type there have been no bad results out of a few thousand, so I hope this is a coincidence and not some bug or problem with c5 or mprime. There was one unusual thing I did during the run of this exponent: I suspended the Linux process with kill -s SIGSTOP in order to run some tests on Mlucas and then resumed it with kill -s SIGCONT. I think I did that on c4 instances a few times in the past without any harmful effects.
2017-11-13, 16:08   #648
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

37×89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 Can someone poach M47092121 and complete the triple check quickly? ... This is the first LL test I ran on the new c5 instance type on AWS, and it didn't match the first-time test. The trouble is, this wasn't a strategic double check. The machine that did the first-time check has no prior bad results (although it has only two verified results, in the 26M and 27M ranges).
I wouldn't worry about it, your result is probably fine. The strategic stuff is only a best guess anyway. While it's true in general that past performance predicts future results, there are exceptions... good past results may wind up with bad results for any # of reasons (memory flaked out, the user decided to try an overclock, heat wave, etc). And vice versa... bad results galore, and then the user fixed something and now they're rock solid.

I've run into quite a few of those myself where I didn't match either previous result (leading to the need for quad checks) and nothing really stood out about the past performance of either system.

2017-11-13, 20:18   #649
GP2

Sep 2003

22·647 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo I wouldn't worry about it, your result is probably fine.
Way too much of a coincidence for my liking. We'll see. I'm now double-checking a bunch of other exponents that were tested by that user/computer.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post casmith789 PrimeNet 7 2015-05-26 00:53 Madpoo Data 28 2015-04-06 17:01 Rastus Data 1 2003-12-19 18:20 outlnder Lounge 4 2003-04-07 18:06 BigRed Software 1 2002-10-20 05:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:35.

Thu Apr 22 23:35:54 UTC 2021 up 14 days, 18:16, 0 users, load averages: 1.39, 1.64, 1.86