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)

Madpoo 2015-08-28 19:21

New list
 
Here's a list of work done by systems with a 4:1 bad:good ratio, so it may be easy pickings for some almost-first-time work:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
38867557 5 0 6 3 DoubleCheck=38867557,71,1
40280173 30 5 4 3 DoubleCheck=40280173,72,1
40396613 7 0 8 3 DoubleCheck=40396613,72,1
40409249 4 1 9 0 DoubleCheck=40409249,72,1
41109209 6 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=41109209,72,1
42748019 17 4 5 3 DoubleCheck=42748019,72,1
45364853 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=45364853,72,1
45388481 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=45388481,72,1
47780699 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47780699,72,1
47786399 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47786399,72,1
47787829 4 1 10 8 DoubleCheck=47787829,72,1
49342991 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49342991,72,1
49360579 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49360579,72,1[/CODE]

ixfd64 2015-08-29 00:45

[QUOTE=kladner;408589]Finished overnight. Two factors. :smile:

M48611183 has a factor: 1735077409661214935753 [TF:70:71*:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs]
M48340183 has a factor: 1314117775062544754639 [TF:70:71*:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs][/QUOTE]

Two factors out of 14 numbers, that's pretty good!

kladner 2015-08-29 06:28

[QUOTE=ixfd64;409080]Two factors out of 14 numbers, that's pretty good![/QUOTE]

I was pleasantly surprised.

frmky 2015-08-29 18:24

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409048]Here's a list of work done by systems with a 4:1 bad:good ratio, so it may be easy pickings for some almost-first-time work:[/QUOTE]
I grabbed these.

Madpoo 2015-08-29 20:13

Extra TF needed
 
Here's another list of factors that need a triple-check but could use some extra trial factoring love first:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45023729 70 Factor=45023729,70,72
45054593 70 Factor=45054593,70,72
45071527 70 Factor=45071527,70,72
45109879 70 Factor=45109879,70,72
45122291 70 Factor=45122291,70,72
45139597 70 Factor=45139597,70,72
45140657 70 Factor=45140657,70,72
45149617 70 Factor=45149617,70,72
45164839 70 Factor=45164839,70,72
45478243 70 Factor=45478243,70,72
45532637 70 Factor=45532637,70,72
45667847 70 Factor=45667847,70,72
45678559 70 Factor=45678559,70,72
45968281 70 Factor=45968281,70,72
46004851 70 Factor=46004851,70,72
46208243 70 Factor=46208243,70,72
46223633 70 Factor=46223633,70,72
46271447 70 Factor=46271447,70,72
46272133 70 Factor=46272133,70,72
46350559 70 Factor=46350559,70,72
46438783 70 Factor=46438783,70,72
46464611 70 Factor=46464611,70,72
46467527 70 Factor=46467527,70,72
46536223 70 Factor=46536223,70,72
46665001 70 Factor=46665001,70,72
46696829 70 Factor=46696829,70,72
47210731 70 Factor=47210731,70,72
47238517 70 Factor=47238517,70,72
47277521 70 Factor=47277521,70,72
47377549 71 Factor=47377549,71,72
47466989 70 Factor=47466989,70,72
47669231 70 Factor=47669231,70,72
48073369 70 Factor=48073369,70,72
48122021 70 Factor=48122021,70,72
48141029 70 Factor=48141029,70,72
48278897 70 Factor=48278897,70,72
48323999 71 Factor=48323999,71,72
48603307 70 Factor=48603307,70,72
48620267 70 Factor=48620267,70,72
49376213 71 Factor=49376213,71,72
49513559 70 Factor=49513559,70,72
49676401 70 Factor=49676401,70,72
50214071 70 Factor=50214071,70,73
50725481 71 Factor=50725481,71,73
50800363 71 Factor=50800363,71,73
51172897 71 Factor=51172897,71,73[/CODE]

wombatman 2015-08-29 20:38

I'll do them all.

Madpoo 2015-08-31 14:56

Quintuple check needed
 
If anyone is interested in doing a quint check, I just checked in my result for this one which didn't match any of the previous 3.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39138553"]http://www.mersenne.org/M39138553[/URL]

It should be able to be manually assigned from the website.

Mark Rose 2015-08-31 16:37

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409266]If anyone is interested in doing a quint check, I just checked in my result for this one which didn't match any of the previous 3.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M39138553"]http://www.mersenne.org/M39138553[/URL]

It should be able to be manually assigned from the website.[/QUOTE]

Mine.

LaurV 2015-08-31 17:15

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409271]Mine.[/QUOTE]
You should try it with a bit higher FFT, just to make sure! (it is at the very limit/border of its FFT range, I assume that is why the multiple checks)

wombatman 2015-08-31 17:47

[QUOTE=wombatman;409132]I'll do them all.[/QUOTE]

Not a factor to be found!

Mark Rose 2015-08-31 18:16

[QUOTE=LaurV;409276]You should try it with a bit higher FFT, just to make sure! (it is at the very limit/border of its FFT range, I assume that is why the multiple checks)[/QUOTE]

How? The line in my worktodo.txt looks like this currently:

DoubleCheck=<aid>,39138553,71,1

and I'm using mprime.

I swear sometimes the assignment ids almost look like English. Is PrimeNet sentient?

LaurV 2015-08-31 18:35

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409280]How? The line in my worktodo.txt looks like this currently:

DoubleCheck=<aid>,39138553,71,1

and I'm using mprime.

I swear sometimes the assignment ids almost look like English. Is PrimeNet sentient?[/QUOTE]
Connect once to the server to make sure you got the assignment for your name (if not already).
Stop mprime, delete the checpoint files (otherwise it will resume from there)
edit your worktodo to add the red text
DoubleCheck=your_key_or_use_N/A,[COLOR=Red]FFT2=2304K[/COLOR],39138553,71,1
(it works with P95, don't know if it works with mprime).
It will take a bit longer (plus the time you already lost for this assignement, which is... lost, if you delete the checkpoint file) i.e. your ETA will extend with few hours.

Mark Rose 2015-08-31 18:43

Done.

Madpoo 2015-08-31 21:05

[QUOTE=LaurV;409283]Connect once to the server to make sure you got the assignment for your name (if not already).
Stop mprime, delete the checpoint files (otherwise it will resume from there)
edit your worktodo to add the red text
DoubleCheck=your_key_or_use_N/A,[COLOR=Red]FFT2=2304K[/COLOR],39138553,71,1
(it works with P95, don't know if it works with mprime).
It will take a bit longer (plus the time you already lost for this assignement, which is... lost, if you delete the checkpoint file) i.e. your ETA will extend with few hours.[/QUOTE]

If it was on the edge of some FFT boundary, wouldn't mprime or prime95 do it's thing where it tests a few iterations to see if the roundoff error is > than whatever 0.24'ish value?

