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)

VBCurtis 2015-09-25 06:36

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411219]
#2 has 0 factors out of 4 attempts (why is zero plural? It felt weird to say "zero factor found" :smile: )
[/QUOTE]
Change "factors" to "years", and consider which numbers get plural. 0.3 years? 1.1 years? 1.8 year? 0.03 year?

The singular case is only for, you know, singles. Everything else gets plural, as if the item is a unit in science. If I were giving directions, I'd tell someone a bus stop is 0.6 miles away, though I suppose "six tenths of a mile" contradicts all this...

LaurV 2015-09-25 06:47

"no factor found" sounds quite "English" to me... :rolleyes:
(not a native speaker, and we won't say it like that in our native language)

UBR47K 2015-09-25 06:59

Requesting a Quad check to a prime95 CPU result: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=39635213&full=1[/url]

kladner 2015-09-25 07:37

[QUOTE=LaurV;411223]..... So, a card can be wonderful at TF and crap at LL, if it has memory problems (just an example).[/QUOTE]

[LEFT][B]With consumer (gamer) cards[/B], totally different tuning is necessary to run LL compared to TF.
[/LEFT]

I have experienced truly bogus TF results, as in PrimeNet rejected Factor Found results. This only happened while I had a power supply whose regulation was "Gone with the Wind," or possibly when I had not realized how bad the power connections had become on my GTX 570.

In general, though I have no way to prove accuracy, I have operated on the principle that MFAKTC tends to crash when the GPU is being pushed too hard for the voltage level. Depending on temperatures, a crash indicates either increasing voltage, or reducing frequency.

On the other hand, very conservative GPU and RAM frequencies, possibly combined with higher voltage, when possible, are in order with CUDALucas.

I have never come within fantasizing distance of Tesla cards, but those, as I understand, operate at more conservative frequencies, combined with ECC RAM. So with the more plebeian lines, the best one can do is emulate the lower frequencies, especially regarding VRAM. If your tweaking software's brand matches your card, i.e. Afterburner with MSI cards, you may be able to experiment with VRAM voltage as well.

At least with CuLu, the multitude of tests (2 levels of residue-based self-tests, memory tests, etc,) give you a much better shot at determining potentially viable parameters, before taking the time to do DCs.

In my case, that time, for a 34.7M DC is about 1D 3-5H on the MSI 580 running at Factory OC 833 MHz, with boosted GPU and VRAM voltage, and the RAM throttled back to 1800 MHz. With a GTX 460, I think I ran at 1700 MHz, though I don't remember the GPU frequency. Around that time, one of the heavy hitters in TF, like Flash or Nucleon, said something about running (probably 580s or 570s) memory at 1600MHz.

I have been doing such tests intermittently, between bouts of cranked up TF work, so it usually takes me 2-3 days to finish a 34.7M DC. The last 3, at least, have not mismatched. I had at least one independently confirmed mismatch early on with the 580 (thanks, Wombatman!) and another which did not match, which I reran with more laid back setting to get a match.

IMPORTANT! When switching between work types like these, be sure to change your frequency and voltage settings BEFORE you switch from TF to LL of any sort. It seems likely that TF settings could introduce LL errors very quickly.

Note that when running TF, it is advantageous to slow your memory way down, as in 1500 MHz, possibly even more. You use less power, and can probably run cooler when you are trying to push the GPU core as hard as is practical.

chalsall 2015-09-25 17:14

[QUOTE=chalsall;411054]OK, these are now in GPU72 and being assigned.[/QUOTE]

Just so everyone knows, all but three of these have been appropriately TFed; the last three will be finished by this time tomorrow. I haven't checked, but I don't think any factors were found.

cuBerBruce 2015-09-25 17:21

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411214]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][/QUOTE]

40164529 has been assigned to an anonymous user - probably a cat 4 churner. ETA 7 days (supposedly).

The last one is still available.

endless mike 2015-09-25 19:57

[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]

[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]

[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]

[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]

[QUOTE=endless mike;410808]I'll do the triple check.[/QUOTE]

Completed today, we have a [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37825399&exp_hi=&full=1"]match.[/URL]

dragonbud20 2015-09-26 23:28

Triple check finished on M37846999: It matches
Double check finished on M37864429: It needs a triple check

chalsall 2015-09-26 23:33

[QUOTE=dragonbud20;411355]Double check finished on M37864429: It needs a triple check[/QUOTE]

Mine.

endless mike 2015-09-27 01:08

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411214]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][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411267]40164529 has been assigned to an anonymous user - probably a cat 4 churner. ETA 7 days (supposedly).

The last one is still available.[/QUOTE]

Looks like no one else grabbed it, so I'll take 54881429.

UBR47K 2015-09-27 05:46

Quad check needed on M40157713
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=40157713&full=1[/url]

frmky 2015-09-27 20:33

[QUOTE=chalsall;411266]Just so everyone knows, all but three of these have been appropriately TFed; the last three will be finished by this time tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
I grabbed all under 50M.

endless mike 2015-09-28 00:23

[QUOTE=frmky;411421]I grabbed all under 50M.[/QUOTE]

I grabbed all the 5xxxxxxx, except the one MadPoo already has. That just leaves the last one, 74049323, to be assigned; if I checked everything right, that is.

airsquirrels 2015-09-28 01:04

I just had a new machine finish up a few DC's, one of six verified but 5 of them did not. This machine has not had any temperature or other issues, but the mis-rate is suspect. Double checks on these exponents? I'm not sure the best place to bring this up. Also, any good insight into what to check for why there might be an issue with this machine?

41031493
41031559
41031691
41031629
41031587

kladner 2015-09-28 02:58

I will put 41031493 on the MSI GTX 580. It would be safest to say that it will finish by Tuesday, 9/29/15, in the wee hours CDT. I will report it by 0700 CDT.

So would that be-[INDENT] DoubleCheck=41031493,72,1
[/INDENT]?

chalsall 2015-09-28 03:25

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411430]This machine has not had any temperature or other issues, but the mis-rate is suspect. Double checks on these exponents?[/QUOTE]

OK, unfortunately all of these have already been assigned to other workers.

But, the first one (which kladner took) and the last two were assigned to ANON users. Since these candidates are in the "churner's zone", such assignments to unnamed users have a +99% of never being completed (as opposed to the 97% chance of never completing for DC Cat 4 assignments overall, even those who bother to go to the trouble to sign up with Primenet).

