mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Marin's Mersenne-aries (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Strategic Double Clicking (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20372)

endless mike 2018-08-31 12:41

Claiming the rest of the list. There were a few already assigned to others.

ATH 2018-09-02 18:59

We have verified 6,575 exponents in this thread over the years (including a few from the Triple Check thread):

[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.txt"]verified.html[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.txt"]verified.txt[/URL]

kladner 2018-09-03 07:43

[QUOTE=kladner;494951]I took the next one:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=46653301&full=1"]46653301[/URL]
registered[/QUOTE]
Matched Jack the Ripper

Madpoo 2018-09-04 04:57

[QUOTE=ATH;495198]We have verified 6,575 exponents in this thread over the years (including a few from the Triple Check thread):

[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.txt"]verified.html[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/verified.txt"]verified.txt[/URL][/QUOTE]

Hmm... interesting list. Let's see what kind of data I can get from those...
[LIST][*]13 of those got some extra factoring and a factor was found and only the one test was ever done[*]41 of them had a factor found (so 28 of those already had 2 tests and then a factor was discovered)[*]3091 only have 2 results so they were a match on the 2nd run[*]3353 have a bad result listed so I'm just assuming we must have mismatched the first test and hopefully our 2nd test was correct once a 3rd test was done[*]15 had 5 LL tests done[*]129 had 4 LL tests done (+2 more where a 4th test was for a factor found)[*]3316 had 3 LL tests done (+9 more where a 3rd test was for a factor found)[*]8 had 3 bad results[*]93 had 2 bad results[/LIST]
Don't bother adding any of those #'s together to arrive at any sums... there are some overlaps here and there for different categories. :smile: But it's definitely interesting that of the ones that are now verified, we can see that over half of them were worth doing a strategic double-check since they did in fact end up needing at least a 3rd test done.

What I did *not* do was check to see if the verification run matched the first or second test. I think there were probably a few times when our SDC run was bad, but in general I think those were rare. To crunch that part of it I'd have to analyze by the date of each result and I didn't feel like putting in that effort right now. LOL

ATH 2018-09-04 13:11

Yeah we did some good work here :smile:

I'm glad I started that "Triple Check" thread back in 2012 (or "Tripple Check" as I mistakenly named it), which later in 2015 inspired you to start triple checking, and then to start this thread.

LaurV 2018-09-05 02:04

[QUOTE=Madpoo;495312]Hmm... interesting list.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ATH;495333]Yeah we did some good work here[/QUOTE]
:tu:
Good job indeed!

LaurV 2018-09-10 14:01

I got assigned [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49404263&full=1"]49404263[/URL] for DC, and I got a mismatch, but my residue was "funny" in a way... (it seems each hex digit is... doubled, haha), and the first test was done by [STRIKE]Chuck Norris[/STRIKE] curtisc, who doesn't make mistakes, however this test I did with a card which never gave an error up to now, so I got extremely excited and I ran it again in a different card, and guess what, got the same "funny" residue :razz:.

I reported both DC and TC, and most probably (like in 99.99999%) this is the right residue, but I know Madpoo will not be happy with the self-DC (in fact, TC) so somebody may do a QC if she likes...

ATH 2018-09-10 14:52

[QUOTE=LaurV;495831]I got assigned [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49404263&full=1"]49404263[/URL] for DC, and I got a mismatch, but my residue was "funny" in a way... (it seems each hex digit is... doubled, haha), and the first test was done by [STRIKE]Chuck Norris[/STRIKE] curtisc, who doesn't make mistakes, however this test I did with a card which never gave an error up to now, so I got extremely excited and I ran it again in a different card, and guess what, got the same "funny" residue :razz:.

I reported both DC and TC, and most probably (like in 99.99999%) this is the right residue, but I know Madpoo will not be happy with the self-DC (in fact, TC) so somebody may do a QC if she likes...[/QUOTE]

I will start it in 24h after my current exponent finishes, but I cannot reserve it in primenet, as it is already double checked.

storm5510 2018-09-22 14:40

I have 'mooched' the following to do a hardware test:

[CODE]DoubleCheck=46662349,73,1[/CODE][I][U]I will not submit this for credit![/U][/I]

Reason: When I first installed this 1080, it reported that it would need roughly four days to complete an exponent of this magnitude.

During a recent cleaning, I discovered that the power connector from the PSU was not seating properly, and I was unable to make it do so. I switched to another and it seated with a very clear 'click.' Inspection of the original connector revealed it was incomplete. No latch, and some rounded corners.

Now, instead of four days, it's 30 hours. Something was not making good contact, or any contact at all. I count myself very fortunate that the card was not damaged.

Basically, I want to see if the result I get matches anything already submitted. Nothing further.

ATH 2018-09-22 16:10

It sounds very fast for a 1080 to finish a 46M in 30 hours, but I hope for you that it is correct.

My Titan Black does it in roughly 22 hours, but it should have roughly 1700 GFLOPS of double precision performance while your 1080 only has ~ 250 GFLOPS, because it only has 1/32th of the single precision performance.

kladner 2018-09-22 17:02

30 hours is in the same zone, though a little shorter than an i7-6700K with all cores, one worker. (@4200 MHz cpu, 3200MHz RAM.)

storm5510 2018-09-23 00:46

[QUOTE=ATH;496584]It sounds very fast for a 1080 to finish a 46M in 30 hours, but I hope for you that it is correct.

My Titan Black does it in roughly 22 hours, but it should have roughly 1700 GFLOPS of double precision performance while your 1080 only has ~ 250 GFLOPS, because it only has 1/32th of the single precision performance.[/QUOTE]

This one is [U]not[/U] typical of the specs I've looked at. It's a Gigabyte. I've seen it go above 1100 GHz-d/Days running trial factoring for PrimeNet. Its base clock is 1835 and boosts to 1885. It has gone up to 1915. No overclocking, ever. It does this on its own.

We're a bit off-topic a bit here so I will stop. :smile:

ATH 2018-09-23 10:29

[QUOTE=storm5510;496611]This one is [U]not[/U] typical of the specs I've looked at. It's a Gigabyte. I've seen it go above 1100 GHz-d/Days running trial factoring for PrimeNet. Its base clock is 1835 and boosts to 1885. It has gone up to 1915. No overclocking, ever. It does this on its own.

We're a bit off-topic a bit here so I will stop. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know 1080 is fast for trial factoring:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_10_series[/url]

It has ~8200 GFLOPS single precision performance (FP32 which is 32 bit variables) which is good for trial factoring and general graphic performance, but "only" ~250 GFLOPS double precision (FP64, 64 bit variables) which is what is used for LL test.

Titan Black as I was comparing to has only ~5100 GFLOPS FP32 performance, but instead ~1700 GFLOPS FP64 performance, so in theory it should be 6-7 times faster at LL but slower at trial factoring, where I am only getting ~550-600 GHzdays / day.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_700_series[/url]

storm5510 2018-09-23 17:09

1 Attachment(s)
I have an exact match. 30 hours and two minutes. :smile:

[CODE]M( 46662349 )C, 0x21d7915303c760a1, offset = 3884, n = 2592K, CUDALucas v2.06beta[/CODE] [QUOTE=ATH]Titan Black as I was comparing to has only ~5100 GFLOPS FP32 performance, but instead ~1700 GFLOPS FP64 performance, so in theory it should be 6-7 times faster at LL but slower at trial factoring, where I am only getting ~550-600 GHzdays / day.[/QUOTE]


It seems that Titan Black's were tailored for something different and not the obvious, gaming. In theory, as you say, the time to test this particular exponent would be much less than 30 hours. How much less, I wonder?

ATH 2018-09-23 20:45

[QUOTE=storm5510;496636]It seems that Titan Black's were tailored for something different and not the obvious, gaming. In theory, as you say, the time to test this particular exponent would be much less than 30 hours. How much less, I wonder?[/QUOTE]

It takes roughly 22h for a 46M, so I do not understand how a 1080 can do it in 30h, but that's great.

storm5510 2018-09-24 02:41

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=ATH;496645]It takes roughly 22h for a 46M, so I do not understand how a 1080 can do it in 30h, but that's great.[/QUOTE]

There's a snip below from GPU-Z while CuLu was running. Perhaps you will see something in it that stands out.

ATH 2018-09-24 08:16

Your result fits well with the 1080 entry in this GPU chart:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php[/url]

If you look at the 1080 at 45M and mouse over the 63.1 number it says 2.2 ms/iteration and 27.5 hours for 45M, so it must be that figure 250 GFLOPS FP64 speed that is wrong.

storm5510 2018-09-24 15:56

[QUOTE=ATH;496665]Your result fits well with the 1080 entry in this GPU chart:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php[/URL]

If you look at the 1080 at 45M and mouse over the 63.1 number it says 2.2 ms/iteration and 27.5 hours for 45M, so it must be that figure 250 GFLOPS FP64 speed that is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I saw one thing in the GTX 1080 line that does not match what I have. TDP. It says 180W. Mine runs at 210W. I have a little gadget that I can plug into a wall outlet and plug whatever into it. It jumps up 210W when I load the 1080.

Mark Rose 2018-09-24 16:15

[QUOTE=storm5510;496688]Interesting. I saw one thing in the GTX 1080 line that does not match what I have. TDP. It says 180W. Mine runs at 210W. I have a little gadget that I can plug into a wall outlet and plug whatever into it. It jumps up 210W when I load the 1080.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget power supply inefficiencies. Yours looks to be about 86% efficient at that load level, assuming a 180W draw from the card.

storm5510 2018-09-25 01:38

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;496690]Don't forget power supply inefficiencies. Yours looks to be about 86% efficient at that load level, assuming a 180W draw from the card.[/QUOTE]

I did some searching on the web. This particular model falls into the 200 to 205 range on wattage. I don't know why. A third fan, perhaps. This PSU is bronze rated. There are better ones, I know. I've had no issues with it.

At the moment, it's loaded about as heavy as I ever allow. [I]Prime95 [/I]and [I]mfaktc [/I]running at the same time. The exhaust air is only slightly warm.

S485122 2018-09-25 05:33

[QUOTE=LaurV;495831]... the first test was done by [STRIKE]Chuck Norris[/STRIKE] curtisc, who doesn't make mistakes
...[/QUOTE]Sorry to "necropost" but it permits me to come back on the subject of this thread. Computers in the Curtisc account do have errors, I suppose some have bad hardware and then since they are student lab computers a lot of things can happen. I have seen quite a few bad results coming from that account, the curtisc computer grn209--00l, for instance, has 17 bad and 17 good results in the 20M-30M range.

