|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Spammay Blockay
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad ide |
 |
|
Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
Aren't there ANY hardware manufacturers that make stuff for
the consumer that actually KNOW what their own hardware is
supposed to be able to do?! Bleh!
- Tim
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Spammay Blockay
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
In article <45106cef$1$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | "Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451032b7$0$34549$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
Actually, I would have thought that it would recognize an intialized
(ie partitioned) drive automatically without any assistance for com-
patability sake.
|
Hmm... well, I hadn't tried that yet. I had just added an
unpartitioned drive when I first was experimenting. I'm going
to partition my 2nd drive, put a lot of files on the partitions,
and then try adding it as a concatenation, then check the
integrity of the partitions via chkdsk after I boot up from
the other drive. Can you recommend a better way to check
for data integrity?
| Quote: | Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
Oh? I must have missed that. Several people no less you say?
|
It was an impression I got -- although I may be thinking about
other postings and web pages I read in regard to this. I'd have
to go back and check to make sure.
| Quote: | Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
Well, who is to know without buying them all.
Expect that they will use the unused sectors in the first 2 tracks
between MBR and first partition or the last incomplete and unused
cylinder of the drive. There should be plenty of room there to not
interfere with the standard structures.
|
Hmm... we'll, I'll soon find out, I suppose.
Are these 2 tracks always available in any formatting, partitioning
and boot-block schemes?
| Quote: | Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
So how is that RAID card doing in that respect?
|
According to the documentation, it's supposed to be able to handle
port multipliers well, although you only see them once you've booted
the OS (and see only via the controller BIOS before booting an OS).
I'll let you know what I find. I'm supposing it will be better behaved,
since I have found that same-generation Silicon Image chips play nicely
with each other. The Promise board uses a Marvell chip, I think they
told me when I called them about it.
- Tim
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451032b7$0$34549$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
| Quote: | Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
|
Actually, I would have thought that it would recognize an intialized
(ie partitioned) drive automatically without any assistance for com-
patability sake.
| Quote: | Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
|
Oh? I must have missed that. Several people no less you say?
| Quote: |
Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
|
Well, who is to know without buying them all.
Expect that they will use the unused sectors in the first 2 tracks
between MBR and first partition or the last incomplete and unused
cylinder of the drive. There should be plenty of room there to not
interfere with the standard structures.
| Quote: |
Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
|
So how is that RAID card doing in that respect?
| Quote: |
Aren't there ANY hardware manufacturers that make stuff for
the consumer that actually KNOW what their own hardware is
supposed to be able to do?! Bleh!
- Tim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451078a9$0$34508$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
| Quote: | In article <45106cef$1$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451032b7$0$34549$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
Actually, I would have thought that it would recognize an intialized
(ie partitioned) drive automatically without any assistance for com-
patability sake.
Hmm... well, I hadn't tried that yet. I had just added an
unpartitioned drive when I first was experimenting.
I'm going to partition my 2nd drive, put a lot of files on the partitions,
and then try adding it as a concatenation,
|
Why not just see what happens without doing that.
Seems like the most natural order of trying things.
| Quote: | then check the integrity of the partitions via chkdsk after I boot up from
the other drive.
|
How will chkdsk check data integrity if it doesn't know what your data
is supposed to look like. All it can do is check filesystem integrity.
| Quote: | Can you recommend a better way to check for data integrity?
|
Do a filecompare of each and every file on original and treated testvolume.
| Quote: |
Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
Oh? I must have missed that. Several people no less you say?
It was an impression I got -- although I may be thinking about
other postings and web pages I read in regard to this. I'd have
to go back and check to make sure.
Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
Well, who is to know without buying them all.
Expect that they will use the unused sectors in the first 2 tracks
between MBR and first partition or the last incomplete and unused
cylinder of the drive. There should be plenty of room there to not
interfere with the standard structures.
Hmm... we'll, I'll soon find out, I suppose.
Are these 2 tracks always available in any formatting, partitioning
and boot-block schemes?
|
Well, maybe not if some other scheme is already using it.
It used to be used by diskdrive overlays (a bios extension) also.
Some bootmanagers may be using it if they don't reserve a partition
for themselves. And I think there is a difference with disks with
primaries and with only extended partitions on them but the details
of why escape me at the moment.