Thus, I feel it not immoral that the first, and last two, be done without assignment. I have taken the last two (onto two historically highly reliable CPUs). Results for both should be submitted in ~24 hours.

chalsall 2015-09-28 03:41

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411430]Also, any good insight into what to check for why there might be an issue with this machine?[/QUOTE]

Knowing what I know about you, your new machine is probably sound, you just happened to get assigned a half dozen candidates done "poorly" by others.

But... When I encounter such situations (and I only DC for a reason) I run deep and lengthy memory tests.

frmky 2015-09-28 03:46

Another strategy would be to triple check a few numbers that Madpoo has done a DC without a match. If you don't match his, then you likely have a problem.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=36000000&exp_date=&user_only=1&user_id=Madpoo&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&B1=[/url]

airsquirrels 2015-09-28 03:54

A few hours of memory testing came up spotless, but this was from user-space and not the boot straight to memtest variety.

The machine is onto another batch of DCs which usually only take a few days, so between that and a couple triple checks here we should have a gauge on it shortly. I've had unverified DCs pop up in the past but usually out of a batch of 6-8 results I will have one mismatch and the rest verify. This is the first time I have seen one verify and all the rest fail.

I try to do a few rounds of DC on new machines to make sure they are solid and avoid causing stress for Madpoo 10 years down the road :)

kladner 2015-09-28 04:19

I have to revise my ETA to, currently, ~1D:16H, @ 2.43% completed.

Chris- I was not sure of the status, though PrimeNet rejected (I think) an effort to register it. Is this worth pursuing?

chalsall 2015-09-28 04:20

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411446]A few hours of memory testing came up spotless, but this was from user-space and not the boot straight to memtest variety.[/QUOTE]

No, mate! To be sure, you have to go to the bare metal. There's a chance you only have a single bit or two or so of memory already allocated which is flaky. User-space is for users! :wink:

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;411446]...and avoid causing stress for Madpoo 10 years down the road :)[/QUOTE]

:smile:

chalsall 2015-09-28 04:30

[QUOTE=kladner;411447]Is this worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]

Some might disagree, but I would argue yes.

The worst thing that will happen is you complete the work before someone who was given this assignment eventually does. There is less than a 1% chance that the "official assignee" will complete in this particular case (or even check in before it expires); the candidate is in the "churning zone".

My personal rule with regards to "poaching" is to try to be as careful as possible, and if someone else actually completes the assignment they were given by Primenet then they are given the credit.

This includes the very /very/ unlikely case of a MP.

kladner 2015-09-28 04:33

I'll let it keep rolling. :smile:

cuBerBruce 2015-09-28 16:43

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41106281&exp_hi=&full=1]M41106281[/url] needs a triple check. My other 41M should be done in a few hours.

Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.

chalsall 2015-09-28 19:01

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411488]Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.[/QUOTE]

One quick suggestion... If you are bringing a new machine online which you have reason to believe is reliable, perhaps reserved at least two candidates per worker thread via a trusted machine to start the trending.

P.S. Check 41106281 in about 36 hours from now.

Madpoo 2015-09-28 19:13

[QUOTE=chalsall;411444]Knowing what I know about you, your new machine is probably sound, you just happened to get assigned a half dozen candidates done "poorly" by others.

But... When I encounter such situations (and I only DC for a reason) I run deep and lengthy memory tests.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I'm a bit more skeptical. I just looked at those 5 exponents along with the good/bad counts of the other systems involved.

For the most part, the other, non-AirSquirrels cpu has an okay track record.

The other machine that did M41031493 has an unknown record... zero good/zero bad, but then none of it's other tests have been double-checked until now. The other systems all have at least 1 good result on the book, and only one of them has a single bad result but it also has 57 good ones (that's on exponent M41031587).

If I were a betting man, I'd say that at least 4 out of these 5 new results are wrong, and maybe the 5th one as well but with that other system being unknown, it's a toss up. After all, AirSquirrels did already match a 6th one. :smile:

cuBerBruce 2015-09-28 20:38

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411488][url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41106281&exp_hi=&full=1]M41106281[/url] needs a triple check. My other 41M should be done in a few hours.

Edit: M41106281 appears to have been taken by a cat 4 churner already.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=41079751&exp_hi=&full=1]M41079751[/url] finished and matched the previous result.

I have completed my first two ever 4xM LL tests. :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;411498]One quick suggestion... If you are bringing a new machine online which you have reason to believe is reliable, perhaps reserved at least two candidates per worker thread via a trusted machine to start the trending.

P.S. Check 41106281 in about 36 hours from now.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me you are suggesting a trick for running cat 1 (and/or cat 2) jobs before PrimeNet is willing to hand them to the machine directly. Well, I'm OK with getting a few cat 3/4 assignments first, though the idea of using another machine to grab assignments had occurred to me. I think I have enough work done now, that I should be able to get cat 1s going forward.

I note that I completed an ordinary DC assignment on each of the 4 cores prior to using the core for any "Madpoo" work. Though I suppose my failing to match the residue on M41106281 makes my machine look a little bit suspect by Madpoo's standards (4 first LLs, 5 matching DCs, 1 non-matching DC completed), but hopefully Chris bails me out there soon enough.

Madpoo 2015-09-28 22:10

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411511]Though I suppose my failing to match the residue on M41106281 makes my machine look a little bit suspect by Madpoo's standards (4 first LLs, 5 matching DCs, 1 non-matching DC completed), but hopefully Chris bails me out there soon enough.[/QUOTE]

I'll only give a machine the evil-eye on a mismatch if the other system involved has an awesome track record.

In the case of M41106281, your CPU is 4 good/0 bad. The other system is in worse shape... 2 good/5 bad (with 2 suspect, a total of 5 still unverified/mismatched results).

I'd say it's a good bet you have the correct result, but to me, an "awesome" system where I've been giving it the benefit of the doubt and declaring it the probable winner is any system with >= 40 good and <= 1 bad. And I'm even on the fence about letting it have one bad, but then I realize even the most awesomest systems can have an off day. :smile:

Maybe I could also let it include systems with >= 20 good and zero bad. Hmm... maybe that'd help guesstimate more winners and losers with these mismatches.