Jacob

ATH 2018-09-26 16:02

8 more from this thread above 80M that needs a triple check, if anyone wants to do triple checks at that range. Otherwise we'll just leave it for the future:


[url]https://mersenne.org/M80151979[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M80490829[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M80740679[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M80793413[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M81245897[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M81390061[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M81543971[/url]
[url]https://mersenne.org/M81611749[/url]

Madpoo 2018-09-30 03:06

[QUOTE=S485122;496723]Sorry to "necropost" but it permits me to come back on the subject of this thread. Computers in the Curtisc account do have errors, I suppose some have bad hardware and then since they are student lab computers a lot of things can happen. I have seen quite a few bad results coming from that account, the curtisc computer grn209--00l, for instance, has 17 bad and 17 good results in the 20M-30M range....[/QUOTE]

curtisc definitely has some bad results in there, but considering the total # of exponents he turns in it's not too bad by percent. Right now he has 34,725 good results and 626 bad. 1.77% of the bad+good total.

Of course he has a large amount of unknown results... 157,520. So it's hard to say if that error rate would hold true once those get double-checked.

nofaith628 2018-11-03 06:19

Haven't seen this post updated for a while. Pinging Madpoo, any double checks that need churning?

kriesel 2018-11-10 16:40

strategic (gap filling) first checks
 
Hi,

As a low priority subproject, I've been filling the double-check gaps in the work distribution map at [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/URL]. That is, where there is a range of 1 million in exponent value (which I'll call a bin) where there's a double check assignment available but none completed, I run one. The theory is that it might possibly smoke out a reliability problem at higher fft length than the current wavefront, in time to address it, since most first checks will have been done by prime95/mprime, and the double checks I run are CUDALucas 2.06 beta. I've been doing them in ascending order, since 84M in mid 2017, so that now all bins up to 111 million have at least 1 matching doublecheck indicated. (See [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=84000000&exp_hi=999999999&exp_date=&end_date=&user_only=1&user_id=kriesel&exfirst=1&dispdate=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&B1=[/URL]) 112 is under way and 114 queued. Meanwhile the wavefront of new first LL assignments is ~81M-88M.

The following bins below 200M have no first-time LL test reported, so no double check assignment available. It would be good if some volunteers collectively ran first-time checks on at least one exponent in each of these million-range bins so that double checks could become available in them. In the list below, the bins are abbreviated, for example, "115" means the exponent range 115,000,000-115,999,999. Note these will definitely each be more time consuming than usual double checks (time is proportional to a bit higher than exponent squared; M112m is a little over 8 days on a GTX1080.)
115
135
136
140
142
156
161
163
166
169
171
172
173
174
175
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
190
192
193
197
198
199
(there are more above 199M, of course, which can wait.)

kriesel 2018-11-10 17:09

Start bins with no individual double checks yet
 
For those who prefer to run strategic double checks over first-time bin gap LL tests, there are plenty of million range of exponent value bins (116 and up) with double check assignments available that could be reserved and run. Getting double checks matching the respective first-checks in each bin supports confidence in whatever software and hardware was used for each. Please reserve and run from any of the following. Note these will definitely each be more time consuming than usual double checks. (Time is proportional to a bit higher than exponent squared. M112m is a little over 8 days on a GTX1080.)
116
118
122
123
124
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
134
137
138
141
144
145
146
148
149
151
152
153
155
157
164
165
167
176
177
188
189
(end of post)

GP2 2018-11-10 17:45

[QUOTE=nofaith628;499412]Haven't seen this post updated for a while. Pinging Madpoo, any double checks that need churning?[/QUOTE]

I'm not madpoo, but here's a few suggestions if anyone wants to try them:

[CODE]
DoubleCheck=[M]46883119[/M],73,1
DoubleCheck=[M]52598239[/M],73,1
DoubleCheck=[M]75619127[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]75619177[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]75619429[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]77942911[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]80631689[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]81384757[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]82459973[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]82608247[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]82946557[/M],75,1
DoubleCheck=[M]83600753[/M],76,1
[/CODE]

The 75.6 M exponents have a first-time test with shift count 0, so they should only be done with mprime or CUDAlucas and not with Mlucas or other software that doesn't do shift counts.

Madpoo 2018-11-11 06:47

New list... this one is the top 100 as ranked by their bad/good ratios, no limit on the exponent size. There are some machines out there doing first time tests that have terrible track records (lifetime records of 7 bad, zero good, etc). The bad/good #'s I show are their totals for the year that result was recorded, but I'm actually taking into account their lifetime bad/good ratios as the first sort, and then their per-year ratio as a secondary sort.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good worktodo
79192753 1 0 DoubleCheck=79192753,75,1
79387531 1 0 DoubleCheck=79387531,75,1
79388899 1 0 DoubleCheck=79388899,75,1
79439443 1 0 DoubleCheck=79439443,75,1
79503751 7 1 DoubleCheck=79503751,75,1
79821853 7 1 DoubleCheck=79821853,75,1
80658197 7 1 DoubleCheck=80658197,75,1
80901703 5 1 DoubleCheck=80901703,75,1
81008069 5 1 DoubleCheck=81008069,75,1
81160369 5 1 DoubleCheck=81160369,75,1
81727967 2 0 DoubleCheck=81727967,75,1
81932677 2 0 DoubleCheck=81932677,75,1
82700687 2 0 DoubleCheck=82700687,76,1
82773133 2 0 DoubleCheck=82773133,75,1
83082589 2 0 DoubleCheck=83082589,76,1
83413117 2 0 DoubleCheck=83413117,76,1
83911159 2 0 DoubleCheck=83911159,76,1
84149003 2 0 DoubleCheck=84149003,76,1
84312323 2 0 DoubleCheck=84312323,76,1
84461743 2 0 DoubleCheck=84461743,76,1
80793373 5 0 DoubleCheck=80793373,75,1
81474143 5 0 DoubleCheck=81474143,75,1
79970881 3 0 DoubleCheck=79970881,75,1
79978963 3 0 DoubleCheck=79978963,75,1
76583567 5 1 DoubleCheck=76583567,75,1
79329781 5 1 DoubleCheck=79329781,75,1
79461209 5 1 DoubleCheck=79461209,75,1
81145417 5 1 DoubleCheck=81145417,75,1
78441703 4 2 DoubleCheck=78441703,75,1
78453721 4 2 DoubleCheck=78453721,75,1
79096727 4 2 DoubleCheck=79096727,75,1
79176359 4 2 DoubleCheck=79176359,75,1
79444987 4 2 DoubleCheck=79444987,75,1
79465693 4 2 DoubleCheck=79465693,75,1
80287133 4 2 DoubleCheck=80287133,75,1
80474599 4 2 DoubleCheck=80474599,75,1
80897771 0 0 DoubleCheck=80897771,75,1
80963833 0 0 DoubleCheck=80963833,75,1
79461373 8 2 DoubleCheck=79461373,75,1
79662641 8 2 DoubleCheck=79662641,75,1
79725799 8 2 DoubleCheck=79725799,75,1
78769081 4 0 DoubleCheck=78769081,75,1
57025753 1 0 DoubleCheck=57025753,73,1
81083059 4 1 DoubleCheck=81083059,75,1
78918677 2 0 DoubleCheck=78918677,75,1
80086553 2 0 DoubleCheck=80086553,75,1
80199569 2 1 DoubleCheck=80199569,75,1
80643691 2 1 DoubleCheck=80643691,75,1
81339199 2 1 DoubleCheck=81339199,75,1
82227571 2 1 DoubleCheck=82227571,75,1
82948039 2 1 DoubleCheck=82948039,76,1
83155747 2 0 DoubleCheck=83155747,76,1
83357597 2 1 DoubleCheck=83357597,76,1
84081341 2 0 DoubleCheck=84081341,76,1
84149843 2 1 DoubleCheck=84149843,76,1
84436007 2 0 DoubleCheck=84436007,76,1
84466973 2 1 DoubleCheck=84466973,76,1
85034359 2 1 DoubleCheck=85034359,76,1
80036111 0 1 DoubleCheck=80036111,75,1
80059927 0 1 DoubleCheck=80059927,75,1
80090809 0 1 DoubleCheck=80090809,75,1
79225789 5 2 DoubleCheck=79225789,75,1
79344277 5 2 DoubleCheck=79344277,75,1
80956769 5 2 DoubleCheck=80956769,75,1
81019927 5 2 DoubleCheck=81019927,75,1
81492409 5 2 DoubleCheck=81492409,75,1
81779771 2 0 DoubleCheck=81779771,75,1
81931133 2 0 DoubleCheck=81931133,76,1
82669403 2 0 DoubleCheck=82669403,75,1
82952587 2 0 DoubleCheck=82952587,76,1
83089729 2 0 DoubleCheck=83089729,76,1
84082027 2 0 DoubleCheck=84082027,76,1
84231919 2 0 DoubleCheck=84231919,76,1
84473933 2 0 DoubleCheck=84473933,76,1
84557723 2 0 DoubleCheck=84557723,76,1
84995717 2 0 DoubleCheck=84995717,76,1
81848131 0 1 DoubleCheck=81848131,75,1
84129949 0 1 DoubleCheck=84129949,76,1
84210359 0 1 DoubleCheck=84210359,76,1
81250891 3 0 DoubleCheck=81250891,75,1
79607023 1 0 DoubleCheck=79607023,75,1
76523653 3 1 DoubleCheck=76523653,75,1
76799647 3 1 DoubleCheck=76799647,75,1
78527623 3 1 DoubleCheck=78527623,75,1
78970819 3 1 DoubleCheck=78970819,75,1
79037461 3 1 DoubleCheck=79037461,75,1
79096763 3 1 DoubleCheck=79096763,75,1
79399267 3 1 DoubleCheck=79399267,75,1
79475129 3 1 DoubleCheck=79475129,75,1
79501943 3 1 DoubleCheck=79501943,75,1
79516421 3 1 DoubleCheck=79516421,75,1
79567613 3 1 DoubleCheck=79567613,75,1
79629169 3 1 DoubleCheck=79629169,75,1
79651189 3 1 DoubleCheck=79651189,75,1
79680749 3 1 DoubleCheck=79680749,75,1
79696711 3 1 DoubleCheck=79696711,75,1
79697143 3 1 DoubleCheck=79697143,75,1
79795663 3 1 DoubleCheck=79795663,75,1
79827173 3 1 DoubleCheck=79827173,75,1
79893883 3 1 DoubleCheck=79893883,75,1[/CODE]