Even then, let's say there was a roundoff > 0.4 somewhere during those runs, the error code would have reflected that, even if it was repeatable and it used the slower method or whatever.

In this case, all 4 runs (including mine) have an error code of zero. That's not to say the FFT size it used wasn't a factor, but hopefully both Prime95 and mprime are doing that basic little test if it's close enough to matter.

I do sometimes get roundoff > 0.4 for work where it didn't do the FFT test initially, and sometimes I've had the roundoff error when it did do that test, but I don't recall if it ever mattered whether it chose the lower or higher FFT size. I can't really say.

Madpoo 2015-08-31 21:07

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409284]Done.[/QUOTE]

Probably doesn't matter, but just FYI, I hid the assignment ID in the posts above. Worst thing that could happen is someone submits a call to unassign the work and then they check in their own result first... silly hijinks aside, I don't think the AID is all that critical, but just in case. LOL

Dubslow 2015-08-31 22:16

[QUOTE=LaurV;409283]
(it works with P95, don't know if it works with mprime).[/QUOTE]


Save for the lack of a GUI (and the CLI in its place), mprime is exactly the same program as Prime95. I'm not even sure why the Linux version of Prime95 has its own name (maybe historical reasons relating to the most popular extant OS at the time of its creation)?

Mark Rose 2015-08-31 22:16

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409290]Probably doesn't matter, but just FYI, I hid the assignment ID in the posts above. Worst thing that could happen is someone submits a call to unassign the work and then they check in their own result first... silly hijinks aside, I don't think the AID is all that critical, but just in case. LOL[/QUOTE]

I guess you didn't trying reading the AID before removing it... it was obviously faked. I guess the joke is gone now :)

chalsall 2015-08-31 22:36

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409299]I guess you didn't trying reading the AID before removing it... it was obviously faked. I guess the joke is gone now :)[/QUOTE]

Humour is such a subjective thing...

My dad didn't like decaf coffee, but did like my ca7 Decaf. :smile:

Mark Rose 2015-09-01 02:13

[QUOTE=chalsall;409301]Humour is such a subjective thing...

My dad didn't like decaf coffee, but did like my ca7 Decaf. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I'm glad someone saw it :)

kladner 2015-09-01 03:16

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409308]I'm glad someone saw it :)[/QUOTE]

So run it by us again. :drama:

Mark Rose 2015-09-01 04:18

[QUOTE=kladner;409312]So run it by us again. :drama:[/QUOTE]

It was ABLEDAD5E1150DDBA11DECAFC0FFEE5 or something like that :)

LaurV 2015-09-01 08:20

Of course we saw it, his comment about primenet being scentient gave it away.
Usually I am the first to say to hide those keys (see the history on the forum). Why should I keep quiet now, and even replicate it in my reply? :razz:

(Madpoo, I told you that you have too many cores! hehe)

kladner 2015-09-01 14:34

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409314]It was ABLEDAD5E1150DDBA11DECAFC0FFEE5 or something like that :)[/QUOTE]
LOL!

Madpoo 2015-09-01 15:52

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409299]I guess you didn't trying reading the AID before removing it... it was obviously faked. I guess the joke is gone now :)[/QUOTE]

Oh geez, I guess I didn't. Was it really obvious and I look like a moron now? LOL

(EDIT: Never mind, I see the other posts... yeah, I guess I just glazed right over it.)

Madpoo 2015-09-03 17:51

New list
 
Here's an updated list of exponents by computers with at least a 3:1 bad-to-good ratio. A couple of them are newly available and have even higher bad/good (39965311 at 7:1 and 40443413 at 5:1).


[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
37202777 18 6 1 1 DoubleCheck=37202777,71,1
37621183 3 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=37621183,71,1
37738343 3 0 15 1 DoubleCheck=37738343,71,1
39135653 9 3 2 1 DoubleCheck=39135653,71,1
39168071 9 3 1 1 DoubleCheck=39168071,71,1
39965311 7 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=39965311,71,1
40443413 30 6 3 3 DoubleCheck=40443413,72,1
42391309 3 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=42391309,72,1
42850901 3 0 15 1 DoubleCheck=42850901,72,1
43402943 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=43402943,72,1
43419767 3 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=43419767,72,1
43698703 3 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=43698703,72,1
43717981 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=43717981,72,1
43768357 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=43768357,72,1
44180251 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=44180251,72,1
44781521 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=44781521,72,1
45656467 3 1 3 6 DoubleCheck=45656467,72,1
46487227 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=46487227,72,1
46975139 3 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=46975139,72,1
49149887 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=49149887,72,1
49285787 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=49285787,72,1
49505707 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=49505707,72,1
49536463 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=49536463,72,1
49536491 3 0 11 2 DoubleCheck=49536491,72,1[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-03 18:29

Another list of small-ish exponents
 
This here could be a fun list. It has work done by computers with zero good, 1+ bad, and only a single unknown. So these unverified exponents could be good, could be bad... these systems don't have a great track record to start with but who knows. :smile: As you can see, some also have some suspect results, which would point those more in the direction of their unknown one being bad, but again, who can say until we double check?

There was one entry here that appeared in the above list so I've removed it to avoid confusion (it had 3 bad, zero good, 1 unknown).

The list was longer, but I snagged all of the ones above 40M for myself, leaving just these.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
34939987 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=34939987,71,1
35012317 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35012317,71,1
35071667 2 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35071667,71,1
35222893 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=35222893,71,1
35242271 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35242271,71,1
35245307 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35245307,71,1
35282629 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35282629,71,1
35307017 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35307017,71,1
35309641 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35309641,71,1
35344391 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=35344391,71,1
35522653 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=35522653,71,1
35623529 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35623529,71,1
35668741 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35668741,71,1
35685869 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35685869,71,1
35985217 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35985217,71,1
36036769 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36036769,71,1
36213101 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36213101,71,1
36328007 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36328007,71,1
36329911 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36329911,71,1
36385607 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=36385607,71,1
36446537 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=36446537,71,1
36510697 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36510697,71,1
36553177 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36553177,71,1
36669461 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36669461,71,1
36754247 1 0 1 3 DoubleCheck=36754247,71,1
36799891 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36799891,71,1
37020619 2 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37020619,71,1
37028267 2 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=37028267,71,1
37233397 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37233397,72,1
37567781 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=37567781,71,1
37621739 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37621739,71,1
37759933 1 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=37759933,71,1[/CODE]

Mark Rose 2015-09-03 18:54

I grabbed all those.

