Trippple Checks

[GP2]

Originally Posted by GP2

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.

Looks like I didn't need to worry, Mlucas indicates that my residue on c5.large for this exponent was the correct result. Another user is running a triple check and they should return their own result sometime today or tomorrow.

[kladner]

@ Madpoo: I am glad to see you picked up 42680887 for a triple. That is an embarrassing series of events, for me.

Start with a BIOS update on the system board. After restoring the previous settings, I got a Jacobi test failure, though not immediately. To cut is short, I tweaked settings and rolled back P95 several times. I did not trust the two results which got submitted contrary to my efforts. Oh, well. I certainly did not intend to submit two conflicting results, of which neither agreed with the 1st time LL.

At this point, I am still uneasy about stability, though system has passed 10 hours of Blend TT with 10 out of 16 GB of RAM allocated. I have rolled back the BIOS, tried to reset everything, and run more torture tests. ATM, I have a DC at 65% with no errors, thus far.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by kladner

@ Madpoo: I am glad to see you picked up 42680887 for a triple. That is an embarrassing series of events, for me.

Start with a BIOS update on the system board. After restoring the previous settings, I got a Jacobi test failure, though not immediately. To cut is short, I tweaked settings and rolled back P95 several times. I did not trust the two results which got submitted contrary to my efforts. Oh, well. I certainly did not intend to submit two conflicting results, of which neither agreed with the 1st time LL.

At this point, I am still uneasy about stability, though system has passed 10 hours of Blend TT with 10 out of 16 GB of RAM allocated. I have rolled back the BIOS, tried to reset everything, and run more torture tests. ATM, I have a DC at 65% with no errors, thus far.

My run on that one will finish in 4 hours, so I guess we'll see which of the results I match.

EDIT: I just noticed that your 2 runs both had the same shift count, so even if the residues matched it wouldn't have counted as a verification. That probably means you started a new run of it using a previous save file, rather than an entirely new run starting from scratch.

[Madpoo]

By the way, if anyone feels like doing triple-checks, these are available. I'm one of the 2 or 3 previous testers so someone else needs to tackle the verification run.

44399711
46442621
46687429
46689427
46694953
46695599
46927409
50254189
50449073
52794311
52794317
52794353
52926721
55523527
55571039
56993347
57571721
57572329
61089319
61598567
61740551
62471327
63975341
64161359
66416531
76331477

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

By the way, if anyone feels like doing triple-checks, these are available. I'm one of the 2 or 3 previous testers so someone else needs to tackle the verification run.

Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form?

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form?

sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'

You forgot the cat and the pipe.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

sed 's/\(.*\)/DoubleCheck=\1,99,1/'

Please forgive me for this, but I am often amazed by how few people understand the most basic of rules.

Regular expressions defines a period as being any character. A "star" ("*") means any number of matches; zero, one, or many.

This regex could have also been done using a "\d*", which means any number of digits, including none. "\d+", on the other hand, means that at least one decimal character exists.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

My run on that one will finish in 4 hours, so I guess we'll see which of the results I match.

EDIT: I just noticed that your 2 runs both had the same shift count, so even if the residues matched it wouldn't have counted as a verification. That probably means you started a new run of it using a previous save file, rather than an entirely new run starting from scratch.

Neither of yours were correct. LOL

M42680887

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Any chance you could post that in worktodo.add friendly form?

Ah, I didn't do that since I reckoned a lot of them could be reserved using the manual assignment page...

DoubleCheck=44399711,72,1
DoubleCheck=46442621,73,1
DoubleCheck=46687429,73,1
DoubleCheck=46689427,73,1
DoubleCheck=46694953,73,1
DoubleCheck=46695599,73,1
DoubleCheck=46927409,73,1
DoubleCheck=50254189,73,1
DoubleCheck=50449073,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794311,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794317,73,1
DoubleCheck=52794353,73,1
DoubleCheck=52926721,73,1
DoubleCheck=55523527,73,1
DoubleCheck=55571039,73,1
DoubleCheck=56993347,73,1
DoubleCheck=57571721,74,1
DoubleCheck=57572329,74,1
DoubleCheck=61089319,74,1
DoubleCheck=61598567,74,1
DoubleCheck=61740551,74,1
DoubleCheck=62471327,74,1
DoubleCheck=63975341,74,1
DoubleCheck=64161359,74,1
DoubleCheck=66416531,75,1
DoubleCheck=76331477,75,1

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Neither of yours were correct. LOL

M42680887

I expected as much, even if I got them finished without reported errors. I thought I had taken those results out of the report line up, but clearly had not. So the 1st time was correct.