Madpoo 2018-11-11 06:50

And this is another list where I limited the exponent size to < 58M. The first one on the list actually shows up in the previous list (4 bad, zero good lifetime ratio) but that's the only overlap. These might be good if people are looking for more bite-size exponents to speculatively double-check.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good worktodo
57025753 1 0 DoubleCheck=57025753,73,1
57089849 0 1 DoubleCheck=57089849,73,1
53016083 12 11 DoubleCheck=53016083,73,1
53351911 12 11 DoubleCheck=53351911,73,1
54918671 12 11 DoubleCheck=54918671,73,1
54994363 12 11 DoubleCheck=54994363,73,1
55395607 12 11 DoubleCheck=55395607,73,1
55425943 12 11 DoubleCheck=55425943,73,1
55664387 12 11 DoubleCheck=55664387,73,1
56091569 12 11 DoubleCheck=56091569,73,1
56112317 12 11 DoubleCheck=56112317,74,1
56180669 12 11 DoubleCheck=56180669,74,1
57442519 12 11 DoubleCheck=57442519,74,1
57566147 12 11 DoubleCheck=57566147,73,1
57566239 12 11 DoubleCheck=57566239,73,1
57840049 12 11 DoubleCheck=57840049,73,1
57076927 1 0 DoubleCheck=57076927,73,1
57076499 0 0 DoubleCheck=57076499,73,1
57076577 0 0 DoubleCheck=57076577,73,1
57140123 0 1 DoubleCheck=57140123,73,1
51129479 1 0 DoubleCheck=51129479,73,1
51746509 1 0 DoubleCheck=51746509,73,1
52228751 1 0 DoubleCheck=52228751,73,1
52229707 1 0 DoubleCheck=52229707,73,1
52550627 1 0 DoubleCheck=52550627,73,1
54329549 1 0 DoubleCheck=54329549,73,1
55338823 1 0 DoubleCheck=55338823,73,1
55971287 1 0 DoubleCheck=55971287,74,1
57465407 1 0 DoubleCheck=57465407,74,1
52121599 0 0 DoubleCheck=52121599,73,1
54144901 0 0 DoubleCheck=54144901,73,1
54886759 0 0 DoubleCheck=54886759,73,1
56540711 0 0 DoubleCheck=56540711,74,1
57943741 1 1 DoubleCheck=57943741,73,1
52581167 0 1 DoubleCheck=52581167,73,1
57129329 0 1 DoubleCheck=57129329,73,1
57364129 0 0 DoubleCheck=57364129,73,1
56311001 0 13 DoubleCheck=56311001,74,1
57385249 0 13 DoubleCheck=57385249,73,1
57095561 9 4 DoubleCheck=57095561,73,1
51890849 40 50 DoubleCheck=51890849,73,1
51980959 40 50 DoubleCheck=51980959,73,1
52733207 40 50 DoubleCheck=52733207,73,1
46482367 10 12 DoubleCheck=46482367,73,1
57830683 0 1 DoubleCheck=57830683,73,1
51255637 1 1 DoubleCheck=51255637,73,1
52054069 1 1 DoubleCheck=52054069,73,1
52234961 1 1 DoubleCheck=52234961,73,1
54861283 1 1 DoubleCheck=54861283,73,1
54919021 1 1 DoubleCheck=54919021,73,1
54947063 1 1 DoubleCheck=54947063,73,1
55337207 1 1 DoubleCheck=55337207,73,1
55353227 1 1 DoubleCheck=55353227,75,1
55821011 1 1 DoubleCheck=55821011,73,1
55880711 1 1 DoubleCheck=55880711,73,1
55995971 1 1 DoubleCheck=55995971,74,1
57200953 1 1 DoubleCheck=57200953,73,1
57295267 4 5 DoubleCheck=57295267,73,1
49111229 3 4 DoubleCheck=49111229,73,1
49111519 3 4 DoubleCheck=49111519,73,1
49112053 3 4 DoubleCheck=49112053,73,1
49112071 3 4 DoubleCheck=49112071,73,1
49413929 3 4 DoubleCheck=49413929,73,1
49414271 3 4 DoubleCheck=49414271,73,1
49901167 3 4 DoubleCheck=49901167,73,1
54004051 0 0 DoubleCheck=54004051,73,1
54023513 0 0 DoubleCheck=54023513,73,1
54025339 0 0 DoubleCheck=54025339,74,1
54784801 0 0 DoubleCheck=54784801,73,1
55659047 0 0 DoubleCheck=55659047,73,1
55663999 0 0 DoubleCheck=55663999,73,1
55672153 0 0 DoubleCheck=55672153,74,1
55677481 0 0 DoubleCheck=55677481,74,1
56607413 0 1 DoubleCheck=56607413,74,1
57934139 0 0 DoubleCheck=57934139,73,1
56193937 0 0 DoubleCheck=56193937,74,1
56194981 0 0 DoubleCheck=56194981,74,1
56202719 0 0 DoubleCheck=56202719,73,1
56223533 0 0 DoubleCheck=56223533,73,1
54978067 8 13 DoubleCheck=54978067,73,1
55169113 8 13 DoubleCheck=55169113,73,1
55169291 8 13 DoubleCheck=55169291,73,1
55174201 8 13 DoubleCheck=55174201,73,1
55178381 8 13 DoubleCheck=55178381,73,1
55179437 8 13 DoubleCheck=55179437,73,1
55185563 8 13 DoubleCheck=55185563,73,1
57100891 8 13 DoubleCheck=57100891,73,1
54715939 0 0 DoubleCheck=54715939,73,1
55759801 0 0 DoubleCheck=55759801,73,1
48631321 6 38 DoubleCheck=48631321,73,1
51833449 6 8 DoubleCheck=51833449,73,1
51922289 6 8 DoubleCheck=51922289,73,1
56033161 6 8 DoubleCheck=56033161,73,1
51663749 3 4 DoubleCheck=51663749,73,1
51789541 3 4 DoubleCheck=51789541,73,1
52088381 3 4 DoubleCheck=52088381,73,1
55385023 3 4 DoubleCheck=55385023,73,1
55869239 3 4 DoubleCheck=55869239,73,1
57580681 3 4 DoubleCheck=57580681,73,1
54936667 1 3 DoubleCheck=54936667,73,1[/CODE]

Mark Rose 2018-11-11 08:16

I took the one from both lists, 57025753.

nofaith628 2018-11-11 19:10

I queued the exponents from GP2.

[CODE]DoubleCheck=46883119,73,1
DoubleCheck=52598239,73,1
DoubleCheck=75619127,75,1
DoubleCheck=75619177,75,1
DoubleCheck=75619429,75,1
DoubleCheck=77942911,75,1
DoubleCheck=80631689,75,1
DoubleCheck=81384757,75,1
DoubleCheck=82459973,75,1
DoubleCheck=82608247,75,1
DoubleCheck=82946557,75,1
DoubleCheck=83600753,76,1[/CODE]

GP2 2018-11-11 21:08

[QUOTE=nofaith628;500113]I queued the exponents from GP2.
[/QUOTE]

Someone else already grabbed [M]52598239[/M] yesterday...

Dylan14 2018-11-11 23:32

[QUOTE=kriesel;500040]Hi,

As a low priority subproject, I've been filling the double-check gaps in the work distribution map at [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/URL]. That is, where there is a range of 1 million in exponent value (which I'll call a bin) where there's a double check assignment available but none completed, I run one. The theory is that it might possibly smoke out a reliability problem at higher fft length than the current wavefront, in time to address it, since most first checks will have been done by prime95/mprime, and the double checks I run are CUDALucas 2.06 beta. I've been doing them in ascending order, since 84M in mid 2017, so that now all bins up to 111 million have at least 1 matching doublecheck indicated. (See [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=84000000&exp_hi=999999999&exp_date=&end_date=&user_only=1&user_id=kriesel&exfirst=1&dispdate=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&B1=[/URL]) 112 is under way and 114 queued. Meanwhile the wavefront of new first LL assignments is ~81M-88M.

The following bins below 200M have no first-time LL test reported, so no double check assignment available. It would be good if some volunteers collectively ran first-time checks on at least one exponent in each of these million-range bins so that double checks could become available in them. In the list below, the bins are abbreviated, for example, "115" means the exponent range 115,000,000-115,999,999. Note these will definitely each be more time consuming than usual double checks (time is proportional to a bit higher than exponent squared; M112m is a little over 8 days on a GTX1080.)
(snip a bunch of numbers)
(there are more above 199M, of course, which can wait.)[/QUOTE]

I took the smallest available exponent in the 135M block.

Uncwilly 2018-11-26 15:17

[QUOTE=Madpoo;500089]And this is another list where I limited the exponent size to < 58M. The first one on the list actually shows up in the previous list (4 bad, zero good lifetime ratio) but that's the only overlap. These might be good if people are looking for more bite-size exponents to speculatively double-check.[/QUOTE]

I looked to grab the lowest off the list and found that several were already assigned. Here is an unsearched list of those that I haven't grabbed or found assigned:
[code]DoubleCheck=51129479,73,1
DoubleCheck=51255637,73,1
DoubleCheck=51663749,73,1
DoubleCheck=51746509,73,1
DoubleCheck=51789541,73,1
DoubleCheck=51833449,73,1
DoubleCheck=51890849,73,1
DoubleCheck=51922289,73,1
DoubleCheck=51980959,73,1
DoubleCheck=52054069,73,1
DoubleCheck=52088381,73,1
DoubleCheck=52121599,73,1
DoubleCheck=52228751,73,1
DoubleCheck=52229707,73,1
DoubleCheck=52234961,73,1
DoubleCheck=52550627,73,1
DoubleCheck=52581167,73,1
DoubleCheck=52733207,73,1
DoubleCheck=53016083,73,1
DoubleCheck=53351911,73,1
DoubleCheck=54004051,73,1
DoubleCheck=54023513,73,1
DoubleCheck=54025339,74,1
DoubleCheck=54144901,73,1
DoubleCheck=54329549,73,1
DoubleCheck=54715939,73,1
DoubleCheck=54784801,73,1
DoubleCheck=54861283,73,1
DoubleCheck=54886759,73,1
DoubleCheck=54918671,73,1
DoubleCheck=54919021,73,1
DoubleCheck=54936667,73,1
DoubleCheck=54947063,73,1
DoubleCheck=54978067,73,1
DoubleCheck=54994363,73,1
DoubleCheck=55169113,73,1
DoubleCheck=55169291,73,1
DoubleCheck=55174201,73,1
DoubleCheck=55178381,73,1
DoubleCheck=55179437,73,1
DoubleCheck=55185563,73,1
DoubleCheck=55337207,73,1
DoubleCheck=55338823,73,1
DoubleCheck=55353227,75,1
DoubleCheck=55385023,73,1
DoubleCheck=55395607,73,1
DoubleCheck=55425943,73,1
DoubleCheck=55659047,73,1
DoubleCheck=55663999,73,1
DoubleCheck=55664387,73,1
DoubleCheck=55672153,74,1
DoubleCheck=55677481,74,1
DoubleCheck=55759801,73,1
DoubleCheck=55821011,73,1
DoubleCheck=55869239,73,1
DoubleCheck=55880711,73,1
DoubleCheck=55971287,74,1
DoubleCheck=55995971,74,1
DoubleCheck=56033161,73,1
DoubleCheck=56091569,73,1
DoubleCheck=56112317,74,1
DoubleCheck=56180669,74,1
DoubleCheck=56193937,74,1
DoubleCheck=56194981,74,1
DoubleCheck=56202719,73,1
DoubleCheck=56223533,73,1
DoubleCheck=56311001,74,1
DoubleCheck=56540711,74,1
DoubleCheck=56607413,74,1
DoubleCheck=57025753,73,1
DoubleCheck=57076499,73,1
DoubleCheck=57076577,73,1
DoubleCheck=57076927,73,1
DoubleCheck=57089849,73,1
DoubleCheck=57095561,73,1
DoubleCheck=57100891,73,1
DoubleCheck=57129329,73,1
DoubleCheck=57140123,73,1
DoubleCheck=57200953,73,1
DoubleCheck=57295267,73,1
DoubleCheck=57364129,73,1
DoubleCheck=57385249,73,1
DoubleCheck=57442519,74,1
DoubleCheck=57465407,74,1
DoubleCheck=57566147,73,1
DoubleCheck=57566239,73,1
DoubleCheck=57580681,73,1
DoubleCheck=57830683,73,1
DoubleCheck=57840049,73,1
DoubleCheck=57934139,73,1
DoubleCheck=57943741,73,1[/code]

ET_ 2018-11-26 19:02

These are mine!