Madpoo 2015-09-28 22:19

[QUOTE=frmky;411445]Another strategy would be to triple check a few numbers that Madpoo has done a DC without a match. If you don't match his, then you likely have a problem.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=36000000&exp_date=&user_only=1&user_id=Madpoo&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&B1=[/url][/QUOTE]

That got me to looking at my history so far...

I have 261 results now where my test didn't match any others and it's still unverified. 219 of them are unassigned, so if anyone really felt like triple-checking any of those for fun, go for it. But just realize that for the purposes of this little experiment, I'm assuming my results are always right. :smile:

I would be terribly embarrassed if, later on, it turns out some of my results were actually wrong, once they do actually get triple-checked.

So far though, my total stats are:
Good (verified) = 26531
Unknown = 555
Factored later = 405
Bad = 3 (and I can explain that, really)
Suspect = 0

The 3 bad results are, well... weird. When I was doing triple-checks of exponents below 1M, for whatever strange reason 3 of them gave me mismatched residues. I re-ran all 3 *on the same machine* and each time they then came up with the correct residue.

I have no real good answer for that actually... I attribute it to some funkiness with really small FFT sizes and the fact that I was doing super small exponents on many-threaded workers, and it was actually the code to blame, not the machine (sorry George, I just threw you under the bus there...LOL). The residues only seemed to match the last 33 bits or so of the actual verified residue... the other bits were 0 for whatever reason. I'd call that a program bug?

If you're curious, the 3 exponents are:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M8291"]M8291[/URL]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M12281"]M12281[/URL]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M801883"]M801883[/URL]

Prime95 2015-09-28 22:46

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411517]
I have no real good answer for that actually... I attribute it to some funkiness with really small FFT sizes and the fact that I was doing super small exponents on many-threaded workers, and it was actually the code to blame, not the machine (sorry George, I just threw you under the bus there...LOL). The residues only seemed to match the last 33 bits or so of the actual verified residue... the other bits were 0 for whatever reason. I'd call that a program bug?[/QUOTE]

That is weird. First, I'd say the FFTs were done correctly and the problem occurred in generating the residue. Second, I'd point out that the first two exponents are so small that you were not running multi-threaded FFTs (only two-pass FFTs are multi-threaded).

Have you tried running LL on M8291 a hundred times to see if it happens again? These were all on the same machine at the same time? Did you exit and restart prime95 before the correct reruns?

I'll look at the code to see if I can imagine any way the residue creation code could exit prematurely.

Prime95 2015-09-28 22:54

Nevermind the questions. You have found a real bug!!

If the final shift count is more than (exponent - 64), then the top (64 - (exponent - shiftcount)) bits are zeroed. I'll code up a fix.

The chance this is affecting existing LL tests is small. For exponents around 64M, 1 in 1,000,000 LL tests will be affected. I'll query the database to get us a list affected LL tests.

Madpoo 2015-09-28 23:03

[QUOTE=Prime95;411519]That is weird. First, I'd say the FFTs were done correctly and the problem occurred in generating the residue. Second, I'd point out that the first two exponents are so small that you were not running multi-threaded FFTs (only two-pass FFTs are multi-threaded).

Have you tried running LL on M8291 a hundred times to see if it happens again? These were all on the same machine at the same time? Did you exit and restart prime95 before the correct reruns?

I'll look at the code to see if I can imagine any way the residue creation code could exit prematurely.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm a little puzzled by it.

Actually, upon reflection, I think on these sub 1M exponents, I may have set them all up to run on a single thread for each worker. M8291 probably only took a few seconds to run even then.

Still, out of the ~ 20K tests I did of exponents below 2M, with only 3 of them being weird like this, that's not too bad? :smile:

I only ran it one more time and got the correct result after which I moved on. I could try it again, repeatedly in some way (add the same worktodo entry many times over) and see if any of the runs get another funky residue. Maybe I'll get that setup in a little bit, let it chunk through a couple hundred times and see what happens.

By the way, apparently I lied. All 3 were originally run on the same machine (madpoo6), and then tested again on a different machine the second time around (same different machine, madpoo8).

The machine that gave the truncated residues was a dual 6-core server, and the one that gave the correct residues is a dual 10-core server.

I still have that old 6-core box...it got moved around but I still have access to it for running a sanity test as mentioned.

Prime95 2015-09-28 23:05

Update: The bug has not always existed. There are a dozen or two pre-2008 tests between 2M and 31M that should have been affected but are not.

Only one LL test was affected: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37830997&exp_hi=&full=1[/url]

Madpoo 2015-09-28 23:17

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411521]I still have that old 6-core box...it got moved around but I still have access to it for running a sanity test as mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Okay, on that same server, I ran this 1000 times. Prime95 setup to use a single worker with just one thread:
DoubleCheck=8291,62,1

It does not take long at all, if anyone wants to try this at home. Takes < 1 minute.

Out of 1000 results, 995 have the correct residue of:
75B8C8A553773232

The other 5 weird residues are (I'm including the full line in case the shift-count has any part):
[CODE] 58th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo1c, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 15B8C8A553773232. We4: 29F62AB6,8230,00000000
452nd attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo1c, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000000173232. We4: 40D162CB,8270,00000000
657th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo1c, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0038C8A553773232. We4: 13762B4F,8237,00000000
732nd attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo1c, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000000013232. We4: 40C762CF,8274,00000000
824th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo1c, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000000073232. We4: 40C162C9,8272,00000000[/CODE]

For fun, I did the same experiment on the other system (the dual 10-core box). Same setup, just 1 worker with one thread, running this same check 1000 times in a row. Again, it's super quick so anyone could do this.

It also missed 5 out of the 1000:
[CODE]103rd attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo8, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000003773232. We4: 43B16231,8264,00000000
206th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo8, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000000000002. We4: 40C61029,8288,00000000
480th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo8, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000C8A553773232. We4: 13BE2B43,8241,00000000
514th attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo8, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000000153773232. We4: 13B1623E,8258,00000000
851st attempt = UID: madpoo/madpoo8, M8291 is not prime. Res64: 0000002553773232. We4: 13B162D8,8252,00000000[/CODE]

That 206th attempt... residue of 0x2 ... hmm... either it dropped a bunch of the actual residue or it was stuck in that 0x2 loop.

Madpoo 2015-09-28 23:21

[QUOTE=Prime95;411520]Nevermind the questions. You have found a real bug!![/QUOTE]

Hooray! What do I win? :smile: Can I remove the "bad" status on those 3? Just kidding... I'll leave them there to keep me humble.