Anyway with only 1 or 2 sectors needed it shouldn't be a problem
to find the necessary space without interfering with anything else.
| Quote: |
Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
So how is that RAID card doing in that respect?
According to the documentation, it's supposed to be able to handle
port multipliers well, although you only see them once you've booted
the OS (and see only via the controller BIOS before booting an OS).
I'll let you know what I find. I'm supposing it will be better behaved,
since I have found that same-generation Silicon Image chips play nicely
with each other. The Promise board uses a Marvell chip, I think they
told me when I called them about it.
- Tim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spammay Blockay
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:21 am Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
Thanks, Folkert, for all your suggestions.
As it turned out, for some reason the Silicon Image RAID
utility doesn't allow you to add a single drive as a
concatenation if it exists on the same channel (eg. through
a port-multiplier). You are forced to add >1, for some reason.
Since you CAN add a single drive as a concatenation via the
Silicon Image RAID BIOS (go figure the discrepency between
the BIOS and the utility), the folks at Addonics, where I bought
the board, suggested, as a last-ditch effort, that I attach one
drive at a time to the port-multiplier, and add it as a concatenation
in the BIOS (or the utility, if it would let me), then detatch it,
and attach the next, one, until all had been added, and THEN
reattach them all.
That might've worked, but since I was tired of all this by this time,
and also didn't want to destroy the data on my current drives through
really using this card's RAID ability (and since I suspect it's not
a full hardware RAID anyway), I flashed the board BIOS to it's
non-RAID version (something I wasn't sure of, but took the chance
last night), and now it's just a regular old SATA controller.
It now happily sees all the drives attached to the port-multiplier.
Hooray for modern technology. :-)
- Tim
In article <45119a86$1$97265$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | "Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451078a9$0$34508$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
In article <45106cef$1$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:451032b7$0$34549$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
Actually, I would have thought that it would recognize an intialized
(ie partitioned) drive automatically without any assistance for com-
patability sake.
Hmm... well, I hadn't tried that yet. I had just added an
unpartitioned drive when I first was experimenting.
I'm going to partition my 2nd drive, put a lot of files on the partitions,
and then try adding it as a concatenation,
Why not just see what happens without doing that.
Seems like the most natural order of trying things.
then check the integrity of the partitions via chkdsk after I boot up from
the other drive.
How will chkdsk check data integrity if it doesn't know what your data
is supposed to look like. All it can do is check filesystem integrity.
Can you recommend a better way to check for data integrity?
Do a filecompare of each and every file on original and treated testvolume.
Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
Oh? I must have missed that. Several people no less you say?
It was an impression I got -- although I may be thinking about
other postings and web pages I read in regard to this. I'd have
to go back and check to make sure.
Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
Well, who is to know without buying them all.
Expect that they will use the unused sectors in the first 2 tracks
between MBR and first partition or the last incomplete and unused
cylinder of the drive. There should be plenty of room there to not
interfere with the standard structures.
Hmm... we'll, I'll soon find out, I suppose.
Are these 2 tracks always available in any formatting, partitioning
and boot-block schemes?
Well, maybe not if some other scheme is already using it.
It used to be used by diskdrive overlays (a bios extension) also.
Some bootmanagers may be using it if they don't reserve a partition
for themselves. And I think there is a difference with disks with
primaries and with only extended partitions on them but the details
of why escape me at the moment.
Anyway with only 1 or 2 sectors needed it shouldn't be a problem
to find the necessary space without interfering with anything else.
Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
So how is that RAID card doing in that respect?
According to the documentation, it's supposed to be able to handle
port multipliers well, although you only see them once you've booted
the OS (and see only via the controller BIOS before booting an OS).
I'll let you know what I find. I'm supposing it will be better behaved,
since I have found that same-generation Silicon Image chips play nicely
with each other. The Promise board uses a Marvell chip, I think they
told me when I called them about it.
- Tim
|
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
Btw, I see that you are using my Reply-To: address in your attribution lines
for spammers to see. Please use the From: address, like everybody else does.