How are we for trial factoring? The recent lists are properly trial factored, but I'm wondering if there is more potential upcoming work that needs more TF first.

Prime95 2015-09-03 19:24

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409505]Here's an updated list of exponents by computers with at least a 3:1 bad-to-good ratio. A couple of them are newly available and have even higher bad/good (39965311 at 7:1 and 40443413 at 5:1).[/QUOTE]

I took all of these

Prime95 2015-09-03 19:29

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409514]I grabbed all those.[/QUOTE]

Um, which "those"? The assignments I took are now registered with the PrimeNet server to avoid conflicts.

Mark Rose 2015-09-03 21:48

[QUOTE=Prime95;409518]Um, which "those"? The assignments I took are now registered with the PrimeNet server to avoid conflicts.[/QUOTE]

The ones from this post

[quote]The list was longer, but I snagged all of the ones above 40M for myself, leaving just these.[/quote]

chalsall 2015-09-03 21:51

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409514]...but I'm wondering if there is more potential upcoming work that needs more TF first.[/QUOTE]

As my late, great, and imaginary father (three different people) once said: "keep your stick on the ice.

petrw1 2015-09-03 22:00

[QUOTE=chalsall;409532]As my late, great, and imaginary father (three different people) once said: "keep your stick on the ice.[/QUOTE]


Didn't know he was a Hockey Player .... not many of those is Barbados I bet.

Mark Rose 2015-09-03 22:17

[QUOTE=petrw1;409533]Didn't know he was a Hockey Player .... not many of those is Barbados I bet.[/QUOTE]

I think he was quoting Red Green.

But if Jamaica can do bobsled...

Prime95 2015-09-03 23:03

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409531]The ones from this post[/QUOTE]

Whew -- we're good.

Madpoo 2015-09-03 23:17

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409514]I grabbed all those.

How are we for trial factoring? The recent lists are properly trial factored, but I'm wondering if there is more potential upcoming work that needs more TF first.[/QUOTE]

Well, here's a list of exponents that will need a triple check but could use some TF love first:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45084857 70 Factor=45084857,70,72
45106651 70 Factor=45106651,70,72
45121127 70 Factor=45121127,70,72
45191833 70 Factor=45191833,70,72
45221389 70 Factor=45221389,70,72
45221867 70 Factor=45221867,70,72
45234109 70 Factor=45234109,70,72
45381407 70 Factor=45381407,70,72
45423283 70 Factor=45423283,70,72
45490129 70 Factor=45490129,70,72
45531139 70 Factor=45531139,70,72
45531179 70 Factor=45531179,70,72
45846233 70 Factor=45846233,70,72
46231543 70 Factor=46231543,70,72
46265729 70 Factor=46265729,70,72
46536209 70 Factor=46536209,70,72
46590317 70 Factor=46590317,70,72
46705271 70 Factor=46705271,70,72
46717493 70 Factor=46717493,70,72
46858387 70 Factor=46858387,70,72
46947463 70 Factor=46947463,70,72
47137999 70 Factor=47137999,70,72
47143319 70 Factor=47143319,70,72
47329507 71 Factor=47329507,71,72
47555617 70 Factor=47555617,70,72
47901551 70 Factor=47901551,70,72
48072127 70 Factor=48072127,70,72
48122471 70 Factor=48122471,70,72
48164267 70 Factor=48164267,70,72
48255227 70 Factor=48255227,70,72
48388363 70 Factor=48388363,70,72
48474901 70 Factor=48474901,70,72
48560321 70 Factor=48560321,70,72
48771581 70 Factor=48771581,70,72
48856421 70 Factor=48856421,70,72
49069313 70 Factor=49069313,70,72
49435249 70 Factor=49435249,70,72
49454081 70 Factor=49454081,70,72
49477231 70 Factor=49477231,70,72
49482271 71 Factor=49482271,71,72
49673959 70 Factor=49673959,70,72
49761199 70 Factor=49761199,70,72
49763141 70 Factor=49763141,70,72
49983643 71 Factor=49983643,71,72
49984849 71 Factor=49984849,71,72
50026843 70 Factor=50026843,70,73
50542883 71 Factor=50542883,71,73
50691827 72 Factor=50691827,72,73
50706751 71 Factor=50706751,71,73
50727869 71 Factor=50727869,71,73
50765567 71 Factor=50765567,71,73
50808887 72 Factor=50808887,72,73
50992973 71 Factor=50992973,71,73
50996089 71 Factor=50996089,71,73
51116257 72 Factor=51116257,72,73
51134537 72 Factor=51134537,72,73
51143047 72 Factor=51143047,72,73
51237253 72 Factor=51237253,72,73
51256087 72 Factor=51256087,72,73
51391889 72 Factor=51391889,72,73
51407311 72 Factor=51407311,72,73
51884563 71 Factor=51884563,71,73
51977909 71 Factor=51977909,71,73
52014929 71 Factor=52014929,71,73
52062799 71 Factor=52062799,71,73
52583387 70 Factor=52583387,70,73
52704973 71 Factor=52704973,71,73
52715843 71 Factor=52715843,71,73
52723163 70 Factor=52723163,70,73
53179327 72 Factor=53179327,72,73
53184689 72 Factor=53184689,72,73
53304341 71 Factor=53304341,71,73
53630537 72 Factor=53630537,72,73
53685481 72 Factor=53685481,72,73
53708713 71 Factor=53708713,71,73
53808919 71 Factor=53808919,71,73
53809331 71 Factor=53809331,71,73
53837461 72 Factor=53837461,72,73
53850217 71 Factor=53850217,71,73
53876987 72 Factor=53876987,72,73
54049573 71 Factor=54049573,71,73
54101197 72 Factor=54101197,72,73
54284101 71 Factor=54284101,71,73
54462259 72 Factor=54462259,72,73
55555963 72 Factor=55555963,72,73
56385377 72 Factor=56385377,72,73
56458279 72 Factor=56458279,72,73
56702339 71 Factor=56702339,71,73
56754437 72 Factor=56754437,72,73
56958299 72 Factor=56958299,72,73[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-03 23:24

A few more that need factoring
 
Oh, here's a handful more. These all have one of the tests done by me... I forgot to include them:

[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
46036073 70 Factor=46036073,70,72
47535199 70 Factor=47535199,70,72
49948391 71 Factor=49948391,71,72
51368689 72 Factor=51368689,72,73[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-03 23:35

One more factoring list
 
And now, here's a list of some work done by suspect machines (at least as many bad as good) and need extra TF work. We did a bunch previously, but of course there have been some new "suspect machines" swept into the net since then, ergo new exponents to check out.