ATH 2015-09-28 23:31

[QUOTE=Prime95;411522]Update: The bug has not always existed. There are a dozen or two pre-2008 tests between 2M and 31M that should have been affected but are not.

Only one LL test was affected: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37830997&exp_hi=&full=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Nice catch to find that bug.

Why is it "Andrew Daniels" is visible in the LL section but is ANONYMOUS in the history section? It was explained once before, but I forgot the reason.

Madpoo 2015-09-29 01:39

[QUOTE=ATH;411525]Nice catch to find that bug.

Why is it "Andrew Daniels" is visible in the LL section but is ANONYMOUS in the history section? It was explained once before, but I forgot the reason.[/QUOTE]

The name in the "LL" section and the name in the "History" section come from different tables in the data.

I think it has to do with the LL results table including the old v4 name that was used at the time it got checked in. All of the LL stuff moved over fairly well during the v4 to v5 update.

The history section, on the other hand, looks at the actual log of messages that came in from the client. Until recently it didn't include any of the v4 messages at all, and now that it does, you'll see "Anonymous" for most entries where the v4 user never created a v5 account and linked them up. Something like that. I'm trying to remember if we actually do pull the v5 username even if they did link to a v4 account, but you get the idea.

LaurV 2015-09-29 03:29

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411524]Can I remove the "bad" status on those 3?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you do that [U]after[/U] you remove my bad results from mid of january to end of march 2012 - which is almost all my list of bad results; at that time cudaLucas was switching from "powers of 2 FFT only" to "non powers of 2 too", and I was the main tester, all those "bad" results were software bugs :razz:

Madpoo 2015-09-29 15:39

[QUOTE=LaurV;411545]Yeah, you do that [U]after[/U] you remove my bad results from mid of january to end of march 2012 - which is almost all my list of bad results; at that time cudaLucas was switching from "powers of 2 FFT only" to "non powers of 2 too", and I was the main tester, all those "bad" results were software bugs :razz:[/QUOTE]

Wear those bad results as a badge of honor! You earned them through your selfless dedication to testing new software. :smile: I'm keeping mine... after all, technically they are bad residues, whether it was a software or hardware issue. LOL And then we have a ready excuse whenever someone points out that we have some bad stuff in our past.

Madpoo 2015-09-29 16:53

new list
 
This is an updated list of fun things to double-check early.

It's a mix of:
Tests done by systems with > 3:1 bad/good
or
Tests done by systems with zero good, >= 2 bad, and at least one unverified mismatch at some point

That second clause will grab some that only have a pair of bad ones, but a strong suspicion that more of them are also bad. I've had pretty good luck doing some of those on my own (and I've even been doing some with a single bad result so far with about 50/50 mine was different).

If anyone is ever interested, there are ~270 exponents in a big list of more speculative work. Systems with zero good, zero bad, but 2+ mismatches. I've only had my result be different in about a third of those, but that's still higher than the typical, random rate. My goal with those is to take the smallest exponent from each machine and test it... either I add to it's good or bad count, but either way we'll have more info than before. So if anyone felt like helping with that, and a smaller chance that your result will be different, let me know. The cool part is sometimes you'll find a machine that really is bad and has a lot of "solo" checks, so you can follow it through and get a bunch of other stuff out of it. I did that with one machine that had a dozen other checks which were all bad (they were all above 60M though so I didn't share it here). That was fun.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36109043 2 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=36109043,71,1
36475279 2 0 7 0 6 1 DoubleCheck=36475279,71,1
37900663 6 1 8 2 4 6 DoubleCheck=37900663,71,1
41321141 15 5 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=41321141,72,1
41448403 4 0 14 1 7 8 DoubleCheck=41448403,72,1
41757647 2 0 3 6 3 6 DoubleCheck=41757647,72,1
41794073 4 0 10 2 7 5 DoubleCheck=41794073,72,1
41856721 3 0 4 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=41856721,72,1
41877499 15 5 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=41877499,72,1
43371121 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=43371121,72,1
43502383 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=43502383,72,1
43721149 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=43721149,72,1
43749311 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=43749311,72,1
45601877 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=45601877,72,1
45710017 2 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=45710017,72,1
45870623 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=45870623,72,1
46102687 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=46102687,72,1
46567757 2 0 5 1 5 1 DoubleCheck=46567757,72,1
47921893 2 0 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=47921893,72,1
[/CODE]

fivemack 2015-09-29 17:22

I'll try 36109043

cuBerBruce 2015-09-29 17:52

I took 36475279.

Prime95 2015-09-29 19:15

I took all below 46M

chalsall 2015-09-29 20:17

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411500]Hmmm... I'm a bit more skeptical. I just looked at those 5 exponents along with the good/bad counts of the other systems involved.

For the most part, the other, non-AirSquirrels cpu has an okay track record.[/QUOTE]

You were correct.

AirSquirrels, beat the heck out of that new machine. Both of my triple checks matched the original assignee, but not you.

dragonbud20 2015-09-29 22:20

I'll take M46102687, M46567757, M47921893

cuBerBruce 2015-09-30 17:09

[QUOTE=Madpoo;410934]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][/QUOTE]

Chris confirmed my residue for 41106281, so this set of 10 exponents is now finished. 4 out of the 10 original residues were wrong.

kladner 2015-09-30 18:17

I have 3.5 hours to go on 41031493. I am a little leery of my own result, though perhaps without real cause. The higher than usual number of resets makes me nervous. :ermm:

kladner 2015-09-30 22:37

I matched David J. Stucki on[INDENT]M( 41031493 )C, 0x7545027971b19a58, offset = 12185, n = 2304K, CUDALucas v2.05.1[/INDENT]

Madpoo 2015-10-01 02:37

[QUOTE=kladner;411662]I have 3.5 hours to go on 41031493. I am a little leery of my own result, though perhaps without real cause. The higher than usual number of resets makes me nervous. :ermm:[/QUOTE]

I've had several runs where the FFT must have been right on the border and it chose the lower one. Resulted in lots of re-doing using the safer method, but in the end it matched anyway. Even when the error wasn't repeatable, it still passed. The error code will reflect all of that info, and from what I've seen, it's *usually* non-critical.

I did an analysis of error codes at one point, checking which ones are more likely to wind up bad. Those round-off errors didn't seem any more likely to be bad than a totally clean run.