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:4519a801$0$34578$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
| Quote: | Thanks, Folkert, for all your suggestions.
|
I would have been a lot more happy if you had tried them and answered a few
of the questions.
We might have learned something (that's supposing there was something to learn).
| Quote: | As it turned out, for some reason the Silicon Image RAID
utility doesn't allow you to add a single drive as a concate-
nation if it exists on the same channel (eg. through a port-
multiplier). You are forced to add >1, for some reason.
Since you CAN add a single drive as a concatenation via
the Silicon Image RAID BIOS (go figure the discrepency
between the BIOS and the utility), the folks at Addonics,
where I bought the board, suggested, as a last-ditch effort,
that I attach one drive at a time to the port-multiplier,
and add it as a concatenation in the BIOS
|
At their usual position, I suppose.
| Quote: | (or the utility, if it would let me), then detatch it, and attach the
next one, until all had been added, and THEN reattach them all.
|
So where is the difference here with the utility?
| Quote: |
That might've worked, but since I was tired of all this by this time,
and also didn't want to destroy the data on my current drives through
really using this card's RAID ability
|
Does this mean that you didn't test that either?
| Quote: | (and since I suspect it's not a full hardware RAID anyway),
I flashed the board BIOS to it's non-RAID version (something I wasn't
sure of, but took the chance last night), and now it's just a regular old
SATA controller.
It now happily sees all the drives attached to the port-multiplier.
Hooray for modern technology. :-)
- Tim
In article 45119a86$1$97265$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451078a9$0$34508$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
In article 45106cef$1$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net, Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:451032b7$0$34549$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
Just as a follow-up to my previous thread on this subject...
I was talking with the tech from the company I bought my
SATA RAID card from, and he claimed that he took an existing
Windows installation partition and added it as a single
concatenated disk using the same RAID controller I bought
from them, and he was able to boot from it with no problems.
Actually, I would have thought that it would recognize an intialized
(ie partitioned) drive automatically without any assistance for com-
patability sake.
Hmm... well, I hadn't tried that yet. I had just added an
unpartitioned drive when I first was experimenting.
I'm going to partition my 2nd drive, put a lot of files on the partitions,
and then try adding it as a concatenation,
Why not just see what happens without doing that.
Seems like the most natural order of trying things.
then check the integrity of the partitions via chkdsk after I boot up from
the other drive.
How will chkdsk check data integrity if it doesn't know what your data
is supposed to look like. All it can do is check filesystem integrity.
Can you recommend a better way to check for data integrity?
Do a filecompare of each and every file on original and treated testvolume.
Judging by what people have said here, however, taking a drive
with data on it and adding it as a concatenated drive will
definitely do destructive things to the data on the drive.
Oh? I must have missed that. Several people no less you say?
It was an impression I got -- although I may be thinking about
other postings and web pages I read in regard to this. I'd have
to go back and check to make sure.
Is there a definite yes or no on this, or is it really dependent
upon the Concatenaton implementation of the controller?
Well, who is to know without buying them all.
Expect that they will use the unused sectors in the first 2 tracks
between MBR and first partition or the last incomplete and unused
cylinder of the drive. There should be plenty of room there to not
interfere with the standard structures.
Hmm... we'll, I'll soon find out, I suppose.
Are these 2 tracks always available in any formatting, partitioning
and boot-block schemes?
Well, maybe not if some other scheme is already using it.
It used to be used by diskdrive overlays (a bios extension) also.
Some bootmanagers may be using it if they don't reserve a partition
for themselves. And I think there is a difference with disks with
primaries and with only extended partitions on them but the details
of why escape me at the moment.
Anyway with only 1 or 2 sectors needed it shouldn't be a problem
to find the necessary space without interfering with anything else.
Incidentally, after all this, I went out and bought one of
the more recent Promise SATA controller cards (non-RAID),
which advertised as being "SATA-II, rev. 2.5 compliant".
Well, that would include hot-plug and port-multiplier
support, according to that spec.
However, I noticed that that card doesn't behave well with
port multipliers... it only sees >1 drive attached that way
if it's attached at boot-time (so port-multiplier when
hot-plugged doesn't work), and they even said they never
even tested it to see if it would WORK with a port-multiplier,
despite their claims that it was up to that spec.