[code]
DoubleCheck=51129479,73,1
DoubleCheck=51255637,73,1
[/code]

Luigi

GP2 2018-11-26 21:04

[QUOTE=ET_;501001]These are mine!

[code]
DoubleCheck=[M]51129479[/M],73,1
DoubleCheck=[M]51255637[/M],73,1
[/code][/QUOTE]

Check again, I think Uncwilly was mistaken with his list, these were already assigned on 2018-11-12

ET_ 2018-11-26 21:15

[QUOTE=GP2;501010]Check again, I think Uncwilly was mistaken with his list, these were already assigned on 2018-11-12[/QUOTE]

Yep! I usually first reserve exponents on the forum and then check for their availability to avoid double reservations...
No problems, Uncwilly did an awesome work on recent lists.

Uncwilly 2018-11-26 21:30

[QUOTE=GP2;501010]Check again, I think Uncwilly was mistaken with his list, these were already assigned on 2018-11-12[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;500987]I looked to grab [COLOR="sandybrown"][B]the lowest[/B][/COLOR] off the list and found that several were already assigned. Here is an [COLOR="SandyBrown"][B]unsearched[/B][/COLOR] list of those that I haven't grabbed or found assigned:[/QUOTE]

I took Madpoo's list, stripped off the non-assignment info, ran it through Mersenne.ca's tool to sort it. Then put about 4 in my worktodo.txt and tried to register them. All assigned. Repeated with the next 4 or so. Got 1. I stopped at the 50,000,000 line. I reposted the rest, since no one had claimed them.

BTW, is there an easy way to see what is available in a range? I have seen some of the Class 0's listed as available. I want to only pick up them or other strategic assignments.

GP2 2018-11-26 22:45

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;501013]BTW, is there an easy way to see what is available in a range? I have seen some of the Class 0's listed as available. I want to only pick up them or other strategic assignments.[/QUOTE]

What's available can depend on how you try to get it.

For instance, if the first LL test returned a shift count of 0, then you will be able to get it by automatic assignment (adding it to an Prime95/mprime worktodo.add or worktodo.add.txt file and waiting for the communication update) but not by the manual assignment webpage, because Primenet wants to be sure that the second test will only be done by software that has a non-zero shiftcount.

So ultimately the only way to know for sure that something was available to you is by trying to get the assignment and succeeding.

Uncwilly 2018-11-26 23:32

[QUOTE=GP2;501018]What's available can depend on how you try to get it.

...
So ultimately the only way to know for sure that something was available to you is by trying to get the assignment and succeeding.[/QUOTE]But, what I meant, is there a way to see what is currently unassigned, but in need of testing (DC or first time) in a range? There is a way to do that with TF.

So, if I want to do the add, but not using the manual assignment page, how can I (easily) select the lowest unassigned?

kriesel 2018-11-28 20:29

[QUOTE=kriesel;500043]For those who prefer to run strategic double checks over first-time bin gap LL tests, there are plenty of million range of exponent value bins (116 and up) with double check assignments available that could be reserved and run. ...[/QUOTE]
I've started a new thread in my blog area with updates of the first and second check gaps and more. See [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=501182#post501182[/URL]
Subsequent updates are planned to occur there so as not to clutter this thread up with somewhat off-topic posts.

GP2 2018-11-29 14:40

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;501019]So, if I want to do the add, but not using the manual assignment page, how can I (easily) select the lowest unassigned?[/QUOTE]

I can't think of an easy way to do it. You could datamine to find unverified or untested exponents and then subtract anything already in Active Assignments. But of course the lowest unassigned will be snapped up very quickly.

moebius 2018-12-08 02:35

This exponent neeeds a quadruple-check
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M47017409"]47017409[/URL]

Madpoo 2018-12-08 17:27

[QUOTE=moebius;502036]This exponent neeeds a quadruple-check
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M47017409"]47017409[/URL][/QUOTE]

I already grabbed that one, before I saw this. :smile:

I still like to keep an eye out for any quad checks needed and do those on my home system.

moebius 2018-12-20 10:59

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502084]I already grabbed that one....[/QUOTE]


curtisc :mooc: didn't match....

Chuck 2018-12-20 13:22

Need a triple-check please for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47199343&full=1"]47199343[/URL]

penlu 2018-12-20 16:18

[QUOTE=Chuck;503432]Need a triple-check please for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47199343&full=1"]47199343[/URL][/QUOTE]

Is CUDALucas acceptable?

sdbardwick 2018-12-20 16:43

[QUOTE=Chuck;503432]Need a triple-check please for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47199343&full=1"]47199343[/URL][/QUOTE]
Queued; ETA Sunday 12/23 or Monday 12/24.

ETA: Ninja'd by penlu. I just started exponent, so if Chuck and penlu want to do the CLucas run instead, just post here and I'll unreserve the exponent.

Madpoo 2018-12-21 03:42

Updated list
 
Here's an updated list.

It's the lowest available exponent per machine/per year where that machine/year has at least as many bad as good exponents and doing one more test for it will help see which way it's breaking:

[CODE]
Exponent worktodo
46522159 DoubleCheck=46522159,73,1
46630271 DoubleCheck=46630271,73,1
46654061 DoubleCheck=46654061,73,1
46744393 DoubleCheck=46744393,73,1
47124559 DoubleCheck=47124559,73,1
47133773 DoubleCheck=47133773,73,1
47241017 DoubleCheck=47241017,73,1
47262629 DoubleCheck=47262629,73,1
47421767 DoubleCheck=47421767,73,1
47426473 DoubleCheck=47426473,73,1
47512571 DoubleCheck=47512571,73,1
47572289 DoubleCheck=47572289,73,1
47705677 DoubleCheck=47705677,73,1
47718361 DoubleCheck=47718361,73,1
47793367 DoubleCheck=47793367,73,1
47880047 DoubleCheck=47880047,73,1
48151459 DoubleCheck=48151459,73,1
48334061 DoubleCheck=48334061,73,1
48981089 DoubleCheck=48981089,73,1
49731677 DoubleCheck=49731677,73,1
50121233 DoubleCheck=50121233,74,1
50134541 DoubleCheck=50134541,74,1
50208209 DoubleCheck=50208209,74,1
50270821 DoubleCheck=50270821,74,1
50313313 DoubleCheck=50313313,74,1
51069533 DoubleCheck=51069533,73,1
51243767 DoubleCheck=51243767,73,1
51328531 DoubleCheck=51328531,73,1
51424907 DoubleCheck=51424907,73,1
51527743 DoubleCheck=51527743,73,1
51558889 DoubleCheck=51558889,73,1
51621127 DoubleCheck=51621127,73,1
51668987 DoubleCheck=51668987,73,1
52046887 DoubleCheck=52046887,73,1
52610273 DoubleCheck=52610273,73,1
52709303 DoubleCheck=52709303,73,1
52821257 DoubleCheck=52821257,73,1
53017379 DoubleCheck=53017379,73,1
53066249 DoubleCheck=53066249,73,1
53362721 DoubleCheck=53362721,73,1
53885399 DoubleCheck=53885399,73,1
54018031 DoubleCheck=54018031,73,1
54050357 DoubleCheck=54050357,74,1
54064499 DoubleCheck=54064499,73,1
54398959 DoubleCheck=54398959,73,1
54544267 DoubleCheck=54544267,73,1
55612871 DoubleCheck=55612871,73,1
55759727 DoubleCheck=55759727,73,1
55805137 DoubleCheck=55805137,73,1
55925281 DoubleCheck=55925281,73,1
56074331 DoubleCheck=56074331,73,1
56127839 DoubleCheck=56127839,74,1
56309789 DoubleCheck=56309789,74,1
56379391 DoubleCheck=56379391,74,1
56413249 DoubleCheck=56413249,74,1
56513671 DoubleCheck=56513671,74,1
56687399 DoubleCheck=56687399,74,1
56699593 DoubleCheck=56699593,74,1
57039313 DoubleCheck=57039313,73,1
57308519 DoubleCheck=57308519,73,1
57444263 DoubleCheck=57444263,73,1
57660703 DoubleCheck=57660703,74,1
57807821 DoubleCheck=57807821,73,1
58108049 DoubleCheck=58108049,74,1
58128401 DoubleCheck=58128401,74,1
58133759 DoubleCheck=58133759,74,1
58311793 DoubleCheck=58311793,74,1
58316047 DoubleCheck=58316047,73,1
58442773 DoubleCheck=58442773,73,1
58697381 DoubleCheck=58697381,73,1
58738289 DoubleCheck=58738289,74,1
59477533 DoubleCheck=59477533,74,1
59486227 DoubleCheck=59486227,74,1
59491429 DoubleCheck=59491429,74,1
60111431 DoubleCheck=60111431,74,1
60117623 DoubleCheck=60117623,74,1
60223861 DoubleCheck=60223861,74,1
60232439 DoubleCheck=60232439,74,1
60245401 DoubleCheck=60245401,74,1
60275093 DoubleCheck=60275093,74,1
60440057 DoubleCheck=60440057,74,1
60470737 DoubleCheck=60470737,74,1
60585403 DoubleCheck=60585403,74,1
60587951 DoubleCheck=60587951,74,1
60798373 DoubleCheck=60798373,74,1
60800303 DoubleCheck=60800303,74,1
61273963 DoubleCheck=61273963,74,1
61331843 DoubleCheck=61331843,74,1
61366993 DoubleCheck=61366993,74,1
61861403 DoubleCheck=61861403,74,1
61869853 DoubleCheck=61869853,74,1
61893619 DoubleCheck=61893619,74,1
62283493 DoubleCheck=62283493,74,1
62315857 DoubleCheck=62315857,74,1
62570063 DoubleCheck=62570063,74,1
62610589 DoubleCheck=62610589,74,1
62708509 DoubleCheck=62708509,74,1
62755013 DoubleCheck=62755013,74,1
62809451 DoubleCheck=62809451,74,1
62950499 DoubleCheck=62950499,74,1
[/CODE]

Prime95 2018-12-21 05:01

I grabbed these:

[CODE]46522159 DoubleCheck=46522159,73,1
46630271 DoubleCheck=46630271,73,1
46654061 DoubleCheck=46654061,73,1
46744393 DoubleCheck=46744393,73,1
47124559 DoubleCheck=47124559,73,1
47133773 DoubleCheck=47133773,73,1
47241017 DoubleCheck=47241017,73,1
47262629 DoubleCheck=47262629,73,1
[/CODE]

penlu 2018-12-21 19:17

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;503448]just post here and I'll unreserve the exponent.[/QUOTE]

I apologize if I've stepped on toes! Chuck's result for M47199343 is replicated. Still not sure if it's verification with prime95 that is specifically desired; if it is then I guess this result should be ignored.