If your result is flaky enough that it got marked as suspect, then you do have a much higher chance that it's bad. I haven't analyzed that exactly since I'm not totally sure which error codes will trigger a "suspect" flag, but that's on my to-do list.

LaurV 2015-10-01 03:46

There is an "undoc" option that may avoid that, and making your test a bit faster (each iteration slower, but avoids repeated iterations) and safer, by increasing the FFT on "borders". You may look to "undoc.txt" for "NearFFTLimitPct=value", and respective "SoftCrossovers=n" and "SoftCrossoverAdjust=n".

kladner 2015-10-01 04:05

[QUOTE=LaurV;411702]There is an "undoc" option that may avoid that, and making your test a bit faster (each iteration slower, but avoids repeated iterations) and safer, by increasing the FFT on "borders". You may look to "undoc.txt" for "NearFFTLimitPct=value", and respective "SoftCrossovers=n" and "SoftCrossoverAdjust=n".[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about CUCALucas or Prime95? My reference is to the periodic time-outs which cause the card to be reset while running CL.

LaurV 2015-10-01 04:24

Prime95, and I was replying to Madpoo's "resulted in lots of re-doing using the safer method" line. This is P95-specific.
Usually I quote if I don't reply to last post (and I don't quote if I reply to last post - at least this is what the nettiquete says)

Madpoo 2015-10-01 05:06

Updated factoring list
 
Here's an updated list of some exponents that could use extra TF.

First list: exponents that need triple-checking but could use extra TF beforehand:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45486481 70 Factor=45486481,70,72
45962519 70 Factor=45962519,70,72
46328993 71 Factor=46328993,71,72
46706797 70 Factor=46706797,70,72
47041213 71 Factor=47041213,71,72
47562511 70 Factor=47562511,70,72
47725303 70 Factor=47725303,70,72
48074977 71 Factor=48074977,71,72
49964059 71 Factor=49964059,71,72
50500493 72 Factor=50500493,72,73
52823003 71 Factor=52823003,71,73
52825231 71 Factor=52825231,71,73
52870133 71 Factor=52870133,71,73
53146861 72 Factor=53146861,72,73
53320051 72 Factor=53320051,72,73
53692733 72 Factor=53692733,72,73[/CODE]

And this list of exponents with maybe a 50/50 chance of being done wrong the first time... might as well do extra TF before doing a DC:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45501193 71 Factor=45501193,71,72
46373879 70 Factor=46373879,70,72
46654913 70 Factor=46654913,70,72
47139353 70 Factor=47139353,70,72
47697667 70 Factor=47697667,70,72
51060413 70 Factor=51060413,70,73
54649009 71 Factor=54649009,71,73
55270477 72 Factor=55270477,72,73
55280077 72 Factor=55280077,72,73[/CODE]

That's all of those for now.

Madpoo 2015-10-01 05:10

[QUOTE=LaurV;411702]There is an "undoc" option that may avoid that, and making your test a bit faster (each iteration slower, but avoids repeated iterations) and safer, by increasing the FFT on "borders". You may look to "undoc.txt" for "NearFFTLimitPct=value", and respective "SoftCrossovers=n" and "SoftCrossoverAdjust=n".[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I read up on that a little. I haven't paid too much attention to how the FFT sizing at the beginning of a test correlated with how often it does the roundoff error thing. Sometimes it gave a roundoff error when it didn't do the FFT test first, so it wasn't near a threshold exactly.

Overall, while it happens enough that I notice, it's a smallish percent of the total so I don't worry about it too much. Now, if it were giving me bad results, that'd be a different story. As it is, with a 10 minute interval between save files, it doesn't have to roll back too far during the retest/reset, compared to when it was using the default of 30 minutes.

Therefore, I vote the next build of Prime95 changes the default to 10 minutes. at least. :smile: Or 5?

kladner 2015-10-01 05:32

[QUOTE=LaurV;411706]Prime95, and I was replying to Madpoo's "resulted in lots of re-doing using the safer method" line. This is P95-specific.
Usually I quote if I don't reply to last post (and I don't quote if I reply to last post - at least this is what the nettiquete says)[/QUOTE]

OK. Thanks. I'll try to keep track of that. I thought you might have been saying something about an unusual number of CuLu resets.

I think there was some cross-posting going on, as the current sequence makes your response logical. Oops! :smile:

UBR47K 2015-10-01 05:50

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411707]Here's an updated list of some exponents that could use extra TF.

First list: exponents that need triple-checking but could use extra TF beforehand:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45486481 70 Factor=45486481,70,72
45962519 70 Factor=45962519,70,72
46328993 71 Factor=46328993,71,72
46706797 70 Factor=46706797,70,72
47041213 71 Factor=47041213,71,72
47562511 70 Factor=47562511,70,72
47725303 70 Factor=47725303,70,72
48074977 71 Factor=48074977,71,72
49964059 71 Factor=49964059,71,72
50500493 72 Factor=50500493,72,73
52823003 71 Factor=52823003,71,73
52825231 71 Factor=52825231,71,73
52870133 71 Factor=52870133,71,73
53146861 72 Factor=53146861,72,73
53320051 72 Factor=53320051,72,73
53692733 72 Factor=53692733,72,73[/CODE]

And this list of exponents with maybe a 50/50 chance of being done wrong the first time... might as well do extra TF before doing a DC:
[CODE]exponent TF WorkToDo
45501193 71 Factor=45501193,71,72
46373879 70 Factor=46373879,70,72
46654913 70 Factor=46654913,70,72
47139353 70 Factor=47139353,70,72
47697667 70 Factor=47697667,70,72
51060413 70 Factor=51060413,70,73
54649009 71 Factor=54649009,71,73
55270477 72 Factor=55270477,72,73
55280077 72 Factor=55280077,72,73[/CODE]

That's all of those for now.[/QUOTE]

I'll do the TF.

fivemack 2015-10-01 11:06

For 36109043 I match the residue reported by Li De Jing

(am now proceeding to primenet-issued double-checks)

cuBerBruce 2015-10-01 14:41

[QUOTE=fivemack;411733]For 36109043 I match the residue reported by Li De Jing[/QUOTE]

I matched the same user's residue for 36475279.

UBR47K 2015-10-02 05:26

[QUOTE=UBR47K;411718]I'll do the TF.[/QUOTE]

Completed TF'ing all of the exponents, no factors found.