So how is that RAID card doing in that respect?
According to the documentation, it's supposed to be able to handle
port multipliers well, although you only see them once you've booted
the OS (and see only via the controller BIOS before booting an OS).
I'll let you know what I find. I'm supposing it will be better behaved,
since I have found that same-generation Silicon Image chips play nicely
with each other. The Promise board uses a Marvell chip, I think they
told me when I called them about it.
- Tim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spammay Blockay
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: Re: Adding a drive with data on it to a Concatenation... bad |
|
|
In article <451ac211$0$97214$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdashrienstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | Btw, I see that you are using my Reply-To: address in your attribution lines
for spammers to see. Please use the From: address, like everybody else does.
|
I apologize if I have exposed you to spammers; I make every attempt not
to do so for myself nor anyone else. I've been using the same TRN/Pnews
settings for years, and this is the first time anyone's made mention of it.
Does that mean, however, that the email address you're trying to protect
is visible in your original postings? If so, isn't it available to
spammers anyway? I don't believe I used an email address sent to me in
confidence VIA email in a public posting.
Please disabuse me of this notion if it is incorrect.
| Quote: | "Spammay Blockay" <SPAMBLOCKER@BLOCKEDTOAVOIDSPAM.com> wrote in message news:4519a801$0$34578$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
Thanks, Folkert, for all your suggestions.
I would have been a lot more happy if you had tried them and answered a few
of the questions.
We might have learned something (that's supposing there was something to learn).
|
If you'd like, go ahead and ask me specifically what you would
like to know, and I'll be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.
Unless otherwise stated here, nothing *I tried* ended up working to allow
concatenation of each drive, separately.
| Quote: | As it turned out, for some reason the Silicon Image RAID
utility doesn't allow you to add a single drive as a concate-
nation if it exists on the same channel (eg. through a port-
multiplier). You are forced to add >1, for some reason.
Since you CAN add a single drive as a concatenation via
the Silicon Image RAID BIOS (go figure the discrepency
between the BIOS and the utility), the folks at Addonics,
where I bought the board, suggested, as a last-ditch effort,
that I attach one drive at a time to the port-multiplier,
and add it as a concatenation in the BIOS
At their usual position, I suppose.
|
No, they suggested I attach them to the first port, numerically
(don't recall if they called it Port 0 or Port 1) on the port multiplier.
I don't know if that would have made a difference to the controller in
the end. It's BIOS may only pay attention to the drive on the first
physical port behind the port-multiplier.
| Quote: | (or the utility, if it would let me), then detatch it, and attach the
next one, until all had been added, and THEN reattach them all.
So where is the difference here with the utility?
|
The Windows RAID utility would not allow me to add a single drive
as a concatenated drive, whereas the BIOS utility would. However, the
BIOS utility only "saw" one of the drives behind the port multiplier.
It might be that had I detached all but one drive from the port multiplier,
the Windows utility would have allowed that as well.
| Quote: | That might've worked, but since I was tired of all this by this time,
and also didn't want to destroy the data on my current drives through
really using this card's RAID ability
Does this mean that you didn't test that either?
|
Please clarify what "that" refers to. do you mean adding each drive
separately through the BIOS, via the "remove a drive/attach the next"
method mentioned above? If so, that is the one thing I did not test,
as by this time I was frustrated, and suspected I would get the desired
result of individual access to each drive by installing the non-RAID BIOS.
As mentioned below, that did indeed provide that functionality.
Incidentally, although I came on here asking for advice, and while I appreciate
all the help you've given, you're not *required* to give it -- you can freely
ignore my questions.
For lack of any facial gestures or subtleties of vocal inflection,
nor any softening of the language of your postings, I perceive
that you sometimes take an annoyed or belligerant attitude, when you believe
I have not done due dilligence as you see it. Am I wrong in thus
perceiving?
| Quote: | (and since I suspect it's not a full hardware RAID anyway),
I flashed the board BIOS to it's non-RAID version (something I wasn't
sure of, but took the chance last night), and now it's just a regular old
SATA controller.
It now happily sees all the drives attached to the port-multiplier.
Hooray for modern technology. :-)
- Tim
|
- Tim
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups