A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSD and surveillance camera?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 14th 18, 07:04 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD. The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files. Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped? Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 14th 18, 07:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

mike wrote:
SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD. The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files. Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped? Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.


Unnecessary. SSDs are rated for *much* more writes per year than this.

  #3  
Old December 14th 18, 07:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

In article , mike
wrote:

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.


63 gig is nothing these days.

start to worry when it's in the petabyte range.

https://techreport.com/review/27436/...eriment-two-fr
eaking-petabytes/2
Flash failures started piling up after 600TB of writes. Apart from a
few undulations, the retirement rate has been fairly consistent since.

The 840 Pro is now up to 5591 reallocated sectors, which translates
to over 8GB of flash. That may sound like a lot, but it's only 3% of
the drive's 256GB total. The SMART data indicates that we're only 61%
into the used block reserve.

https://techreport.com/r.x/endurance-2pb/vitals-840pro-reallocated.gif
https://techreport.com/r.x/endurance-2pb/vitals-hyperxcomp-life.gif
  #4  
Old December 14th 18, 09:19 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

One option would be to use a RAM disk. Then just periodically wipe
the files if not needed. I use a RAM disk for camera images and
periodically write them to the SSD. There must be a better way for
you, though. If you don't want or need the files and your software
can't be told to throw the images away, find new software. There are
plenty of camera handling packages available for free. Good luck.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:04:59 -0800, mike wrote:

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD. The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files. Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tem porary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped? Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.

  #5  
Old December 15th 18, 12:42 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

mike wrote:
SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD. The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files. Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped? Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.


I was working on something the other day (the "fragmentation" project),
and noticed file I/O is being buffered in 64KB chunks on the current
Win10.

If the output was a "video" instead of a "picture", then the 64KB
buffered chunk might be better for an SSD to deal with.

In previous fragmentation experiments, I could fragment at the
cluster level. If I had two writers in a C program, I could
do a 4KB write with one, then a 4KB write with the other, and
get a really fragmented file. (One 4KB cluster in each fragment.)
Some of my fragmentation programs, use 16 writers, to prevent
the OS from optimizing away my test case.

My last attempt to do that, the fragment size is larger,
and this implies buffering at the handle level, and less
overall fragmentation as a result.

There's a limit to how much buffering they can do regarding
this issue, so don't expect this idea to "solve all fragmentation
for all time". That's not what it's for. The idea is to
increase the write size for selected operations a tiny bit,
and reduce SSD write amplification problems perhaps.

I didn't spot this from ProcMon, I analyzed after the run was
over and noticed the expected fragment size was not evident
in nfi.exe output. I was a bit annoyed at the time, because
the purpose of the small fragments, is to "break" the file
system. And this change makes it 16 times harder to break
it.

*******

For IP cameras that have an SDK, you could write your own
recorder or handler, to make "better output". Don't expect
a browser plugin to cure cancer or solve world hunger.

Paul
  #6  
Old December 15th 18, 02:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

On 12/14/2018 3:42 PM, Paul wrote:
mike wrote:
SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD.Â* The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files.Â* Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped?Â* Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.


I was working on something the other day (the "fragmentation" project),
and noticed file I/O is being buffered in 64KB chunks on the current
Win10.

If the output was a "video" instead of a "picture", then the 64KB
buffered chunk might be better for an SSD to deal with.

In previous fragmentation experiments, I could fragment at the
cluster level. If I had two writers in a C program, I could
do a 4KB write with one, then a 4KB write with the other, and
get a really fragmented file. (One 4KB cluster in each fragment.)
Some of my fragmentation programs, use 16 writers, to prevent
the OS from optimizing away my test case.

My last attempt to do that, the fragment size is larger,
and this implies buffering at the handle level, and less
overall fragmentation as a result.

There's a limit to how much buffering they can do regarding
this issue, so don't expect this idea to "solve all fragmentation
for all time". That's not what it's for. The idea is to
increase the write size for selected operations a tiny bit,
and reduce SSD write amplification problems perhaps.

I didn't spot this from ProcMon, I analyzed after the run was
over and noticed the expected fragment size was not evident
in nfi.exe output. I was a bit annoyed at the time, because
the purpose of the small fragments, is to "break" the file
system. And this change makes it 16 times harder to break
it.