Madpoo 2015-10-02 05:45

[QUOTE=fivemack;411733]For 36109043 I match the residue reported by Li De Jing

(am now proceeding to primenet-issued double-checks)[/QUOTE]

Don't forget to check in your result? :smile: I didn't see it:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M36109043"]http://www.mersenne.org/M36109043[/URL]

fivemack 2015-10-02 07:12

This is probably a dumb question, but how do I do that?

I had rather thought the software had done it for me when I joined primenet; do I just log in and copy-paste my results.txt file?

dragonbud20 2015-10-02 08:05

you can copy-paste the results into manual submissions or and I'm not 100% on this you can go into the advanced menu and select manual communication.

Madpoo 2015-10-02 20:03

[QUOTE=fivemack;411815]This is probably a dumb question, but how do I do that?

I had rather thought the software had done it for me when I joined primenet; do I just log in and copy-paste my results.txt file?[/QUOTE]

I see the results now so it looks like it got squared away. Thanks for helping check some of these out.

Madpoo 2015-10-03 05:13

Fresh list of strategic DC candidates
 
Here's an updated list of exponents with a good chance of being wrong the first time.

Generated by looking at machines with > 2:1 bad to good and at least one mismatch already:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35112887 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=35112887,71,1
35242901 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=35242901,71,1
36118127 5 2 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=36118127,71,1
36345187 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=36345187,71,1
36351773 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=36351773,71,1
36462319 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=36462319,71,1
36497611 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36497611,71,1
36555823 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36555823,71,1
36580477 5 2 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=36580477,71,1
36665899 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36665899,71,1
36770599 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36770599,71,1
38037277 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=38037277,71,1
41475449 6 3 7 3 4 6 DoubleCheck=41475449,72,1
41489473 10 5 4 9 4 9 DoubleCheck=41489473,72,1
41580053 10 5 4 9 4 9 DoubleCheck=41580053,72,1
41583677 4 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=41583677,72,1
41585617 14 5 12 0 6 6 DoubleCheck=41585617,72,1
41689877 2 1 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=41689877,72,1
41731799 25 11 2 7 1 8 DoubleCheck=41731799,72,1
41943023 2 1 7 1 6 2 DoubleCheck=41943023,72,1
42247069 11 5 5 0 4 1 DoubleCheck=42247069,72,1
42831067 10 5 6 2 5 3 DoubleCheck=42831067,72,1
44498599 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=44498599,72,1
45054593 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=45054593,72,1
45243557 5 2 2 0 1 1 DoubleCheck=45243557,72,1
45577381 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=45577381,72,1
46708429 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=46708429,72,1[/CODE]

UBR47K 2015-10-03 06:21

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411881]Here's an updated list of exponents with a good chance of being wrong the first time.

Generated by looking at machines with > 2:1 bad to good and at least one mismatch already:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35112887 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=35112887,71,1
35242901 2 1 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=35242901,71,1
36118127 5 2 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=36118127,71,1
36345187 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=36345187,71,1
36351773 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=36351773,71,1
36462319 2 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=36462319,71,1
36497611 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36497611,71,1
36555823 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36555823,71,1
36580477 5 2 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=36580477,71,1
36665899 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36665899,71,1
36770599 2 1 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=36770599,71,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Taking all of these.

ric 2015-10-03 10:32

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411881]Here's an updated list of exponents with a good chance of being wrong the first time.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
38037277 5 2 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=38037277,71,1
41475449 6 3 7 3 4 6 DoubleCheck=41475449,72,1
41489473 10 5 4 9 4 9 DoubleCheck=41489473,72,1
41580053 10 5 4 9 4 9 DoubleCheck=41580053,72,1
41583677 4 2 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=41583677,72,1
[B]41585617 14 5 12 0 6 6 DoubleCheck=41585617,72,1[/B]
41689877 2 1 5 6 4 7 DoubleCheck=41689877,72,1
41731799 25 11 2 7 1 8 DoubleCheck=41731799,72,1
41943023 2 1 7 1 6 2 DoubleCheck=41943023,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Reserving the remaining ones below 42M.

Edit: 41585617 is already taken by Madpoo: won't step on your toes :)

cuBerBruce 2015-10-03 16:15

I took the single 44M exponent: 44498599

Edit: ETA ~2.5 days

Madpoo 2015-10-03 17:49

[QUOTE=ric;411892]Edit: 41585617 is already taken by Madpoo: won't step on your toes :)[/QUOTE]

Oh, whoops. I must have picked that one up with a different query I ran, looking for work for my own machines. Hopefully I didn't do that with any of the others... I guess make sure I haven't reserved any already before starting. :smile:

frmky 2015-10-05 06:05

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411881]Here's an updated list of exponents with a good chance of being wrong the first time.
[/QUOTE]
And I grabbed the rest.

airsquirrels 2015-10-05 20:12

My broken machine seems to be operating normally now, I did a BIOS reset prior to a full memory test and it just completed six more exponents, all matching this time. I'll keep it on DC for a while.

chalsall 2015-10-05 20:56

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;412036]My broken machine seems to be operating normally now, I did a BIOS reset prior to a full memory test and it just completed six more exponents, all matching this time. I'll keep it on DC for a while.[/QUOTE]

A pity. You potentially lost information.

If I was you, I would have run a deep memory test without changing anything.

But, it's your kit....

cuBerBruce 2015-10-06 02:43

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411881][CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
44498599 2 1 3 0 2 1 DoubleCheck=44498599,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Needs a triple check.

Madpoo 2015-10-06 03:21

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;412057]Needs a triple check.[/QUOTE]

Your machine has a 7 good/zero bad track record, compared to the 1 good/2 bad for that other system. I'd guess yours is correct. :smile: If someone wanted to triple-check it now that's cool but I'm satisfied we weeded out that bad result. :)

Now, down the road if we find out your computer started getting bad results, we'll revisit it. LOL

Madpoo 2015-10-06 04:01

More exponents for DC'ing
 
Here's an updated list for anyone interested.