[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45084857 70 Factor=45084857,70,72
45106651 70 Factor=45106651,70,72
45121127 70 Factor=45121127,70,72
45191833 70 Factor=45191833,70,72
45221389 70 Factor=45221389,70,72
45234109 70 Factor=45234109,70,72
45381407 70 Factor=45381407,70,72
45423283 70 Factor=45423283,70,72
45490129 70 Factor=45490129,70,72
45531139 70 Factor=45531139,70,72
45531179 70 Factor=45531179,70,72
45846233 70 Factor=45846233,70,72
46231543 70 Factor=46231543,70,72
46265729 70 Factor=46265729,70,72
46536209 70 Factor=46536209,70,72
46590317 70 Factor=46590317,70,72
46717493 70 Factor=46717493,70,72
46858387 70 Factor=46858387,70,72
46947463 70 Factor=46947463,70,72
47137999 70 Factor=47137999,70,72
47143319 70 Factor=47143319,70,72
47329507 71 Factor=47329507,71,72
47555617 70 Factor=47555617,70,72
47901551 70 Factor=47901551,70,72
48072127 70 Factor=48072127,70,72
48122471 70 Factor=48122471,70,72
48164267 70 Factor=48164267,70,72
48255227 70 Factor=48255227,70,72
48388363 70 Factor=48388363,70,72
48474901 70 Factor=48474901,70,72
48771581 70 Factor=48771581,70,72
48856421 70 Factor=48856421,70,72
49069313 70 Factor=49069313,70,72
49435249 70 Factor=49435249,70,72
49454081 70 Factor=49454081,70,72
49477231 70 Factor=49477231,70,72
49673959 70 Factor=49673959,70,72
49761199 70 Factor=49761199,70,72
49763141 70 Factor=49763141,70,72
49983643 71 Factor=49983643,71,72
49984849 71 Factor=49984849,71,72
50026843 70 Factor=50026843,70,73
50542883 71 Factor=50542883,71,73
50691827 72 Factor=50691827,72,73
50706751 71 Factor=50706751,71,73
50727869 71 Factor=50727869,71,73
50765567 71 Factor=50765567,71,73
50808887 72 Factor=50808887,72,73
50992973 71 Factor=50992973,71,73
50996089 71 Factor=50996089,71,73
51116257 72 Factor=51116257,72,73
51134537 72 Factor=51134537,72,73
51143047 72 Factor=51143047,72,73
51237253 72 Factor=51237253,72,73
51256087 72 Factor=51256087,72,73
51391889 72 Factor=51391889,72,73
51407311 72 Factor=51407311,72,73
51884563 71 Factor=51884563,71,73
51977909 71 Factor=51977909,71,73
52014929 71 Factor=52014929,71,73
52062799 71 Factor=52062799,71,73
52583387 70 Factor=52583387,70,73
52704973 71 Factor=52704973,71,73
52715843 71 Factor=52715843,71,73
52723163 70 Factor=52723163,70,73
53179327 72 Factor=53179327,72,73
53184689 72 Factor=53184689,72,73
53304341 71 Factor=53304341,71,73
53630537 72 Factor=53630537,72,73
53685481 72 Factor=53685481,72,73
53708713 71 Factor=53708713,71,73
53808919 71 Factor=53808919,71,73
53809331 71 Factor=53809331,71,73
53837461 72 Factor=53837461,72,73
53850217 71 Factor=53850217,71,73
53876987 72 Factor=53876987,72,73
54049573 71 Factor=54049573,71,73
54101197 72 Factor=54101197,72,73
54284101 71 Factor=54284101,71,73
54462259 72 Factor=54462259,72,73
55555963 72 Factor=55555963,72,73
56385377 72 Factor=56385377,72,73
56458279 72 Factor=56458279,72,73
56702339 71 Factor=56702339,71,73
56754437 72 Factor=56754437,72,73
56958299 72 Factor=56958299,72,73[/CODE]

chalsall 2015-09-03 23:40

[QUOTE=petrw1;409533]Didn't know he was a Hockey Player .... not many of those is Barbados I bet.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't.

I like to joke that I was thrown out of Canada because I didn't like hockey.

Not entirely a joke, in fact....

Mark Rose 2015-09-04 00:48

Chris, can you please add those exponent lists from Aaron into the SDC pool at GPU72? I'll start working on them after some LLTF work.

Uncwilly 2015-09-04 02:49

<OT>
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;409534]But if Jamaica can do bobsled...[/QUOTE]
Then California could host a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Winter_Olympics"]Winter Olympics[/URL].
</OT>

Madpoo 2015-09-07 05:34

More exponents that need extra TF
 
Here's a list of exponents that need some extra TF love. Some are from the suspect machines and then there's also another 5 or 6 that are exponents needing triple checks but could use some extra TF first.

