mersenneforum.org > Data Residue not matching due to masked bits
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-09-24, 23:02 #1 patrik     "Patrik Johansson" Aug 2002 Uppsala, Sweden 52×17 Posts Residue not matching due to masked bits I just did a successful double-check of 33238477 with residue D12F51397BCA233C. There is also a bad result for this exponent with residue D12F51397BCA23__ (by Daniel Weijand, computer name C7364A0E9). It is obvious that this result is not really a bad result, but somehow the masked bits made it into the database. I looked in some old status files that I have kept, and the result of the first test looks like Code: 33238477,S67532,C7364A0E9,W?, in the hrf3 file. In cleared.txt it was reported as Code: 33238477 69 0xD12F51397BCA23__ 01-Sep-03 14:16 S67532 C7364A0E9 The double check was done right after that with hrf3 line Code: 33238477,S01167,laptop,WZ1,00000000 and Code: 33238477 69 D 0xD12F51397BCA23__ 11-Nov-03 03:17 DL laptop in cleared.txt. Does anybody know what has happened?
 2011-09-24, 23:44 #2 Prime95 P90 years forever!     Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 2×132×23 Posts Well, from my fuzzy ancient memories.... A v4 server hiccup, the details of which I've long since forgotten about, caused some LL results to be lost -- only recoverable from a report that showed the masked bottom 8 bits. At the time, I figured it was best to add the results to the database without valid bottom bits so that the exponents would not be handed out as first-time tests and the user received proper CPU credit. In looking the last pre-v5 database, it looks like there were 4 such cases: 18050569,19857121,33238477,33254747

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post sdbardwick Lounge 1 2015-02-03 15:03 miket Math 5 2014-08-12 00:41 Dubslow PrimeNet 8 2012-04-27 18:19 cheesehead Data 6 2010-12-27 22:47 schneelocke PrimeNet 6 2003-11-22 01:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:59.

Sat Jan 22 13:59:29 UTC 2022 up 183 days, 8:28, 0 users, load averages: 0.88, 1.21, 1.29