By the way, I've been focusing on the exponents below 58M, but there are some above 58M if anyone was interested. For those I can limit it to just the likeliest to be wrong, but let me know. For the most part though I was interested in the <58M since my theory is that we missed one somewhere. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37557493 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37557493,71,1
37782319 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37782319,71,1
38043409 9 3 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=38043409,71,1
41537413 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41537413,72,1
41894551 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41894551,72,1
41907773 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41907773,72,1
42003697 5 2 4 1 2 3 DoubleCheck=42003697,72,1
42033437 3 0 4 2 4 2 DoubleCheck=42033437,72,1
42069659 15 5 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=42069659,72,1
42281123 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42281123,72,1
42351877 4 0 10 2 6 6 DoubleCheck=42351877,72,1
42467171 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42467171,72,1
42736193 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42736193,72,1
42797191 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=42797191,72,1
43218361 14 5 12 0 6 6 DoubleCheck=43218361,72,1
47446793 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47446793,72,1
47446873 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47446873,72,1[/CODE]

Madpoo 2015-10-06 04:06

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412063]By the way, I've been focusing on the exponents below 58M, but there are some above 58M if anyone was interested. For those I can limit it to just the likeliest to be wrong, but let me know.[/QUOTE]

For instance... here's one system in particular. I found one or two and then tested a couple more only to find that, pretty reliably, all of the ones I checked from this computer were winding up (probably) bad:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
59273327 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=59273327,73,1
59662607 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=59662607,73,1
60094681 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60094681,73,1
60174619 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60174619,74,1
60475853 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60475853,75,1
60524137 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60524137,73,1
60542849 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60542849,73,1
60750457 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=60750457,73,1
63161729 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=63161729,74,1[/CODE]

LaurV 2015-10-06 04:12

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412065]
59273327 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=59273327,73,1
59662607 6 1 9 4 9 4 DoubleCheck=59662607,73,1
[/QUOTE]
say I take these

ric 2015-10-06 07:40

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412063]Here's an updated list for anyone interested.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37557493 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37557493,71,1
37782319 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37782319,71,1
38043409 9 3 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=38043409,71,1
41537413 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41537413,72,1
41894551 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41894551,72,1
41907773 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41907773,72,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Reserving the ones below 42M.

cuBerBruce 2015-10-07 01:21

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412063]Here's an updated list for anyone interested.

By the way, I've been focusing on the exponents below 58M, but there are some above 58M if anyone was interested. For those I can limit it to just the likeliest to be wrong, but let me know. For the most part though I was interested in the <58M since my theory is that we missed one somewhere. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
37557493 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37557493,71,1
37782319 2 0 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=37782319,71,1
38043409 9 3 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=38043409,71,1
41537413 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=41537413,72,1
41894551 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41894551,72,1
41907773 2 0 6 0 6 0 DoubleCheck=41907773,72,1
[B]42003697 5 2 4 1 2 3 DoubleCheck=42003697,72,1[/B]
42033437 3 0 4 2 4 2 DoubleCheck=42033437,72,1
42069659 15 5 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=42069659,72,1
42281123 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42281123,72,1
42351877 4 0 10 2 6 6 DoubleCheck=42351877,72,1
42467171 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42467171,72,1
42736193 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42736193,72,1
42797191 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=42797191,72,1
43218361 14 5 12 0 6 6 DoubleCheck=43218361,72,1
47446793 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47446793,72,1
47446873 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=47446873,72,1[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took the first one over 42 million, in bold above

Prime95 2015-10-07 01:48

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412063]Here's an updated list for anyone interested.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
42033437 3 0 4 2 4 2 DoubleCheck=42033437,72,1
42069659 15 5 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=42069659,72,1
42281123 2 0 4 0 4 0 DoubleCheck=42281123,72,1
42351877 4 0 10 2 6 6 DoubleCheck=42351877,72,1
42467171 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42467171,72,1
42736193 2 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=42736193,72,1
42797191 2 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=42797191,72,1
43218361 14 5 12 0 6 6 DoubleCheck=43218361,72,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

and I took these

frmky 2015-10-07 06:56

And I took the two 47M exponents and the first 60M one.

cuBerBruce 2015-10-09 04:32

My residue did not match for M42003697.

Madpoo 2015-10-09 19:57

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;412282]My residue did not match for M42003697.[/QUOTE]

As weird as this sounds, that's exactly what I like to hear. :smile: Strange to be rooting for *mis* matched residues with these.

frmky 2015-10-10 07:30

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412065]For instance... here's one system in particular. I found one or two and then tested a couple more only to find that, pretty reliably, all of the ones I checked from this computer were winding up (probably) bad:[/QUOTE]
I picked up the rest of these.

UBR47K 2015-10-11 03:31

Requesting DC on:
[QUOTE]
Doublecheck=N/A,36337351,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,36337387,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,36337463,71,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38874197,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38932447,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,38987401,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39004543,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39259279,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,39635213,72,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58475341,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58491773,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58680437,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58696147,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58926013,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,58974449,74,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73143311,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73385537,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73385681,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,73566947,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,74029057,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76077787,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76108447,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76141001,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,76976729,75,1
Doublecheck=N/A,77045861,75,1
[/QUOTE]

All these exponents came from a machine that was plagued with unverified residue mismatches and a few suspect results (I ignored this issue since the machine would occasionally send a good DC result), yesterday finally one turned up to be a BAD result, ran Memtest86+ and it spews errors like crazy (test 7)(DDR3-2400 XMP, no CPU overclock). Odds are there is a substantial number of exponents that are bad.

Mark Rose 2015-10-11 03:52

[QUOTE=UBR47K;412432]Requesting DC on:[/QUOTE]

I grabbed the first three. They will take about three weeks as I'm running them on an older machine.

Madpoo 2015-10-11 04:36

[QUOTE=UBR47K;412432]Requesting DC on:
...
All these exponents came from a machine that was plagued with unverified residue mismatches and a few suspect results (I ignored this issue since the machine would occasionally send a good DC result), yesterday finally one turned up to be a BAD result, ran Memtest86+ and it spews errors like crazy (test 7)(DDR3-2400 XMP, no CPU overclock). Odds are there is a substantial number of exponents that are bad.[/QUOTE]

Just FYI, all of those below 58M have already been double (or even triple) checked without a match. The ones 58M and above have only been checked once, despite two of them being marked suspect when they were checked in. That puts them back into the "available for first time check" pool, but they're high enough that it just hasn't happened yet (M58926013 and M76108447).

In fact, the ones that were under 58M from UBR47K were all double-checks of stuff done previously... I'd guess in those cases the first check was probably correct.