[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45084857 70 Factor=45084857,70,72
45106651 70 Factor=45106651,70,72
45121127 70 Factor=45121127,70,72
45221389 70 Factor=45221389,70,72
45231833 70 Factor=45231833,70,72
45234109 70 Factor=45234109,70,72
45259471 70 Factor=45259471,70,72
45261901 70 Factor=45261901,70,72
45381407 70 Factor=45381407,70,72
45423283 70 Factor=45423283,70,72
45490129 70 Factor=45490129,70,72
45531139 70 Factor=45531139,70,72
45531179 70 Factor=45531179,70,72
45846233 70 Factor=45846233,70,72
46036073 70 Factor=46036073,70,72
46231543 70 Factor=46231543,70,72
46265729 70 Factor=46265729,70,72
46490069 70 Factor=46490069,70,72
46536209 70 Factor=46536209,70,72
46590317 70 Factor=46590317,70,72
46717493 70 Factor=46717493,70,72
46858387 70 Factor=46858387,70,72
46947463 70 Factor=46947463,70,72
46960897 70 Factor=46960897,70,72
47137999 70 Factor=47137999,70,72
47143319 70 Factor=47143319,70,72
47329507 71 Factor=47329507,71,72
47535199 70 Factor=47535199,70,72
47555617 70 Factor=47555617,70,72
47901551 70 Factor=47901551,70,72
48072127 70 Factor=48072127,70,72
48122471 70 Factor=48122471,70,72
48164267 70 Factor=48164267,70,72
48255227 70 Factor=48255227,70,72
48388363 70 Factor=48388363,70,72
48474901 70 Factor=48474901,70,72
48771581 70 Factor=48771581,70,72
48805763 71 Factor=48805763,71,72
48856421 70 Factor=48856421,70,72
49022819 70 Factor=49022819,70,72
49069313 70 Factor=49069313,70,72
49161737 70 Factor=49161737,70,72
49435249 70 Factor=49435249,70,72
49454081 70 Factor=49454081,70,72
49477231 70 Factor=49477231,70,72
49673959 70 Factor=49673959,70,72
49761199 70 Factor=49761199,70,72
49763141 70 Factor=49763141,70,72
49948391 71 Factor=49948391,71,72
49983643 71 Factor=49983643,71,72
49984849 71 Factor=49984849,71,72
50026843 70 Factor=50026843,70,73
50375881 71 Factor=50375881,71,73
50419891 71 Factor=50419891,71,73
50542883 71 Factor=50542883,71,73
50691827 72 Factor=50691827,72,73
50706751 71 Factor=50706751,71,73
50727869 71 Factor=50727869,71,73
50765567 71 Factor=50765567,71,73
50808887 72 Factor=50808887,72,73
50992973 71 Factor=50992973,71,73
50996089 71 Factor=50996089,71,73
51064927 71 Factor=51064927,71,73
51116257 72 Factor=51116257,72,73
51134537 72 Factor=51134537,72,73
51143047 72 Factor=51143047,72,73
51237253 72 Factor=51237253,72,73
51256087 72 Factor=51256087,72,73
51368689 72 Factor=51368689,72,73
51391889 72 Factor=51391889,72,73
51407311 72 Factor=51407311,72,73
51884563 71 Factor=51884563,71,73
51977909 71 Factor=51977909,71,73
52014929 71 Factor=52014929,71,73
52062799 71 Factor=52062799,71,73
52583387 70 Factor=52583387,70,73
52704973 71 Factor=52704973,71,73
52715843 71 Factor=52715843,71,73
52723163 70 Factor=52723163,70,73
53179327 72 Factor=53179327,72,73
53184689 72 Factor=53184689,72,73
53304341 71 Factor=53304341,71,73
53630537 72 Factor=53630537,72,73
53685481 72 Factor=53685481,72,73
53708713 71 Factor=53708713,71,73
53808919 71 Factor=53808919,71,73
53809331 71 Factor=53809331,71,73
53837461 72 Factor=53837461,72,73
53850217 71 Factor=53850217,71,73
53876987 72 Factor=53876987,72,73
54049573 71 Factor=54049573,71,73
54101197 72 Factor=54101197,72,73
54284101 71 Factor=54284101,71,73
54462259 72 Factor=54462259,72,73
55555963 72 Factor=55555963,72,73
56385377 72 Factor=56385377,72,73
56458279 72 Factor=56458279,72,73
56702339 71 Factor=56702339,71,73
56754437 72 Factor=56754437,72,73
56958299 72 Factor=56958299,72,73
[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-07 20:43

Short list of probable bads...
 
Here's an updated list of 3:1 bad-to-good exponents.

I added a new column to my list called 'solos' ... it's a count of how many other exponents by this same computer have only been checked once. If that # is lower than the "unknown" count that indicates however many additional checks this computer did where it already mismatched something. If it's off by a couple then it's an even better indicator that those other mismatches are probably bad, especially in light of however many other bad results they have.

I thought it would be a nice metric to go by... so much, in fact, that I'm using that info to do a little tracking of possibly bad systems. There are a good # of machines out there with zero bad and zero good results, so not really anything to work from. But if those systems happen to have more than a couple of mismatches already, that seems like a bad signal.

I'm picking out the lowest unverified exponent from some of these systems and running a test to "get them on the scoreboard" so to speak. It may result in sweeping some additional previously unknown bad systems into the mix.

Anyway, here's that short list:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo worktodo
35175949 3 1 3 0 2 DoubleCheck=35175949,71,1
36348173 3 1 2 4 1 DoubleCheck=36348173,71,1
40544069 3 0 3 1 2 DoubleCheck=40544069,72,1
40563059 12 4 12 7 7 DoubleCheck=40563059,72,1
40603601 12 4 12 7 7 DoubleCheck=40603601,72,1
40660427 6 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=40660427,72,1[/CODE]

ric 2015-09-08 11:17

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409822]Here's an updated list of 3:1 bad-to-good exponents.
[/QUOTE]

Taken 'em all. I'll update ETC by tomorrow night.

Hth
ric

LaurV 2015-09-08 12:21

[QUOTE=Madpoo;409764]Here's a list of exponents that need some extra TF love.[/QUOTE]
Took them all (now that I don't need to do DC :razz: - but I still finish the started work, they are different machines).

Mark Rose 2015-09-10 04:22

My turn to ask for a triple check: [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35245307&full=1]35245307[/url]. It's on a machine that has only done a couple of assignments, and while I believe it's fine, it's not a well tested box.

DoubleCheck=35245307,71,1

frmky 2015-09-10 05:10

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;410008]My turn to ask for a triple check: [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35245307&full=1]35245307[/url]. [/QUOTE]
I grabbed it. Should be done tomorrow afternoon.

frmky 2015-09-10 22:30

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;410008]My turn to ask for a triple check: [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35245307&full=1]35245307[/url].[/QUOTE]
Your result is correct.

Mark Rose 2015-09-11 00:58

[QUOTE=frmky;410054]Your result is correct.[/QUOTE]

Thanks!

UBR47K 2015-09-11 01:49

Requesting a triple check to a CUDALucas DC test
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36131497&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36131497&full=1[/URL]

Mark Rose 2015-09-11 01:49

[QUOTE=UBR47K;410063]Requesting a triple check to a CUDALucas DC test
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36131497&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36131497&full=1[/URL][/QUOTE]

I'll do it.

Madpoo 2015-09-13 17:52

slightly new approach
 
I've been toying with a little different way of trying to find bad systems where we don't quite know they're bad yet.

Previously I've looked at the history of their bad versus good results, but I realized we also have data on how many times each CPU has been double-checked without a match. In cases where the other system has a good track record, I can make an assumption, but most of the time the other CPU is also an unknown quantity... or at least not "awesome" enough to make a bet one way or the other.

But if there's a system with maybe at least as many bad as good, but also has a lot of mismatches under it's belt, I think I can count that as another indicator of badness.

I did a test the past week of taking some of those exponents where maybe the system has an equal amount of bad and good, or even examples where the bad and good are zero but those mismatches are high, and had pretty good success at showing that the first result was bad.

With all of that said, here's a list of exponents below 58M that meet this criteria, based on the system that checked it:[LIST][*]At least twice as many bad as good[*]Mismatches greater-equal than 4[/LIST]
You'll note a couple new columns... "Mis" which is the # of times an exponent by that same CPU has been double-checked without a match, and "Solo" which is the count of exponents done by that system that have only had a single check.

