Strategic Double Clicking - Page 137

storm5510 · 2017-06-19, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Yeah, I did a spot check of another one but it matched, so maybe I just hit a few bad ones as a result of my triple-checking.

I may check it out again or just do another roundup of "maybe bad, but let's test one more and see" kind of work.

I hope to have my new rig up and running sometime late tomorrow afternoon. If so, I'll pluck one from the shorter list just above and give it a go. I would like to be able to do DC's in the 70 hour range with exponents of this magnitude.

nofaith628 · 2017-06-22, 01:50

Finished 40 previously queued exponents in the 50M~55M region. Checking the results once every few days I estimated 40% are mismatches. Hoping Madpoo can pick those triple checks up.

Also queued up all available exponents under 70M.

Mark Rose · 2017-06-22, 04:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by nofaith628

Finished 40 previously queued exponents in the 50M~55M region. Checking the results once every few days I estimated 40% are mismatches. Hoping Madpoo can pick those triple checks up.

Also queued up all available exponents under 70M.

You missed these 64:

DoubleCheck=54441767,73,1
DoubleCheck=54872291,73,1
DoubleCheck=55006123,73,1
DoubleCheck=55061443,73,1
DoubleCheck=55061557,73,1
DoubleCheck=55100737,73,1
DoubleCheck=55297247,73,1
DoubleCheck=55298843,73,1
DoubleCheck=55329581,73,1
DoubleCheck=55398199,73,1
DoubleCheck=55449209,73,1
DoubleCheck=55684813,73,1
DoubleCheck=55735451,73,1
DoubleCheck=55816259,73,1
DoubleCheck=55894973,73,1
DoubleCheck=55956871,73,1
DoubleCheck=55983827,73,1
DoubleCheck=56004757,73,1
DoubleCheck=56041319,73,1
DoubleCheck=56088629,73,1
DoubleCheck=56133191,73,1
DoubleCheck=56566841,73,1
DoubleCheck=56604923,73,1
DoubleCheck=56625053,74,1
DoubleCheck=56644061,73,1
DoubleCheck=56717519,73,1
DoubleCheck=56736437,73,1
DoubleCheck=56759347,73,1
DoubleCheck=56965847,73,1
DoubleCheck=57091651,73,1
DoubleCheck=57120929,73,1
DoubleCheck=57143657,73,1
DoubleCheck=57215933,73,1
DoubleCheck=57238343,73,1
DoubleCheck=57255067,73,1
DoubleCheck=57374939,73,1
DoubleCheck=57404041,73,1
DoubleCheck=57423991,73,1
DoubleCheck=57435919,73,1
DoubleCheck=57511813,73,1
DoubleCheck=57577297,73,1
DoubleCheck=58827649,74,1
DoubleCheck=58828267,74,1
DoubleCheck=59001001,74,1
DoubleCheck=59083699,74,1
DoubleCheck=59279057,73,1
DoubleCheck=59332439,73,1
DoubleCheck=59350231,73,1
DoubleCheck=59378471,73,1
DoubleCheck=59441087,73,1
DoubleCheck=59485343,75,1
DoubleCheck=59574169,73,1
DoubleCheck=59593223,73,1
DoubleCheck=59599873,73,1
DoubleCheck=59616719,74,1
DoubleCheck=59616919,73,1
DoubleCheck=59626481,73,1
DoubleCheck=59644603,73,1
DoubleCheck=59695201,73,1
DoubleCheck=59703341,73,1
DoubleCheck=59734183,73,1
DoubleCheck=59746667,73,1
DoubleCheck=59844329,73,1
DoubleCheck=59994863,73,1

And there's one remaining higher exponent:

DoubleCheck=72629587,75,1

nofaith628 · 2017-06-22, 07:01

That is a big list. Must've missed it in the previous posts. Wish there was an easier method for us users to obtain these double checks.

Queued these up and it should be busy for the next month or two.

Mark Rose · 2017-06-22, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by nofaith628

Wish there was an easier method for us users to obtain these double checks.

Agreed. It would be so easy to add a database column to the exponents table to be manually marked by MadPoo. Then add a new work type for SDC. Restrict SDC work to Cat 0/1/2 DC elligible machines, and prevent SDC exponents from being returned as DC assignments (to stop unproven/slow machines from sitting on them). If there are no SDC exponents available for a machine, send DC work.

chalsall · 2017-06-22, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

It would be so easy to add a database column to the exponents table to be manually marked by MadPoo.

It could also be a separate table "JOIN"'ed into the query. And MadPoo's heuristics could be codified.

ATH · 2017-06-22, 17:47

I suggest worktype 42 not listed anywhere but in this thread

Quote:

0 - Whatever makes the most sense
1 - Trial factoring to low limits
2 - Trial factoring
4 - P-1 factoring
5 - ECM on small Mersenne numbers
6 - ECM on Fermat numbers
42 - Strategic Double Checking
100 - First time primality tests
101 - Double-checking
102 - World record primality tests
104 - 100 million digit primality tests

storm5510 · 2017-06-24, 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

Agreed...Then add a new work type for SDC. Restrict SDC work to Cat 0/1/2 DC elligible machines....

Can you elaborate on what "Cat 0/1/2" is?

sdbardwick · 2017-06-24, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

Can you elaborate on what "Cat 0/1/2" is?

CATegory as explained here: https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/

Madpoo · 2017-06-25, 16:26

Here's a list of exponents from two different CPUs that might be bad, might be good... they currently have bad > good but they also have a bunch of unknowns. These are the smallest exponents for each month of their history to try and get more data (one of them is the same I mentioned before... I think one more bad one came in since then, I forget).

Anyway, it's speculative... they may have had a few bad months, but only one way to know.