Uncwilly 2018-12-21 22:35

[QUOTE=penlu;503577]I apologize if I've stepped on toes! Chuck's result for M47199343 is replicated. Still not sure if it's verification with prime95 that is specifically desired; if it is then I guess this result should be ignored.[/QUOTE]It did get assigned to user Amy Pond. Make sure your strategic DC's get registered. Don't accidentally poach someone's assignment.

Chuck 2018-12-21 22:45

[QUOTE=penlu;503577]I apologize if I've stepped on toes! Chuck's result for M47199343 is replicated. Still not sure if it's verification with prime95 that is specifically desired; if it is then I guess this result should be ignored.[/QUOTE]

Your double-check is enough.

christian_ 2018-12-25 04:50

Merry Christmas everyone! I'm excited to becoming active again here. If it's alright, I've started work on the next two on the list:

[CODE]
47421767 DoubleCheck=47421767,73,1
47426473 DoubleCheck=47426473,73,1
[/CODE]

christian_ 2018-12-26 07:28

As I've now figured out how to use GCE cloud computing, I'll take the next 6 ones available:

[CODE]
47512571 DoubleCheck=47512571,73,1
47572289 DoubleCheck=47572289,73,1
47705677 DoubleCheck=47705677,73,1
47718361 DoubleCheck=47718361,73,1
47793367 DoubleCheck=47793367,73,1
47880047 DoubleCheck=47880047,73,1
[/CODE]

GP2 2018-12-26 15:23

[QUOTE=christianpoland;503990]As I've now figured out how to use GCE cloud computing, I'll take the next 6 ones available:[/QUOTE]

Make sure you are using Skylake. Unlike AWS, on GCE there is a mixed bag of architectures all under the same instance type.

When logged in to your instance, try something like [c]grep avx512 /proc/cpuinfo[/c]

If there is no output from this command, you aren't on a Skylake machine.

When in "Create Instance", make sure to click on the "Customize" button (under "Machine type") and change "CPU platform" from "Automatic" to "Intel Skylake or later".

christian_ 2018-12-26 18:39

[QUOTE=GP2;504013]
When logged in to your instance, try something like [c]grep avx512 /proc/cpuinfo[/c]

If there is no output from this command, you aren't on a Skylake machine.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, there is an output. I thought I might as well use my $300 free credit (although the free tier only allows at most 8 vCPUs that aren't preemptible).

Thanks!

ET_ 2018-12-27 12:39

[QUOTE=christianpoland;504029]Yes, there is an output. I thought I might as well use my $300 free credit (although the free tier only allows at most 8 vCPUs that aren't preemptible).

Thanks![/QUOTE]

I suggest you use a virtual 2-CPU instance (1 real core) because it will be more efficient for GIMPS.

christian_ 2018-12-27 18:16

[QUOTE=ET_;504106]
I suggest you use a virtual 2-CPU instance (1 real core) because it will be more efficient for GIMPS.
[/QUOTE]

Is this because of memory bandwidth? I was thinking about running four n1-highcpu-2s instead of one n1-highcpu-8 but the setup on GCE is more difficult because there's no elastic file system (that I can find). I'll try it now and see how my throughput changes.

EDIT: Just realised I can make a snapshot of the first disk to create new disks (duh!). Also the free tier includes 5GBs of snapshot storage.

Okay, looks like my throughput has improved from 3.7ms/iter to 14.3ms/iter รท 4 = 3.575ms/iter. Thanks for the advice!

christian_ 2018-12-29 18:10

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47421767&full=1"]47421767[/URL] will need a TC :smile:

Uncwilly 2019-01-02 14:53

[QUOTE=christian_;504289][URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47421767&full=1"]47421767[/URL] will need a TC :smile:[/QUOTE]
Someone grabbed that already (I was away from my LL machines.)

Here is the list after I took what remained below 50,xxx,xxx
[CODE]
Exponent worktodo
50121233 DoubleCheck=[M]50121233[/M],74,1
50134541 DoubleCheck=[M]50134541[/M],74,1
50208209 DoubleCheck=[M]50208209[/M],74,1
50270821 DoubleCheck=[M]50270821[/M],74,1
50313313 DoubleCheck=[M]50313313[/M],74,1
51527743 DoubleCheck=[M]51527743[/M],73,1
51558889 DoubleCheck=[M]51558889[/M],73,1
51621127 DoubleCheck=[M]51621127[/M],73,1
51668987 DoubleCheck=[M]51668987[/M],73,1
54018031 DoubleCheck=[M]54018031[/M],73,1
54050357 DoubleCheck=[M]54050357[/M],74,1
54544267 DoubleCheck=[M]54544267[/M],73,1
55925281 DoubleCheck=[M]55925281[/M],73,1
56074331 DoubleCheck=[M]56074331[/M],73,1
56127839 DoubleCheck=[M]56127839[/M],74,1
56309789 DoubleCheck=[M]56309789[/M],74,1
56379391 DoubleCheck=[M]56379391[/M],74,1
56413249 DoubleCheck=[M]56413249[/M],74,1
56513671 DoubleCheck=[M]56513671[/M],74,1
56687399 DoubleCheck=[M]56687399[/M],74,1
56699593 DoubleCheck=[M]56699593[/M],74,1
57039313 DoubleCheck=[M]57039313[/M],73,1
57308519 DoubleCheck=[M]57308519[/M],73,1
57444263 DoubleCheck=[M]57444263[/M],73,1
57660703 DoubleCheck=[M]57660703[/M],74,1
57807821 DoubleCheck=[M]57807821[/M],73,1
58108049 DoubleCheck=[M]58108049[/M],74,1
58128401 DoubleCheck=[M]58128401[/M],74,1
58133759 DoubleCheck=[M]58133759[/M],74,1
58311793 DoubleCheck=[M]58311793[/M],74,1
58738289 DoubleCheck=[M]58738289[/M],74,1
59477533 DoubleCheck=[M]59477533[/M],74,1
59486227 DoubleCheck=[M]59486227[/M],74,1
59491429 DoubleCheck=[M]59491429[/M],74,1
60111431 DoubleCheck=[M]60111431[/M],74,1
60117623 DoubleCheck=[M]60117623[/M],74,1
60223861 DoubleCheck=[M]60223861[/M],74,1
60232439 DoubleCheck=[M]60232439[/M],74,1
60245401 DoubleCheck=[M]60245401[/M],74,1
60275093 DoubleCheck=[M]60275093[/M],74,1
60440057 DoubleCheck=[M]60440057[/M],74,1
60470737 DoubleCheck=[M]60470737[/M],74,1
60585403 DoubleCheck=[M]60585403[/M],74,1
60587951 DoubleCheck=[M]60587951[/M],74,1
60798373 DoubleCheck=[M]60798373[/M],74,1
60800303 DoubleCheck=[M]60800303[/M],74,1
61273963 DoubleCheck=[M]61273963[/M],74,1
61331843 DoubleCheck=[M]61331843[/M],74,1
61366993 DoubleCheck=[M]61366993[/M],74,1
61861403 DoubleCheck=[M]61861403[/M],74,1
61869853 DoubleCheck=[M]61869853[/M],74,1
61893619 DoubleCheck=[M]61893619[/M],74,1
62283493 DoubleCheck=[M]62283493[/M],74,1
62315857 DoubleCheck=[M]62315857[/M],74,1
62570063 DoubleCheck=[M]62570063[/M],74,1
62610589 DoubleCheck=[M]62610589[/M],74,1
62708509 DoubleCheck=[M]62708509[/M],74,1
62755013 DoubleCheck=[M]62755013[/M],74,1
62809451 DoubleCheck=[M]62809451[/M],74,1
62950499 DoubleCheck=[M]62950499[/M],74,1
[/CODE]

christian_ 2019-01-02 19:21

Taking:

[CODE]
50121233 DoubleCheck=50121233,74,1
50134541 DoubleCheck=50134541,74,1
50208209 DoubleCheck=50208209,74,1
50270821 DoubleCheck=50270821,74,1
50313313 DoubleCheck=50313313,74,1
51527743 DoubleCheck=51527743,73,1
51558889 DoubleCheck=51558889,73,1
51621127 DoubleCheck=51621127,73,1
51668987 DoubleCheck=51668987,73,1
54018031 DoubleCheck=54018031,73,1 (already assigned)
[/CODE]

endless mike 2019-01-03 11:11

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;504661]Someone grabbed that already (I was away from my LL machines.)