In theory, the # of "solos" and "mismatches" should total the same as the "unknown" and "suspect". "Suspect" results are almost always re-assigned out pretty quick unless it was a larger exponent, by the way.

Questions or comments? No? Good...here's the list: :smile: I took the ones in the 48M and 52M ranges for myself just for fun, if anyone wonders why there are gaps there... I had previously done the 54M and up.
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35987977 23 11 3 8 2 9 DoubleCheck=35987977,71,1
37452329 13 5 12 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=37452329,71,1
37713343 13 6 2 7 1 8 DoubleCheck=37713343,71,1
42014249 13 5 12 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=42014249,72,1
42230479 10 4 5 9 5 9 DoubleCheck=42230479,72,1
42321029 2 0 7 2 5 4 DoubleCheck=42321029,72,1
42395803 10 4 5 9 5 9 DoubleCheck=42395803,72,1
42853367 2 1 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=42853367,72,1
42929083 13 5 12 1 8 5 DoubleCheck=42929083,72,1
43558883 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=43558883,72,1
43566329 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=43566329,72,1
43993823 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=43993823,72,1
44861221 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=44861221,72,1
45418559 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=45418559,72,1
45628951 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=45628951,72,1
45912649 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=45912649,72,1
46367329 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=46367329,72,1
46555081 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=46555081,72,1
46561043 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=46561043,72,1
47453207 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=47453207,72,1
47955643 3 0 6 6 6 6 DoubleCheck=47955643,72,1
47963197 18 9 7 10 7 10 DoubleCheck=47963197,72,1
49052473 18 9 7 10 7 10 DoubleCheck=49052473,72,1
49088243 18 9 7 10 7 10 DoubleCheck=49088243,72,1
49440151 18 9 7 10 7 10 DoubleCheck=49440151,72,1
50312729 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=50312729,73,1
50399549 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=50399549,73,1
50401231 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=50401231,73,1
53004233 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=53004233,73,1
53418059 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=53418059,73,1
53418073 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=53418073,73,1
53816729 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=53816729,73,1
53829631 22 9 16 21 16 21 DoubleCheck=53829631,73,1[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-15 16:02

Quad check needed if anyone is interested
 
Just had another case of one of my triple checks not matching either of the previous two.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M34938083"]M34938083[/URL]

If anyone felt like doing a quad check, there it be. :smile:

Prime95 2015-09-15 16:51

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410215]Questions or comments? No? Good...here's the list: :smile: I took the ones in the 48M and 52M ranges[/QUOTE]

I took the ones below 43M

ric 2015-09-15 17:21

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410341]
If anyone felt like doing a quad check, there it be. [/QUOTE]

Enqueued.

Prime95 2015-09-15 17:24

[QUOTE=Prime95;410350]I took the ones below 43M[/QUOTE]

And now I took all those below 47M for another computer

frmky 2015-09-16 06:44

[QUOTE=Prime95;410353]And now I took all those below 47M for another computer[/QUOTE]

And I took the rest below 50M.

Madpoo 2015-09-16 17:14

[QUOTE=frmky;410426]And I took the rest below 50M.[/QUOTE]

I'll snag the ones 50M and up... I have a few worktodo files running on empty.

UBR47K 2015-09-17 05:59

Requesting a Double (?Quad?) check on a CUDALucas DC result:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36125533&full=1[/url]

sdbardwick 2015-09-17 06:44

[QUOTE=UBR47K;410587]Requesting a Double (?Quad?) check on a CUDALucas DC result:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36125533&full=1[/url][/QUOTE]I'll do it. ETA <15 hours.

Madpoo 2015-09-17 16:24

Few more exponents
 
Just ran a daily query... there's a few more today that haven't been picked up. One is freshly expired and the other two got swept into the mix now that their bad count is high enough to fall into the "twice as many bad as good" category.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35682739 10 5 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=35682739,71,1
37047167 10 5 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=37047167,71,1
40792733 3 1 2 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=40792733,72,1[/CODE]

Meanwhile, I picked up a somewhat ambitious project. There are a lot of systems out there that have zero bad/zero good, so I figured I'd pick the smallest, single-checked exponent from them and do a test, just to get those machines on the record.

Since there are so many, I'm starting out with doing that on just the systems that had one of their exponents double-checked already without a match, and have 4 or more in the "unknown" category. After all, if I find a bad one I want to be able to chase down more from that same system. :smile:

As I progress I'll loosen up my query more and more and eventually maybe we'll get at least one "on the record" verification for each system.

I did find a few super bad ones this way already, but it won't help me find any hidden primes below what we know so far... these systems, for whatever reason, all did work in the 60M-80M range. But it's still fun.

And hopefully I find enough bad systems out there to keep giving people lists of exponents to strategically double check.

My hope is that I can provide lists with at least a 50/50 shot of your result being the correct one and the previous one being wrong. To me, doing better than a 3% chance of the same (which is roughly the error rate in general, I think) would be good, but for the purposes of this project, 50% odds of finding bad results would be great. :smile:

Madpoo 2015-09-17 18:04

Another quad check needed
 
I ran across another one needing a quad check now, if anyone is interested.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35017579&full=1"]35017579[/URL]

sdbardwick 2015-09-17 18:33

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410651]I ran across another one needing a quad check now, if anyone is interested.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35017579&full=1"]35017579[/URL][/QUOTE]

Got it!

Madpoo 2015-09-18 04:49

This one is almost surely wrong
 
Oohh, this one just became available thanks to an expired assignment.

It's all but guaranteed that the first check on this was wrong. I mean, that system has 24 bad, only 1 good. This is the final un-DC'd exponent from that system, so it'll be good to close the book on it.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37825399 24 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37825399,71,1[/CODE]

sdbardwick 2015-09-18 04:55

[QUOTE=UBR47K;410587]Requesting a Double (?Quad?) check on a CUDALucas DC result:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36125533&full=1[/url][/QUOTE]
We match!

sdbardwick 2015-09-18 05:03

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410739]Oohh, this one just became available thanks to an expired assignment.

It's all but guaranteed that the first check on this was wrong. I mean, that system has 24 bad, only 1 good. This is the final un-DC'd exponent from that system, so it'll be good to close the book on it.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37825399 24 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37825399,71,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Ok, lets close the book then. Should be done in about 17 hours, unless $^#%@$ Win10 decides to ignore my settings again and install updates in the middle of the night.

