Strategic Double Clicking

[dragonbud20]

I've reserved the first three M37952297, M38155841, M41720983 should have them done over the next couple of days to a week.

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

If anyone else is interested in trying out a couple smaller ones using this approach, here's a few:

I took:

42676009	3	0	4	1	4	1	DoubleCheck=42676009,72,1

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

If anyone else is interested in trying out a couple smaller ones using this approach, here's a few:

I've taken the last three.

[frmky]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Okay, I think I got it running okay. It'll spit out a list of exponents that need a triple check, and neither of the two machines that already submitted a result are suspected of being bad or good. By focusing on these we can start to get results on both by marking more bad and more good in a single test, which should improve the overall strategy of rooting out bad systems.

To start I just pulled exponents < 35.5M to keep the list smallish... there's still 128 entries though.

I just reserved the last of this TC list. Got more?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by LaurV

I would recommend for all sysadmins to run it at least few hours per day in their networks, doing DC work . This guy's computer ran for years without much a problem, then it started producing junk, and at the end, got replaced. If he would pay attention earlier to the output, he had a very early indicator that his system went in the weeds, and we would have less headache now, too...

Seconded.

I can't actually put a dollar value on how much GIMPS has saved me in downtime.

But, as a guess, lots!

When your (possibly mission critical) machine can't do a DC "well", you must give it the evil eye. And schedule a replacement. Like, really soon now....

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by frmky

I just reserved the last of this TC list. Got more?

Okay... I had to refresh my memory on what this was.

So, for everyone else... it's a list of exponents that need a *triple check*, and the two machines that ran it the first time don't really have a track record.

To be specific, this is a list of exponents that were checked twice already with no match, and both machines have *zero* bad results and 6 or less good results.

I was trying to think of a good way to show the list of exponents... I mean, I can do that and it'll have *two* lines for each one, showing the CPU stats for each one, but then you'd have to remember to only take one of those entries and set up a client to do the DC. That's how I was doing it when I picked up a handful of just these very things earlier today...

For now I'll just have a list of exponents and the worktodo entry... if you'd like to see more stats on each one, let me know.

52 of these below 38M. End result will be that, whatever the outcome, at least one of these previously "spotless" CPU's will have a bad result added to their account, which will hopefully feed into our strategic double checking:

exponent	worktodo
35699393	DoubleCheck=35699393,71,1
35795849	DoubleCheck=35795849,71,1
36056633	DoubleCheck=36056633,71,1
36178937	DoubleCheck=36178937,71,1
36239101	DoubleCheck=36239101,71,1
36264091	DoubleCheck=36264091,71,1
36302951	DoubleCheck=36302951,71,1
36306343	DoubleCheck=36306343,71,1
36380651	DoubleCheck=36380651,71,1
36502049	DoubleCheck=36502049,71,1
36506081	DoubleCheck=36506081,71,1
36524963	DoubleCheck=36524963,71,1
36681691	DoubleCheck=36681691,71,1
36685543	DoubleCheck=36685543,71,1
36777289	DoubleCheck=36777289,71,1
36849583	DoubleCheck=36849583,71,1
36863647	DoubleCheck=36863647,71,1
36868357	DoubleCheck=36868357,71,1
36880643	DoubleCheck=36880643,71,1
36899831	DoubleCheck=36899831,71,1
36950449	DoubleCheck=36950449,71,1
36996521	DoubleCheck=36996521,71,1
37055581	DoubleCheck=37055581,71,1
37069369	DoubleCheck=37069369,71,1
37096859	DoubleCheck=37096859,71,1
37097167	DoubleCheck=37097167,71,1
37214531	DoubleCheck=37214531,71,1
37235789	DoubleCheck=37235789,71,1
37236013	DoubleCheck=37236013,72,1
37347641	DoubleCheck=37347641,71,1
37392473	DoubleCheck=37392473,71,1
37440577	DoubleCheck=37440577,71,1
37452281	DoubleCheck=37452281,71,1
37455169	DoubleCheck=37455169,71,1
37456337	DoubleCheck=37456337,71,1
37471513	DoubleCheck=37471513,71,1
37476293	DoubleCheck=37476293,71,1
37481531	DoubleCheck=37481531,71,1
37487017	DoubleCheck=37487017,71,1
37529941	DoubleCheck=37529941,71,1
37532197	DoubleCheck=37532197,71,1
37608313	DoubleCheck=37608313,71,1
37625381	DoubleCheck=37625381,71,1
37698851	DoubleCheck=37698851,71,1
37761833	DoubleCheck=37761833,71,1
37771337	DoubleCheck=37771337,71,1
37795843	DoubleCheck=37795843,71,1
37809337	DoubleCheck=37809337,71,1
37849457	DoubleCheck=37849457,71,1
37854829	DoubleCheck=37854829,71,1
37899497	DoubleCheck=37899497,71,1
37960003	DoubleCheck=37960003,71,1

[kladner]

35699393 DoubleCheck=35699393,71,1
Mine.

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

35795849	DoubleCheck=35795849,71,1
36056633	DoubleCheck=36056633,71,1

I took these two - the next two. Will be doing these serially after my 42M finishes.

I thought I would take a couple before the lowest ones are all taken.

[endless mike]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

exponent	worktodo
36178937	DoubleCheck=36178937,71,1
36239101	DoubleCheck=36239101,71,1
36264091	DoubleCheck=36264091,71,1
36302951	DoubleCheck=36302951,71,1

I grabbed these four

[dragonbud20]

I'm grabbing these four

Originally Posted by Madpoo

exponent	worktodo
36306343	DoubleCheck=36306343,71,1
36380651	DoubleCheck=36380651,71,1
36502049	DoubleCheck=36502049,71,1
36506081	DoubleCheck=36506081,71,1

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

...
But break their results down by year and we see an interesting pattern:

Year	Bad	Good	Sus	Unk	Solo	Mis
2008	0	9	0	2	2	0
2009	0	52	0	8	8	0
2010	1	12	0	26	24	2
2011	11	1	4	5	5	4

Seems like 2011 was a bad year for this system... 11 of the 12 known bad were from this year, and it only has 5 solo-checked exponents, so maybe it wouldn't be too bad to check those out.

In fact that's what I plan to do. I picked up all 5 of those (47M-49M range) so I'll know in a day....

Well, that was fun. All 5 of those exponents I checked came up with different residues. If I hadn't broken this systems results down by year, I never would have bothered with doing any of them, much less been able to pick out those 5 in particular.

I can't say they'll all be like this, but it does give me a fun new way of picking out work that was probably done wrong the first time. I'll try and work up some new lists of exponents to do.