Here is the list after I took what remained below 50,xxx,xxx
[CODE]
Exponent worktodo
50121233 DoubleCheck=[M]50121233[/M],74,1
50134541 DoubleCheck=[M]50134541[/M],74,1
50208209 DoubleCheck=[M]50208209[/M],74,1
50270821 DoubleCheck=[M]50270821[/M],74,1
50313313 DoubleCheck=[M]50313313[/M],74,1
51527743 DoubleCheck=[M]51527743[/M],73,1
51558889 DoubleCheck=[M]51558889[/M],73,1
51621127 DoubleCheck=[M]51621127[/M],73,1
51668987 DoubleCheck=[M]51668987[/M],73,1
54018031 DoubleCheck=[M]54018031[/M],73,1
54050357 DoubleCheck=[M]54050357[/M],74,1
54544267 DoubleCheck=[M]54544267[/M],73,1
55925281 DoubleCheck=[M]55925281[/M],73,1
56074331 DoubleCheck=[M]56074331[/M],73,1
56127839 DoubleCheck=[M]56127839[/M],74,1
56309789 DoubleCheck=[M]56309789[/M],74,1
56379391 DoubleCheck=[M]56379391[/M],74,1
56413249 DoubleCheck=[M]56413249[/M],74,1
56513671 DoubleCheck=[M]56513671[/M],74,1
56687399 DoubleCheck=[M]56687399[/M],74,1
56699593 DoubleCheck=[M]56699593[/M],74,1
57039313 DoubleCheck=[M]57039313[/M],73,1
57308519 DoubleCheck=[M]57308519[/M],73,1
57444263 DoubleCheck=[M]57444263[/M],73,1
57660703 DoubleCheck=[M]57660703[/M],74,1
57807821 DoubleCheck=[M]57807821[/M],73,1
58108049 DoubleCheck=[M]58108049[/M],74,1
58128401 DoubleCheck=[M]58128401[/M],74,1
58133759 DoubleCheck=[M]58133759[/M],74,1
58311793 DoubleCheck=[M]58311793[/M],74,1
58738289 DoubleCheck=[M]58738289[/M],74,1
59477533 DoubleCheck=[M]59477533[/M],74,1
59486227 DoubleCheck=[M]59486227[/M],74,1
59491429 DoubleCheck=[M]59491429[/M],74,1
60111431 DoubleCheck=[M]60111431[/M],74,1
60117623 DoubleCheck=[M]60117623[/M],74,1
60223861 DoubleCheck=[M]60223861[/M],74,1
60232439 DoubleCheck=[M]60232439[/M],74,1
60245401 DoubleCheck=[M]60245401[/M],74,1
60275093 DoubleCheck=[M]60275093[/M],74,1
60440057 DoubleCheck=[M]60440057[/M],74,1
60470737 DoubleCheck=[M]60470737[/M],74,1
60585403 DoubleCheck=[M]60585403[/M],74,1
60587951 DoubleCheck=[M]60587951[/M],74,1
60798373 DoubleCheck=[M]60798373[/M],74,1
60800303 DoubleCheck=[M]60800303[/M],74,1
61273963 DoubleCheck=[M]61273963[/M],74,1
61331843 DoubleCheck=[M]61331843[/M],74,1
61366993 DoubleCheck=[M]61366993[/M],74,1
61861403 DoubleCheck=[M]61861403[/M],74,1
61869853 DoubleCheck=[M]61869853[/M],74,1
61893619 DoubleCheck=[M]61893619[/M],74,1
62283493 DoubleCheck=[M]62283493[/M],74,1
62315857 DoubleCheck=[M]62315857[/M],74,1
62570063 DoubleCheck=[M]62570063[/M],74,1
62610589 DoubleCheck=[M]62610589[/M],74,1
62708509 DoubleCheck=[M]62708509[/M],74,1
62755013 DoubleCheck=[M]62755013[/M],74,1
62809451 DoubleCheck=[M]62809451[/M],74,1
62950499 DoubleCheck=[M]62950499[/M],74,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=christian_;504686]Taking:

[CODE]
50121233 DoubleCheck=50121233,74,1
50134541 DoubleCheck=50134541,74,1
50208209 DoubleCheck=50208209,74,1
50270821 DoubleCheck=50270821,74,1
50313313 DoubleCheck=50313313,74,1
51527743 DoubleCheck=51527743,73,1
51558889 DoubleCheck=51558889,73,1
51621127 DoubleCheck=51621127,73,1
51668987 DoubleCheck=51668987,73,1
54018031 DoubleCheck=54018031,73,1 (already assigned)
[/CODE][/QUOTE]


I took the rest of this list except for 54050357 DoubleCheck=[M]54050357[/M],74,1
was already assigned.

christian_ 2019-01-03 21:45

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47718361&full=1"]47718361[/URL] will also need a TC. Now 2 for 2!

Uncwilly 2019-01-03 21:55

[QUOTE=christian_;504824][URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=47718361&full=1"]47718361[/URL] will also need a TC. Now 2 for 2![/QUOTE]Queued and got assignment key.

storm5510 2019-01-10 16:21

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;504825]Queued and got assignment key.[/QUOTE]

I understand the need for an assignment key. If a person wants to run the test on a GPU, they have to first load it into [I]Prime95[/I] to get the key, then stop it and transfer the assignment to [I]CUDALucas[/I]. This seems a little impractical. If there is another way, I am not aware of it.

:picard:

Uncwilly 2019-01-10 21:37

For the moment and foreseeable future, to get specific assignments yes, you have to use Prime95. If you want to get generic LL checks, at one point you could do it through GPUto72.

chalsall 2019-01-10 22:53

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;505568]If you want to get generic LL checks, at one point you could do it through GPUto72.[/QUOTE]

No longer...

Before the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]current assignment rules[/URL] were enacted (in 2014), GPU72 made low LL and DC assignments available by way of a once-a-night spider run which harvested expired candidates, and a "trick" which involved anonymous assignments being transferred to official accounts.

While the proxy which was created to automate this process still works, GPU72 now simply forwards all LL & DC requests to Primenet to assign.

My word! How time flies (Are we there, yet? :wink:)....

storm5510 2019-01-11 13:57

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;505568]For the moment and foreseeable future, to get specific assignments yes, you have to use Prime95. If you want to get generic LL checks, at one point you could do it through GPUto72.[/QUOTE]

Currently, I am getting my DC assignments from the server. No worries about not having AID's. From time-to-time, I run some GPUto72 exponents. This is TF at the wavefront. GPUto72 is only TF and PM1 now. I do not see any links for DC. I used to run exponents shown here but they get picked out so fast, I no longer try. It think it is because I only come here if I get an email notification about something I am watching.

Madpoo 2019-01-11 17:23

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;505568]For the moment and foreseeable future, to get specific assignments yes, you have to use Prime95. If you want to get generic LL checks, at one point you could do it through GPUto72.[/QUOTE]

I think you can reserve specific exponents on the manual assignments page, but that only works for cat 4 (and maybe cat 3?) work. The system still likes to have some say into the type of machine doing cat 0/1/2 work to ensure they'll finish in a reasonable amount of time.

The "trick" of starting an unassigned run on an exponent and forcing a check-in will still work since the server says "ah, well, this machine did start, I may as well assign it if available". It's a nicety, but cumbersome for GPUs.

kriesel 2019-01-11 19:03

[QUOTE=Madpoo;505618]I think you can reserve specific exponents on the manual assignments page, but that only works for cat 4 (and maybe cat 3?) work. The system still likes to have some say into the type of machine doing cat 0/1/2 work to ensure they'll finish in a reasonable amount of time.

The "trick" of starting an unassigned run on an exponent and forcing a check-in will still work since the server says "ah, well, this machine did start, I may as well assign it if available". It's a nicety, but cumbersome for GPUs.[/QUOTE]
Assignment rules are here: [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL]
DC, clearly states, cat 2 3 and 4 are eligible for manual assignment.
Cat 2 places a condition on it: "If manual testing, user must have signed up for the smallest exponents (see setting in green above)"

LL test, same.
category bounds change over time.
currently:
cat 0 <82864802
cat 1 <84858848 (difference from cat 0, 1,994,046)
cat 2 <86645330 (difference from cat 1, 1,786,482)
cat 3 <88493310 (difference from cat 2, 1,847,980)
cat 4 everything else in mersenne.org's p<10[SUP]9[/SUP] range.

See also the thresholds for system speed etc.

Simple test: obtain one smallest available first time LL assignment. I got
Test=(aid redacted),83104493,76,1
That's a cat 1 exponent manually assigned, via the [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/manual_assignment/[/URL] page.
Cat 1 deadlines: "Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started within 20 days or does not report in for 30 days or when assignment is more than 90 days old."
Cat 2 deadlines: "Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started within 30 (unless manual testing) days or when the exponent moves midway into the first category and the assignment is more than 180 days old."

A manual assignment put on a gpu will appear to the server to be unstarted, during its entire computation, since there's no provision for reporting percent complete updates manually from a gpu application. So a cat 1 manual assignment should be completed and reported within 20 days of its assignment, to avoid assignment expiration and the appearance of very fast poaching of the assignment then reassigned to someone else.
(So into the short queue on a fast gpu that manual assignment test exponent above goes. If put on my slowest discrete gpu, Quadro 2000, it would take around 38 days. I paradoxically need to reserve bigger slower exponents to have enough time to complete them before they expire; cat 3 or 4 or high cat 2 when reserved. And the category boundaries move noticeably during the run times. An 88M exponent takes about 43 days on a Quadro 2000, in which time the category boundaries can advance by about 708,500. That's 38% of the average current width1,876,169.3 of categories 1, 2, and 3.)

Madpoo 2019-01-12 18:03

[QUOTE=kriesel;505621]...
A manual assignment put on a gpu will appear to the server to be unstarted, during its entire computation, since there's no provision for reporting percent complete updates manually from a gpu application....[/QUOTE]

This may not be the solution you wanted to hear, but the API for Primenet is published and if the devs of the GPU software wanted to, they could use those to communicate with Primenet just like Prime95 does.

I even briefly tinkered with the idea myself, when I was regularly getting large batches of manual assignments of my own for the strategic DC work. I did it all with manual assignments, of course, since it was a very select list of exponents, and I would sometimes queue of several weeks worth. I didn't want the client to automatically communicate because it might pick up assignments I didn't want, or expire some, etc.

So I started some scripts that would reach out to each worker, read the backup file and get the current iteration, etc. It would have had to look in the worktodo as well to get the assignment ID for that exponent.

Anyway, in theory it would have all worked that way. I got as far as figuring out what the POST should look like (and I think there was a requirement that the "client" needs to update the CPU info first before doing any progress updates).

Why didn't I finish that up? Well, because I realized that since I have access to the server itself, I could take that same info and output a script to update my progress directly in the database. LOL ... So yeah, I took the easy way. But yeah, someone who reads the API, and maybe monitors what a real client is sending just to confirm how it's working, should be able to do it.

There are other projects out there like GPU72 that currently get assignments using the web pages, and it would be so much easier (after the initial work) to use the API, but oh well... we tend to stick with what works, I suppose.

christian_ 2019-01-12 18:06

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=50208209&full=1"]50208209[/URL] will need a TC.

kriesel 2019-01-12 18:56

1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Madpoo;505717]This may not be the solution you wanted to hear, but the API for Primenet is published and if the devs of the GPU software wanted to, they could use those to communicate with Primenet just like Prime95 does.
...
There are other projects out there like GPU72 that currently get assignments using the web pages, and it would be so much easier (after the initial work) to use the API, but oh well... we tend to stick with what works, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't seeking an immediate solution, but pointing out the enduring lack of one for progress updating in the gpu computing sector of GIMPS.

I can't find it right now, using the forum search tool, but I wrote a while back about the disparity between the cpu-oriented data the Primenet API seeks and the different memory model gpus have. It looked to me a bit like trying to fit one's hand in a shoe, or wear a glove on one's foot.
(There does not seem to be a capability in the forum search tool, to specify keword1 AND keyword2. I get inclusive or results for searches. Also API is not a keyword with any hits at all. Inclusive-or generates the apparently maximal matches returned too easily, not searching back far enough.)


Oh, here it is: a suggestion for extension of the API so it fits gpu computing. [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=479856&postcount=427[/URL]
If we give the Primenet front end gpu parameters fit as well as practical to the cpu-oriented parameters it wants, will it accept and handle them sensibly in the back end? For example, for number of cpu cores, do we use 1, # of ROPS, # of TMU, # of shaders? Will Primenet accept such large numbers? Will it expect to potentially be able to run an independent assignment (worker) on each? For the GTX1080, 2560 cores per the NVIDIA specifications at ("full specs" link in) [URL]https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/geforce-gtx-1080/[/URL]
How best to map the memory parameters?