That said, the machine in question does have a track record right now of 19 good, 1 bad, 2 suspect, 23 unknown, 9 mismatches, and 16 that have only been checked once.

If it were me, I'd be focusing more on the 16 that haven't been double-checked at all instead of doing the triple (or quad) checks, since we probably have good odds they've already been done at least once successfully by now. :smile: Plus, some of those in the list are currently assigned.

Of the 16 "solo" checked exponents, here are the currently unassigned ones:
[CODE]58475341
58491773
58680437
58696147
58974449
73143311
73385537
73385681
73566947
74029057
76077787
76141001
76976729
77045861[/CODE]

I think this goes to show why it would be a good idea if we have new machines do a couple DC runs first to see how they're doing, before they can do a first time check. Even a single DC would give us a good shot at finding potentially bad systems before they surprise us later with a run of worthless residues. :smile:

endless mike 2015-10-11 16:28

[QUOTE=Madpoo;411214]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][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;411267]40164529 has been assigned to an anonymous user - probably a cat 4 churner. ETA 7 days (supposedly).

The last one is still available.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=endless mike;411360]Looks like no one else grabbed it, so I'll take 54881429.[/QUOTE]

Finished overnight, I matched the first time test. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=54881429&full=1"]54881429[/URL]

Madpoo 2015-10-11 17:21

[QUOTE=endless mike;412464]Finished overnight, I matched the first time test. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=54881429&full=1"]54881429[/URL][/QUOTE]

Ah, bummer. Well, I guess that machine managed to get one more right after all.

Here's it's final tally... it doesn't have any more that haven't at least been DC'd by (probably) a more reliable machine.
[CODE]Bad Good Sus Unk Fact Solo Mis
35 11 13 5 1 0 18[/CODE]

LaurV 2015-10-12 03:19

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=46674293&full=1"]Yarrrrr![/URL] :chappy: (i.e. this post actually should be in the [STRIKE]curtisc[/STRIKE] chuck norris thread, hehe, I am happy he wasted 4 tests on that :devil:)

Madpoo 2015-10-12 21:05

A bit of an experiment...
 
I have a little experiment I wonder if anyone would want to help with.

Currently, these lists of "possibly bad" tests I'm coming up with are based on the history of good/bad results for each CPU. What it entails under the hood is that for each exponent, I've setup a "user id + cpu id" hash (in most cases for v5 of Primenet, the CPU id is distinct but sometimes a user might use the same computer to check in results over different accounts, thus using the user ID as an additional means of narrowing things down).

So that seems to be working more or less... pretty good results. But right now I'm getting down to where we've found a lot of the easier stuff... machines that have been consistently bad.

When chasing down a particular machine's results I noted that at some point the app it was using got updated and it's results of good/bad changed.

See where I'm headed? So what if I include the app version as another identifier in my hash?

On paper it seems promising... for example, under the user+cpu method there's a machine with:
42 good, 46 bad, 2 suspect

Sure, you'd be thinking "that's a pretty good candidate to pick off their single-checked stuff... about half and half.

But looking deeper at the app versions, I find:
32 good, 3 bad when it was running Windows,Prime95,v26.6,build 3
0 good, 1 bad when it was running Windows,Prime95,v27.7,build 2
10 good, 41 bad, 2 suspect when it was running Windows,Prime95,v25.11,build 2

Clearly it was doing far worse during that time it ran v25.11 ... that doesn't mean the version was to blame, but it could indicate a certain time period when it had some other issue.

With that in mind, I'd prioritize the 11 "unknown, single check" exponents that cpu did on that app version, before looking at the other stuff.

Other examples are even clearer, like total cpu stats of 7 good, 10 bad, but broken down by app version as well I see that one app had 5 good, 0 bad, and the other had only 2 good and all 10 of the bad. That second combo is the one to track down, I'd think.

Any thoughts on this or suggestions? And yes, I had thought about using the date of the result quantized by year or something to specifically focus on the temporal aspect, but I'm afraid a query like that would kill the server, or take an unnecessarily long time to get results. But maybe down the road...

Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis
35025241 13 2 1 0 1 0
35030701 5 1 2 0 2 0
35196527 13 2 3 0 1 2
35545417 5 1 2 0 2 0
36480287 10 1 14 0 12 2[/CODE]

chalsall 2015-10-12 21:51

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412532]Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.[/QUOTE]

All now mine. Check back in ~24 hours.

chalsall 2015-10-14 03:28

[QUOTE=Madpoo;412532]Anyway, here's a short list of exponents to try out using the new method... hopefully most of these come back with a different residue than the first run, and I can generate some more "easy pickings" lists of stuff.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, all but one (35196527) _matched_.

dragonbud20 2015-10-14 04:40

M46102687 needs a triple check

cuBerBruce 2015-10-14 12:23

[QUOTE=dragonbud20;412630]M46102687 needs a triple check[/QUOTE]

I took it.

Madpoo 2015-10-14 15:32

[QUOTE=chalsall;412627]Interestingly, all but one (35196527) _matched_.[/QUOTE]

Hmm... might not be as interesting as I'd hoped. Well, thanks for checking those. When I get some worktodo's cleared out I'll do some more experimenting of my own. I really thought I was on to something, but it may need some fine tuning, and it depended on that client version as a basic measure of reliability during certain time windows which would be a rough approximation at best.

Prime95 2015-10-14 16:18

Instead of program version, why not use the year the LL result was submitted. MS-SQL should be able to do a GROUP BY on that fairly efficiently. This has the advantage of catching machines that did not update the prime95 application.

I know you mentioned something like this earlier. I would give it a try before giving up on it as too burdensome for the server.

Madpoo 2015-10-14 22:26

[QUOTE=Prime95;412672]Instead of program version, why not use the year the LL result was submitted. MS-SQL should be able to do a GROUP BY on that fairly efficiently. This has the advantage of catching machines that did not update the prime95 application.

I know you mentioned something like this earlier. I would give it a try before giving up on it as too burdensome for the server.[/QUOTE]

That would probably be okay. I had in mind a grander thing like a rolling 1-year average, not necessarily tied to any given calendar year, but I know from my day job that doing things like that can be pretty taxing, even if it is more accurate.

Still, I can give that a shot. All it takes is doing a datepart, more or less, on the received date for the result. What the hey, I'll try that later.


All times are UTC. The time now is 14:31.

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