UBR47K 2015-09-18 05:33

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;410744]We match![/QUOTE]

Thank you very much :smile:

Madpoo 2015-09-18 18:30

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;410745]Ok, lets close the book then. Should be done in about 17 hours, unless $^#%@$ Win10 decides to ignore my settings again and install updates in the middle of the night.[/QUOTE]

Cool, thanks. I was tempted to do it myself but I just loaded up my systems with about 2-3 weeks of work so that would have just been greedy of me to grab that low hanging fruit. :smile:

sdbardwick 2015-09-18 21:50

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410788]Cool, thanks. I was tempted to do it myself but I just loaded up my systems with about 2-3 weeks of work so that would have just been greedy of me to grab that low hanging fruit. :smile:[/QUOTE]

As expected, we need a [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37825399&exp_hi=&full=1"]triple check[/URL]...

endless mike 2015-09-19 00:06

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;410807]As expected, we need a [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37825399&exp_hi=&full=1"]triple check[/URL]...[/QUOTE]

I'll do the triple check.

sdbardwick 2015-09-19 12:25

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410651]I ran across another one needing a quad check now, if anyone is interested.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=35017579&full=1"]35017579[/URL][/QUOTE]

We match!

cuBerBruce 2015-09-19 13:59

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410636]Just ran a daily query... there's a few more today that haven't been picked up. One is freshly expired and the other two got swept into the mix now that their bad count is high enough to fall into the "twice as many bad as good" category.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35682739 10 5 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=35682739,71,1
37047167 10 5 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=37047167,71,1
40792733 3 1 2 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=40792733,72,1[/CODE]
[/QUOTE]

These have become assigned.

Madpoo 2015-09-21 00:59

Another list
 
Here's an updated list. First part is exponents from systems with at least 2x as many bad as good and already have 2 mismatches under their belt. The pair of exponents at the bottom were from systems with > 3x as many bad as good and one mismatch so far:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35551543 8 4 4 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=35551543,71,1
36459239 8 4 4 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=36459239,71,1
37720493 8 4 4 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=37720493,71,1
41065553 18 6 2 2 2 2 DoubleCheck=41065553,72,1
41069953 2 1 8 1 7 2 DoubleCheck=41069953,72,1
41079221 12 5 11 7 5 13 DoubleCheck=41079221,72,1
41079751 3 0 3 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=41079751,72,1
41106281 4 2 6 2 4 4 DoubleCheck=41106281,72,1
----------------
36166439 3 0 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=36166439,71,1
37846999 3 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=37846999,71,1[/CODE]

cuBerBruce 2015-09-21 01:50

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410934]Here's an updated list.[/QUOTE]


I grabbed M41106281.

EDIT: I grabbed M41079751, too.

UBR47K 2015-09-21 05:03

I took M36459239 and M37720493

LookAS 2015-09-21 06:57

I took M35551543, M36166439, M37846999

frmky 2015-09-21 07:07

And I grabbed the last 3.

LookAS 2015-09-22 09:45

Triple-check needed M36166439

Madpoo 2015-09-22 15:10

Extra TF love needed on these guys
 
Here's a small list of exponents that need a triple-check but could use some additional TF first:

[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
46941787 70 Factor=46941787,70,72
48372391 70 Factor=48372391,70,72
50404819 72 Factor=50404819,72,73
52086149 72 Factor=52086149,72,73
53401553 72 Factor=53401553,72,73[/CODE]

And here's a list of potentially bad results, but could use some extra TF before we bother double-checking:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45307621 70 Factor=45307621,70,72
45308561 70 Factor=45308561,70,72
45379421 70 Factor=45379421,70,72
45379463 70 Factor=45379463,70,72
46234009 71 Factor=46234009,71,72
46371389 70 Factor=46371389,70,72
46423021 71 Factor=46423021,71,72
46607801 70 Factor=46607801,70,72
46607839 70 Factor=46607839,70,72
47204021 71 Factor=47204021,71,72
47267141 71 Factor=47267141,71,72
47267153 70 Factor=47267153,70,72
47346017 71 Factor=47346017,71,72
47346023 71 Factor=47346023,71,72
48104813 71 Factor=48104813,71,72
48226081 71 Factor=48226081,71,72
48248029 71 Factor=48248029,71,72
48451693 71 Factor=48451693,71,72
50398199 70 Factor=50398199,70,73
52040731 72 Factor=52040731,72,73
52405957 72 Factor=52405957,72,73
52939417 72 Factor=52939417,72,73
53401583 72 Factor=53401583,72,73
53562269 72 Factor=53562269,72,73
54170447 72 Factor=54170447,72,73
56868607 72 Factor=56868607,72,73
74049323 73 Factor=74049323,73,74[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-09-22 15:16

[QUOTE=LookAS;411033]Triple-check needed M36166439[/QUOTE]

Looks like someone picked that up already.

I can't say for sure, because I'm not tracking the end result of these strategic double checks, but it seems like we're doing pretty good at picking out the ones that weren't done right the first time.

I've been trying to leave the juicier ones for everyone else, but even with the less probable work I've been selecting, I'm still getting a different result maybe 40-50% of the time (and of course assuming mine is correct).

I hope you all are getting equal or better results out of the lists I've been putting up... I'm hoping it's closer to 60-80% of the time you're (probably) proving the first result was wrong?

If you want to provide feedback on how it's been going, that would be good so I'll know if this is working out well or not. I should be keeping tabs on the exponents and checking in later to see if a match was made or not, but that sounded like too much work to do. LOL

sdbardwick 2015-09-22 15:21

[QUOTE=LookAS;411033]Triple-check needed M36166439[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411051]Looks like someone picked that up already.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, had a potential coffee flood to avert just after I picked that one up and forgot to post. Should be done in 11 or 12 hours.

chalsall 2015-09-22 15:22

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411050]And here's a list of potentially bad results, but could use some extra TF before we bother double-checking:[/QUOTE]

OK, these are now in GPU72 and being assigned.

sdbardwick 2015-09-23 03:09

[QUOTE=LookAS;411033]Triple-check needed M36166439[/QUOTE]
We [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36166439&full=1"]match[/URL]!

UBR47K 2015-09-23 05:32

Requesting a triple check to a CUDALucas DC test
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36459239&full=1[/url]

LookAS 2015-09-23 06:09

[QUOTE=UBR47K;411085]Requesting a triple check to a CUDALucas DC test
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36459239&full=1[/url][/QUOTE]
got it, should be done in 9hrs.

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;411083]We [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36166439&full=1"]match[/URL]![/QUOTE]
cool


edit: could use triple-checking M37846999

dragonbud20 2015-09-23 07:06

[QUOTE=LookAS;411087]edit: could use triple-checking M37846999[/QUOTE]

I'm new to this so I just want to make sure I do this right. when you say triple check I assume the procedure is to go the the manual assignments page and reserve the exponent as a double check test it give this "DoubleCheck=<assignment id>,37846999,71,1" for your worker file and then you come here and say "I've got it" or something like that and then maybe a time estimate. I hope this is right cause I just did it.