AJ Alon 2019-01-14 03:29

[QUOTE=christian_;505718][URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=50208209&full=1"]50208209[/URL] will need a TC.[/QUOTE]

I've queued this TC.

moebius 2019-01-18 21:33

ATH, Your PRP First time-test matched with my one.:victor:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=82408181&full=1"]82408181[/URL]

Madpoo 2019-02-04 00:48

New list
 
Recently I've been doing a deep look at error codes and how they affect the overall good/bad status.

I'm not sure why (and there's probably some old reason), but George has set things so that any # of "illegal sumout" errors are *not* treated as "suspicious". However, when I look at the historical end status of such results (good or bad), I've seen that if there is even a single "illegal sumout" recorded, the odds of it being bad are about 37.5%. Strange thing is that it doesn't seem to matter much if you have just one, or a lot of them (over 10). The overall odds of being bad are roughly the same. Like, for those with over 20 of them, the odds only go to ~ 40% chance of being bad.

"illegal sumouts" are recorded in the 2nd most significant byte of the error code, so, for example an error code like "00230000" the illegal sumouts are "0x23" or 35 decimal. In versions of Prime95 >= 29.3 it's actually only the lowest nibble of that byte, so it'd only be "0x3" in that example. The upper nibble of that byte is now set aside for a count of PRP errors. Meaning new versions would only max out at being able to record up to 15 such errors. But like I mentioned, it doesn't matter if it's one or 20+, the odds of being bad are roughly the same.

Anyway, right now I have a list of 74 exponents below 70M with at least one illegal sumout during its run. Here's that list, sorted by exponent. I included the decimal count of illegal sumouts (column "is") in case anyone is curious.

[CODE]
exponent is worktodo
46927799 1 DoubleCheck=46927799,73,1
47316499 12 DoubleCheck=47316499,73,1
47371187 1 DoubleCheck=47371187,73,1
47715463 1 DoubleCheck=47715463,73,1
47731771 2 DoubleCheck=47731771,73,1
47777167 1 DoubleCheck=47777167,73,1
47905967 1 DoubleCheck=47905967,73,1
47961779 1 DoubleCheck=47961779,73,1
48302941 1 DoubleCheck=48302941,73,1
48418189 1 DoubleCheck=48418189,73,1
48461863 1 DoubleCheck=48461863,73,1
49287883 1 DoubleCheck=49287883,73,1
49486603 1 DoubleCheck=49486603,73,1
49743829 1 DoubleCheck=49743829,73,1
50334617 32 DoubleCheck=50334617,73,1
50412689 1 DoubleCheck=50412689,73,1
50539561 2 DoubleCheck=50539561,73,1
50567743 2 DoubleCheck=50567743,73,1
50567893 1 DoubleCheck=50567893,73,1
50970839 1 DoubleCheck=50970839,73,1
50988037 1 DoubleCheck=50988037,73,1
51813929 1 DoubleCheck=51813929,73,1
52875653 1 DoubleCheck=52875653,73,1
54794357 1 DoubleCheck=54794357,73,1
54963851 1 DoubleCheck=54963851,73,1
55473161 1 DoubleCheck=55473161,74,1
55473541 1 DoubleCheck=55473541,74,1
55553083 1 DoubleCheck=55553083,73,1
56604599 1 DoubleCheck=56604599,73,1
56636033 2 DoubleCheck=56636033,73,1
56648089 1 DoubleCheck=56648089,73,1
56768977 1 DoubleCheck=56768977,73,1
56893553 1 DoubleCheck=56893553,73,1
57994177 1 DoubleCheck=57994177,74,1
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
69433369 4 DoubleCheck=69433369,74,1
69445963 1 DoubleCheck=69445963,75,1
69479407 1 DoubleCheck=69479407,75,1
69479569 1 DoubleCheck=69479569,75,1
69717211 1 DoubleCheck=69717211,75,1[/CODE]

Prime95 2019-02-04 01:28

I took the first one:

[CODE]DoubleCheck=46927799,73,1[/CODE]

ET_ 2019-02-04 10:52

[QUOTE=Madpoo;507595]Recently I've been doing a deep look at error codes and how they affect the overall good/bad status.

I'm not sure why (and there's probably some old reason), but George has set things so that any # of "illegal sumout" errors are *not* treated as "suspicious". However, when I look at the historical end status of such results (good or bad), I've seen that if there is even a single "illegal sumout" recorded, the odds of it being bad are about 37.5%. Strange thing is that it doesn't seem to matter much if you have just one, or a lot of them (over 10). The overall odds of being bad are roughly the same. Like, for those with over 20 of them, the odds only go to ~ 40% chance of being bad.

"illegal sumouts" are recorded in the 2nd most significant byte of the error code, so, for example an error code like "00230000" the illegal sumouts are "0x23" or 35 decimal. In versions of Prime95 >= 29.3 it's actually only the lowest nibble of that byte, so it'd only be "0x3" in that example. The upper nibble of that byte is now set aside for a count of PRP errors. Meaning new versions would only max out at being able to record up to 15 such errors. But like I mentioned, it doesn't matter if it's one or 20+, the odds of being bad are roughly the same.

Anyway, right now I have a list of 74 exponents below 70M with at least one illegal sumout during its run. Here's that list, sorted by exponent. I included the decimal count of illegal sumouts (column "is") in case anyone is curious.

[CODE]
exponent is worktodo
46927799 1 DoubleCheck=46927799,73,1
47316499 12 DoubleCheck=47316499,73,1
47371187 1 DoubleCheck=47371187,73,1
47715463 1 DoubleCheck=47715463,73,1
47731771 2 DoubleCheck=47731771,73,1
47777167 1 DoubleCheck=47777167,73,1
47905967 1 DoubleCheck=47905967,73,1
47961779 1 DoubleCheck=47961779,73,1
48302941 1 DoubleCheck=48302941,73,1
48418189 1 DoubleCheck=48418189,73,1
48461863 1 DoubleCheck=48461863,73,1
49287883 1 DoubleCheck=49287883,73,1
49486603 1 DoubleCheck=49486603,73,1
49743829 1 DoubleCheck=49743829,73,1
50334617 32 DoubleCheck=50334617,73,1
50412689 1 DoubleCheck=50412689,73,1
50539561 2 DoubleCheck=50539561,73,1
50567743 2 DoubleCheck=50567743,73,1
50567893 1 DoubleCheck=50567893,73,1
50970839 1 DoubleCheck=50970839,73,1
50988037 1 DoubleCheck=50988037,73,1
51813929 1 DoubleCheck=51813929,73,1
52875653 1 DoubleCheck=52875653,73,1
54794357 1 DoubleCheck=54794357,73,1
54963851 1 DoubleCheck=54963851,73,1
55473161 1 DoubleCheck=55473161,74,1
55473541 1 DoubleCheck=55473541,74,1
55553083 1 DoubleCheck=55553083,73,1
56604599 1 DoubleCheck=56604599,73,1
56636033 2 DoubleCheck=56636033,73,1
56648089 1 DoubleCheck=56648089,73,1
56768977 1 DoubleCheck=56768977,73,1
56893553 1 DoubleCheck=56893553,73,1
57994177 1 DoubleCheck=57994177,74,1
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
69433369 4 DoubleCheck=69433369,74,1
69445963 1 DoubleCheck=69445963,75,1
69479407 1 DoubleCheck=69479407,75,1
69479569 1 DoubleCheck=69479569,75,1
69717211 1 DoubleCheck=69717211,75,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I will take there:

[code]
47316499 12 DoubleCheck=47316499,73,1
47371187 1 DoubleCheck=47371187,73,1
47715463 1 DoubleCheck=47715463,73,1
47731771 2 DoubleCheck=47731771,73,1
47777167 1 DoubleCheck=47777167,73,1
47905967 1 DoubleCheck=47905967,73,1
[/code]

Uncwilly 2019-02-04 15:18

I took some. Here is the remaining list.
[CODE]50334617 32 DoubleCheck=50334617,73,1
50412689 1 DoubleCheck=50412689,73,1
50539561 2 DoubleCheck=50539561,73,1
50567743 2 DoubleCheck=50567743,73,1
50567893 1 DoubleCheck=50567893,73,1
50970839 1 DoubleCheck=50970839,73,1
50988037 1 DoubleCheck=50988037,73,1
51813929 1 DoubleCheck=51813929,73,1
52875653 1 DoubleCheck=52875653,73,1
54794357 1 DoubleCheck=54794357,73,1
54963851 1 DoubleCheck=54963851,73,1
55473161 1 DoubleCheck=55473161,74,1
55473541 1 DoubleCheck=55473541,74,1
55553083 1 DoubleCheck=55553083,73,1
56604599 1 DoubleCheck=56604599,73,1
56636033 2 DoubleCheck=56636033,73,1
56648089 1 DoubleCheck=56648089,73,1
56768977 1 DoubleCheck=56768977,73,1
56893553 1 DoubleCheck=56893553,73,1
57994177 1 DoubleCheck=57994177,74,1
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
69433369 4 DoubleCheck=69433369,74,1
69445963 1 DoubleCheck=69445963,75,1
69479407 1 DoubleCheck=69479407,75,1
69479569 1 DoubleCheck=69479569,75,1
69717211 1 DoubleCheck=69717211,75,1[/CODE]

dragonbud20 2019-02-04 23:44

took some as well here's whats left
[CODE]
55473161 1 DoubleCheck=55473161,74,1
55473541 1 DoubleCheck=55473541,74,1
55553083 1 DoubleCheck=55553083,73,1
56604599 1 DoubleCheck=56604599,73,1
56636033 2 DoubleCheck=56636033,73,1
56648089 1 DoubleCheck=56648089,73,1
56768977 1 DoubleCheck=56768977,73,1
56893553 1 DoubleCheck=56893553,73,1
57994177 1 DoubleCheck=57994177,74,1
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
69433369 4 DoubleCheck=69433369,74,1
69445963 1 DoubleCheck=69445963,75,1
69479407 1 DoubleCheck=69479407,75,1
69479569 1 DoubleCheck=69479569,75,1
69717211 1 DoubleCheck=69717211,75,1[/CODE]

AJ Alon 2019-02-06 01:30

Took the last five. Here's what's remaining.