Code:

Exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	worktodo
51954559	1	1	14	DoubleCheck=51954559,73,1
54274777	1	3	10	DoubleCheck=54274777,73,1
57436123	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=57436123,73,1
58214027	0	1	8	DoubleCheck=58214027,73,1
58409573	1	1	8	DoubleCheck=58409573,73,1
58892083	3	4	4	DoubleCheck=58892083,73,1
60006059	0	2	1	DoubleCheck=60006059,74,1
60464567	0	1	8	DoubleCheck=60464567,74,1
68017879	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=68017879,74,1
68024321	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=68024321,74,1
68054159	0	0	9	DoubleCheck=68054159,74,1
68831353	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=68831353,74,1
69513853	8	5	3	DoubleCheck=69513853,74,1
69803893	1	0	16	DoubleCheck=69803893,74,1
69804299	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=69804299,74,1
69804797	0	0	15	DoubleCheck=69804797,74,1
72435029	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=72435029,75,1
72436307	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=72436307,75,1
72436549	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=72436549,75,1
74417641	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=74417641,75,1
74417689	0	0	8	DoubleCheck=74417689,75,1
74760641	0	0	4	DoubleCheck=74760641,75,1
74761439	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=74761439,75,1
74762833	0	0	4	DoubleCheck=74762833,75,1
75002269	0	0	15	DoubleCheck=75002269,75,1
75003743	0	0	10	DoubleCheck=75003743,75,1
76079023	0	0	20	DoubleCheck=76079023,75,1
76081543	0	0	14	DoubleCheck=76081543,75,1
76083373	0	0	13	DoubleCheck=76083373,75,1
77075717	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=77075717,75,1
77075851	0	0	9	DoubleCheck=77075851,75,1
77076313	0	0	7	DoubleCheck=77076313,75,1
77076631	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=77076631,75,1
77076719	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=77076719,75,1
77498219	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=77498219,75,1
77498567	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=77498567,75,1
78990157	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=78990157,75,1
78990361	0	0	12	DoubleCheck=78990361,75,1

storm5510 · 2017-06-26, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Here's a list of exponents from two different CPUs that might be bad, might be good... they currently have bad > good but they also have a bunch of unknowns. These are the smallest exponents for each month of their history to try and get more data (one of them is the same I mentioned before... I think one more bad one came in since then, I forget).

Anyway, it's speculative... they may have had a few bad months, but only one way to know.

Code:

Exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	worktodo
51954559	1	1	14	DoubleCheck=51954559,73,1
54274777	1	3	10	DoubleCheck=54274777,73,1
57436123	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=57436123,73,1
58214027	0	1	8	DoubleCheck=58214027,73,1
58409573	1	1	8	DoubleCheck=58409573,73,1
58892083	3	4	4	DoubleCheck=58892083,73,1
60006059	0	2	1	DoubleCheck=60006059,74,1
60464567	0	1	8	DoubleCheck=60464567,74,1
68017879	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=68017879,74,1
68024321	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=68024321,74,1
68054159	0	0	9	DoubleCheck=68054159,74,1
68831353	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=68831353,74,1
69513853	8	5	3	DoubleCheck=69513853,74,1
69803893	1	0	16	DoubleCheck=69803893,74,1
69804299	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=69804299,74,1
69804797	0	0	15	DoubleCheck=69804797,74,1
72435029	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=72435029,75,1
72436307	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=72436307,75,1
72436549	0	0	17	DoubleCheck=72436549,75,1
74417641	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=74417641,75,1
74417689	0	0	8	DoubleCheck=74417689,75,1
74760641	0	0	4	DoubleCheck=74760641,75,1
74761439	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=74761439,75,1
74762833	0	0	4	DoubleCheck=74762833,75,1
75002269	0	0	15	DoubleCheck=75002269,75,1
75003743	0	0	10	DoubleCheck=75003743,75,1
76079023	0	0	20	DoubleCheck=76079023,75,1
76081543	0	0	14	DoubleCheck=76081543,75,1
76083373	0	0	13	DoubleCheck=76083373,75,1
77075717	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=77075717,75,1
77075851	0	0	9	DoubleCheck=77075851,75,1
77076313	0	0	7	DoubleCheck=77076313,75,1
77076631	0	0	5	DoubleCheck=77076631,75,1
77076719	0	0	6	DoubleCheck=77076719,75,1
77498219	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=77498219,75,1
77498567	0	0	2	DoubleCheck=77498567,75,1
78990157	0	0	11	DoubleCheck=78990157,75,1
78990361	0	0	12	DoubleCheck=78990361,75,1

I'll take the top two and add them to my queue in Prime95.

Done: I should have results on the first this coming Saturday; the second on July 4.

2017-06-22, 01:50	#1498
nofaith628 Feb 2017 2×17 Posts	Finished 40 previously queued exponents in the 50M~55M region. Checking the results once every few days I estimated 40% are mismatches. Hoping Madpoo can pick those triple checks up. Also queued up all available exponents under 70M. Last fiddled with by nofaith628 on 2017-06-22 at 01:51

2017-06-22, 07:01	#1500
nofaith628 Feb 2017 42₈ Posts	That is a big list. Must've missed it in the previous posts. Wish there was an easier method for us users to obtain these double checks. Queued these up and it should be busy for the next month or two. Last fiddled with by nofaith628 on 2017-06-22 at 07:29

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Double-Double Arithmetic	Mysticial	Software	50	2017-10-30 19:16
Clicking an exponent leads to 404 page	marigonzes	Information & Answers	2	2017-02-14 16:56
x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th?	jasong	jasong	7	2015-08-17 10:56
What about double-checking TF/P-1?	137ben	PrimeNet	6	2012-03-13 04:01
Double the area, Double the volume.	Uncwilly	Puzzles	8	2006-07-03 16:02