LookAS 2015-09-23 07:54

Correct.
Or you could go directly in Prime95 to Advanced -> Test and add it there. Then do manual communication with server and it should become registered for you too.

Dubslow 2015-09-23 08:08

[QUOTE=dragonbud20;411088]I'm new to this so I just want to make sure I do this right. when you say triple check I assume the procedure is to go the the manual assignments page and reserve the exponent as a double check test it give this "DoubleCheck=<AID>,37846999,71,1" for your worker file and then you come here and say "I've got it" or something like that and then maybe a time estimate. I hope this is right cause I just did it.[/QUOTE]

Correct, but do not post that assignment key publicly. Anyone on the internet may use it to unreserve your work. (Not that it's likely anyone is interested in doing such a thing, but still.)

Madpoo 2015-09-23 17:18

[QUOTE=Dubslow;411091]Correct, but do not post that assignment key publicly. Anyone on the internet may use it to unreserve your work. (Not that it's likely anyone is interested in doing such a thing, but still.)[/QUOTE]

I fixed it, removed the ID from the post. :smile:

frmky 2015-09-23 18:31

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411050]
And here's a list of potentially bad results, but could use some extra TF before we bother double-checking:
[/QUOTE]
From this list I grabbed three with TF done for DC:
DoubleCheck=46234009,72,1
DoubleCheck=46423021,72,1
DoubleCheck=47204021,72,1

Mark Rose 2015-09-24 00:24

Aaron, have any of the misbehaving machines we found done other work types, such as TF or P-1?

Madpoo 2015-09-24 05:18

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;411153]Aaron, have any of the misbehaving machines we found done other work types, such as TF or P-1?[/QUOTE]

Hmm... good question. I'm looking at just the LL results since that's the only thing where we can tell for sure if they were good/bad.

When I have some time I'll try and pick out a selection of the worst offenders who also did any P-1/ECM/TF work and try to get a feel for how they may have fared with those. I guess things like figuring out how many factors they found out of how many attempts, see if it seems "off".

frmky 2015-09-24 23:22

[QUOTE=frmky;411123]From this list I grabbed three with TF done for DC:
[/QUOTE]
And these:
DoubleCheck=45308561,72,1
DoubleCheck=45379421,72,1
DoubleCheck=45379463,72,1
DoubleCheck=46371389,72,1
DoubleCheck=47267141,72,1
DoubleCheck=47267153,72,1

Madpoo 2015-09-25 00:02

Handful more
 
I just checked and these 3 beauties just became available again (assignments expired).

Judging from the bad/good ratio, I'd say these are definitely in the category of things to DC ahead of the curve:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37864429 5 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=37864429,71,1
40164529 20 3 3 0 1 2 DoubleCheck=40164529,72,1
54881429 32 6 12 14 7 19 DoubleCheck=54881429,73,1[/CODE]

dragonbud20 2015-09-25 01:52

I'll take M37864429 for a DC

Madpoo 2015-09-25 02:55

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411161]...When I have some time I'll try and pick out a selection of the worst offenders who also did any P-1/ECM/TF work and try to get a feel for how they may have fared with those. I guess things like figuring out how many factors they found out of how many attempts, see if it seems "off".[/QUOTE]

I did a small sampling... 3 machines that met these criteria:[LIST][*]>= 10 bad results[*]0 good results[*]no more outstanding unknown/suspect[*]v5 client only[/LIST]
Of those, 2 of them have only done a small amount of TF work with no factor found.
#1 has 1 factor out of 62 attempts
#2 has 0 factors out of 4 attempts (why is zero plural? It felt weird to say "zero factor found" :smile: )
#3 has 1675 factors out of 109110 attempts

It's the 3rd machine with the large amount of factoring that made me wonder... I guess a factoring 'success rate' of ~1.5% isn't too bad? I don't know.

Could just be that the type of work involved in TF compared to LL isn't as taxing for the system. It had only done 12 total LL tests, all of which were bad.

It had also done a handful of ECM factoring work... 2 factors found out of 296 attempts (all of them were just 3 curves at varying bounds, mostly B1=50000 / B2=5000000)

So even in that worst case looking thing, the rate of factors being found seemed kind of in line with expectations, I think?

LaurV 2015-09-25 04:12

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411219]I guess a factoring 'success rate' of ~1.5% isn't too bad?[/QUOTE]
That is exactly one in 65, which fits perfectly "in theory", even with some luck (if he factored to higher bitlevels, then he found more factors than expected!). No action need to be done here. And indeed, GPU TF does not use (lots of) memory, as opposite to GPU LL or GPU P-1, both use (lots of) memory for FFT. One can check the utilization of the memory with GPU-Z, for example, is over 40%-60%, depending on your exponent when LL, and is close to 1%-2% when TF. So, a card can be wonderful at TF and crap at LL, if it has memory problems (just an example).

Madpoo 2015-09-25 05:25

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411161]Hmm... good question. I'm looking at just the LL results since that's the only thing where we can tell for sure if they were good/bad.

When I have some time I'll try and pick out a selection of the worst offenders who also did any P-1/ECM/TF work and try to get a feel for how they may have fared with those. I guess things like figuring out how many factors they found out of how many attempts, see if it seems "off".[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LaurV;411223]That is exactly one in 65, which fits perfectly "in theory", even with some luck (if he factored to higher bitlevels, then he found more factors than expected!). No action need to be done here. And indeed, GPU TF does not use (lots of) memory, as opposite to GPU LL or GPU P-1, both use (lots of) memory for FFT. One can check the utilization of the memory with GPU-Z, for example, is over 40%-60%, depending on your exponent when LL, and is close to 1%-2% when TF. So, a card can be wonderful at TF and crap at LL, if it has memory problems (just an example).[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the sanity check. Yeah, I'd have to say that, on the surface of it, if a machine is lousy at LL, it may still have done just fine at TF.

I know there have been some crazy cases of people doing TF work and missing all kinds of things, and I wonder what special bad-ness was going on to allow that to happen, but it certainly seems atypical.

Unless something comes up later that makes us rethink that concept, I probably won't pursue avenues of trying to find bad factoring machines, just because it's so hard to really tell one way or the other. I've tried a few things now but with inconclusive results. Even when I tried to find machines that did TF work and a factor was later found by P-1 or ECM that *should* have been found by TF, I wasn't really always sure about it, and it wasn't the kind of thing where I could point to a particular set of machines and say "aha!"

Oh well... maybe down the road we can revisit that notion when I (or someone else) has more bandwidth to worry about it. :smile:


All times are UTC. The time now is 16:54.

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