[CODE]
55473161 1 DoubleCheck=55473161,74,1
55473541 1 DoubleCheck=55473541,74,1
55553083 1 DoubleCheck=55553083,73,1
56604599 1 DoubleCheck=56604599,73,1
56636033 2 DoubleCheck=56636033,73,1
56648089 1 DoubleCheck=56648089,73,1
56768977 1 DoubleCheck=56768977,73,1
56893553 1 DoubleCheck=56893553,73,1
57994177 1 DoubleCheck=57994177,74,1
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
[/CODE]

ewmayer 2019-02-07 04:22

Took 55473161,55473541,55553083,56604599,56636033,56648089,56768977,56893553,57994177. Remaining:
[CODE]
59059157 1 DoubleCheck=59059157,75,1
60724151 1 DoubleCheck=60724151,74,1
61062347 1 DoubleCheck=61062347,74,1
61318423 1 DoubleCheck=61318423,74,1
61419041 1 DoubleCheck=61419041,74,1
61444667 1 DoubleCheck=61444667,74,1
61545647 1 DoubleCheck=61545647,74,1
62303069 1 DoubleCheck=62303069,74,1
62452219 1 DoubleCheck=62452219,74,1
62493631 1 DoubleCheck=62493631,74,1
62871191 1 DoubleCheck=62871191,74,1
62917997 2 DoubleCheck=62917997,74,1
63955781 1 DoubleCheck=63955781,74,1
64333307 1 DoubleCheck=64333307,74,1
64381453 1 DoubleCheck=64381453,74,1
65361887 1 DoubleCheck=65361887,74,1
65392891 1 DoubleCheck=65392891,74,1
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
[/CODE]

kriesel 2019-02-07 16:14

I'm taking from the top of what Ernst posted as left, through
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1

so what is left now is[CODE]
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
[/CODE]

endless mike 2019-02-10 16:43

I took the next 13 from the list.

[QUOTE=kriesel;507923]I'm taking from the top of what Ernst posted as left, through
66358169 6 DoubleCheck=66358169,74,1

so what is left now is[CODE]
66407041 1 DoubleCheck=66407041,75,1
66641867 1 DoubleCheck=66641867,75,1
67124983 1 DoubleCheck=67124983,75,1
67146199 1 DoubleCheck=67146199,75,1
67265641 1 DoubleCheck=67265641,75,1
67316213 1 DoubleCheck=67316213,75,1
67457959 1 DoubleCheck=67457959,75,1
67458731 1 DoubleCheck=67458731,75,1
68255843 1 DoubleCheck=68255843,75,1
68592781 1 DoubleCheck=68592781,75,1
68776811 1 DoubleCheck=68776811,75,1
68786083 1 DoubleCheck=68786083,75,1
68852843 1 DoubleCheck=68852843,75,1
68955583 1 DoubleCheck=68955583,75,1
69193373 1 DoubleCheck=69193373,75,1
69267971 1 DoubleCheck=69267971,75,1
69386683 1 DoubleCheck=69386683,75,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

GP2 2019-02-10 18:18

[QUOTE=endless mike;508204]I took the next 13 from the list.[/QUOTE]

I took the final four.

ewmayer 2019-02-11 03:12

Currently doing a first-time LL test on my Haswell of an exponent just below the Mlucas 4608K limit, run is only ~1/6th done but could use an early DC (or first-time test, depending on which of us finishes first) ... 240 roundoff = 0.4375 warnings through 14.5Miter. There were also a couple 0.46875 ROEs which caused the program to restart-from-last-savefile using FFT length 5120K, but I forced it back to 4608K when next I checked the run status and saw the jump in FFT-length, out of curiosity whether a run could survive that many 0.4375 errors and still yield the correct result.

[[b]Edit:[/b] I should add that pre-v18 Mlucas only auto-jumps to the next-higher FFT length if ROE > 0.4375, whereas the currently-in-testing v18 replaces that > with >=. I switched the above run from v17 to v18 ~iter 14M, so there will be no more 0.4375-ROE-but-run-continues on top of the aforementioned ones.]

Exponent is p = 86695979 ... might be good to turn InterimResidues (or whatever the flag is named) on, so we can cross-compare Res64s every 1M iters, similar to what we do when verifying a new-prime find.

GP2 2019-02-13 17:35

[QUOTE=ewmayer;508238]Exponent is p = 86695979 ... might be good to turn InterimResidues (or whatever the flag is named) on, so we can cross-compare Res64s every 1M iters, similar to what we do when verifying a new-prime find.[/QUOTE]

I am doing this. It's on an 8-core machine so it will finish in about 55 hours.

ewmayer 2019-02-13 20:33

[QUOTE=GP2;508443]I am doing this. It's on an 8-core machine so it will finish in about 55 hours.[/QUOTE]

Thanks! You'll finish before I do, as I'm running on an older quad and mostly at night (helps keep the bedroom a few degrees warmer). Here are my every-1M-iter Res64s to date:

1M: ABA7010240F485A0
2M: B6F8C6730FA8AE82
3M: 75E446C0F866B377
4M: CF591C2B2D7B1473
5M: A5AA934ECE2D0913
6M: A88D686E58AFA163
7M: 59B5ACF4520E4CEE
8M: C68D49A2E11F5B66
9M: 75621E01F1CF2836
10M: 37F5A8BFAFA80E8C
11M: E6C969ABC21563F4
12M: 98C27AF7C26EB071
13M: 9689B4356671E0FB
14M: 8DF044F1973162C0
15M: A9A9644AAE468DD0
16M: 2A099E160A759DDE
17M: D1F13882FD593E67
18M: C489D9BECAD73EA5
19M: 1217701D8287C7BF
20M: D0A52135AFA2B375
21M: A7BF56ED2B7DFC6E
22M: DFE843555BA909B9
23M: 166EE040896ACB5F
24M: FA83D9CB6F6F3A22
25M: E10A190E069BA9FE
26M: 6AFD4E610F99FFC5
27M: F5A274BA021A19A8
28M: 94680B56E4FCAE68
29M: B807C2E9151849A3
30M: 241C28ADE3B2BC9D
31M: 0B140B9CE812A0EC
32M: FC40BF7C19B265DA
33M: 4D3604E72D5003F6
34M: 708B5665A1A6DD6B
35M: AA61AD3D6E35488C
36M: DEB16FF8C8321C4E

chalsall 2019-02-13 21:21

[QUOTE=ewmayer;508460]Thanks![/QUOTE]

Do you remember the guy you used to beat up around here?

His avatar had an animal product upon his head. Milk, or butter, or something....

GP2 2019-02-25 04:54

[QUOTE=Madpoo;500088]New list... this one is the top 100 as ranked by their bad/good ratios, no limit on the exponent size. There are some machines out there doing first time tests that have terrible track records (lifetime records of 7 bad, zero good, etc). The bad/good #'s I show are their totals for the year that result was recorded, but I'm actually taking into account their lifetime bad/good ratios as the first sort, and then their per-year ratio as a secondary sort.[/QUOTE]

Here's what's left of Madpoo's list from November: none of the 7xMs, some of the 80Ms and nearly all of the 81M and higher exponents:

[CODE]
exponent Bad Good worktodo
[M]81008069[/M] 5 1 DoubleCheck=81008069,75,1
[M]81160369[/M] 5 1 DoubleCheck=81160369,75,1
[M]81727967[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=81727967,75,1
[M]81932677[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=81932677,75,1
[M]82700687[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=82700687,76,1
[M]82773133[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=82773133,75,1
[M]83082589[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=83082589,76,1
[M]83413117[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=83413117,76,1
[M]83911159[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=83911159,76,1
[M]84149003[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84149003,76,1
[M]84312323[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84312323,76,1
[M]84461743[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84461743,76,1
[M]81474143[/M] 5 0 DoubleCheck=81474143,75,1
[M]81145417[/M] 5 1 DoubleCheck=81145417,75,1
[M]81083059[/M] 4 1 DoubleCheck=81083059,75,1
[M]80199569[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=80199569,75,1
[M]80643691[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=80643691,75,1
[M]81339199[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=81339199,75,1
[M]82227571[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=82227571,75,1
[M]82948039[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=82948039,76,1
[M]83155747[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=83155747,76,1
[M]83357597[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=83357597,76,1
[M]84081341[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84081341,76,1
[M]84149843[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=84149843,76,1
[M]84436007[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84436007,76,1
[M]84466973[/M] 2 1 DoubleCheck=84466973,76,1
[STRIKE]85034359 2 1 DoubleCheck=85034359,76,1[/STRIKE]
[M]80036111[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=80036111,75,1
[M]80059927[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=80059927,75,1
[M]80090809[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=80090809,75,1
[M]80956769[/M] 5 2 DoubleCheck=80956769,75,1
[M]81019927[/M] 5 2 DoubleCheck=81019927,75,1
[M]81492409[/M] 5 2 DoubleCheck=81492409,75,1
[M]81779771[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=81779771,75,1
[M]81931133[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=81931133,76,1
[M]82669403[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=82669403,75,1
[M]82952587[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=82952587,76,1
[M]83089729[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=83089729,76,1
[M]84082027[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84082027,76,1
[M]84231919[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84231919,76,1
[STRIKE]84473933 2 0 DoubleCheck=84473933,76,1[/STRIKE]
[M]84557723[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84557723,76,1
[M]84995717[/M] 2 0 DoubleCheck=84995717,76,1
[M]81848131[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=81848131,75,1
[M]84129949[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=84129949,76,1
[M]84210359[/M] 0 1 DoubleCheck=84210359,76,1
[M]81250891[/M] 3 0 DoubleCheck=81250891,75,1
[/CODE]

Uncwilly 2019-03-06 15:45

Updated {and editted} list (I pulled some that were assigned and removed those previously stricken):
[CODE]
worktodo Bad Good
DoubleCheck=[M]80956769[/M],75,1 5 2
DoubleCheck=[M]81019927[/M],75,1 5 2
DoubleCheck=[M]81083059[/M],75,1 4 1
DoubleCheck=[M]81145417[/M],75,1 5 1
DoubleCheck=[M]81250891[/M],75,1 3 0
DoubleCheck=[M]81339199[/M],75,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]81474143[/M],75,1 5 0
DoubleCheck=[M]81492409[/M],75,1 5 2
DoubleCheck=[M]81779771[/M],75,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]81848131[/M],75,1 0 1
DoubleCheck=[M]81931133[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]82227571[/M],75,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]82669403[/M],75,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]82948039[/M],76,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]82952587[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]83089729[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]83155747[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]83357597[/M],76,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]83413117[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]83911159[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84081341[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84082027[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84129949[/M],76,1 0 1
DoubleCheck=[M]84149003[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84149843[/M],76,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]84210359[/M],76,1 0 1
DoubleCheck=[M]84231919[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84312323[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84436007[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84461743[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84466973[/M],76,1 2 1
DoubleCheck=[M]84557723[/M],76,1 2 0
DoubleCheck=[M]84995717[/M],76,1 2 0
[/CODE]

Jan S 2019-03-06 20:03

[LEFT]I[SIZE=4] took 80036111, 80059927, 80090809, 80199569, 80643691.[/SIZE]

[/LEFT]

Uncwilly 2019-03-06 21:02

[QUOTE=Jan S;510258]I took ...[/QUOTE]Noted. I editted the post to remove those from the list.

Uncwilly 2019-03-06 21:17

[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]Please use this thread in the future:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE="5"][url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24148[/url][/SIZE]

ixfd64 2019-07-16 03:30

Found another bad P-1 result: [url]https://mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=57051389&full=1[/url]

There are two factors that should have been found by the original run.


All times are UTC. The time now is 07:00.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.