*******

For IP cameras that have an SDK, you could write your own
recorder or handler, to make "better output". Don't expect
a browser plugin to cure cancer or solve world hunger.

Â*Â* Paul

I'm not trying to solve world hunger...or write more code.
The thought was to use the existing
application/sidebar gadget and just
intervene
to send the files somewhere other than the SSD.
/dev/null would be appropriate in this case, but
I don't have any control over the gadget.
This should also come in handy with other hardware
and sw that likes to write useless garbage to the SSD.
This is particularly troublesome because it uses
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

I fear that trying to hard link that elsewhere
would be troublesome to other inbuilt applications.
And I have zero experience with hard links in windows.

The camera is a Panasonic BB-HCM511A. I've tried ipcam viewers without
much success. They want to put up a window with decorations that take
up a lot
of space. It's a PTZ camera, so any viewer that
seeks to control that has to add a bunch of control
buttons and UI. I don't want any of that clutter.

I like the coconut gadget because it doesn't have a lot of extra decoration.
It's very light on cpu and network usage. Why it
needs to save the files is known only to the developer.
The camera SD card has everything I'd ever want to view
later.

I'd be interested to hear about an IPCAM viewer that
can display a compact window without a lot of overhead.
I can't use anything that captures images from a live stream. That uses
way too much local network bandwidth.

  #7  
Old December 15th 18, 02:35 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

On 12/14/2018 12:19 PM, Pat wrote:
One option would be to use a RAM disk. Then just periodically wipe
the files if not needed. I use a RAM disk for camera images and
periodically write them to the SSD. There must be a better way for
you, though. If you don't want or need the files and your software
can't be told to throw the images away, find new software. There are
plenty of camera handling packages available for free. Good luck.


I'd be interested in particular recommendations
for free viewers that don't write to the C: drive, don't put up big
windows with lots of frames and buttons and...,
and don't require capturing a stream. That wastes way too much local
network bandwidth.

The coconut viewer was designed specifically for this camera and is a
minimalist approach regarding resource usage and screen area. Only real
concern I have is wear on the SSD.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:04:59 -0800, mike wrote:

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.

I started looking into hard links and junctions in an effort
to move the writes to the HDD. The more I read, the more
confused I got.
I have no use for these files. Does windows have a /dev/null?

There's also the issue that these writes go to:
C:\Users\mike\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temp orary Internet
Files\Content.IE5

Moving that directory probably has far reaching ramifications.
And how does windows 10 manage links to drives that have
been removed or swapped? Seems like it might be a maintenance
nightmare.

I'm just trying to understand SSD limitations and reduce writes
wherever I can.


  #8  
Old December 15th 18, 02:45 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

In article , mike
wrote:

I'd be interested to hear about an IPCAM viewer that
can display a compact window without a lot of overhead.
I can't use anything that captures images from a live stream. That uses
way too much local network bandwidth.



most output an mpeg stream, which uses very little bandwidth, however,
there are cameras that will upload snapshots at a user-defined interval
to a user-defined server (or public) if that's what you want.
  #9  
Old December 15th 18, 02:46 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

mike wrote:

I like the coconut gadget because it doesn't have a lot of extra
decoration.
It's very light on cpu and network usage. Why it
needs to save the files is known only to the developer.
The camera SD card has everything I'd ever want to view
later.


I have a theory.

No developer really wants to write their own HTTP engine.
If they called a system function with respect to the web,
the temporary file would end up in the location you found
it in. That's the temporary location an engine would use.

The developer didn't make a conscious decision that the folder
in question "was the perfect place for it". But any developer
who uses existing services to do stuff, generally tolerates
whatever the side effects are.

Maybe that makes the program into a five line script, instead
of hundreds of line of C code or something.

*******

Your job is to reverse engineer the design enough, to
see whether the "temp" location is an environment variable
or a registry setting.

Paul
  #10  
Old December 15th 18, 03:58 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

On 12/14/2018 10:38 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , mike
wrote:

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.


63 gig is nothing these days.

Can't argue with that. BUT...if you have an older drive that's near
full, how does that 63GB relate to
actual TBW?

One of the drives I'd like to use is a 256GB Kingston SSDNOW 200V. I
don't know the history
of this drive, but the SMART data seems OK.
It was made near the transition when SSDs went from
crap to marginally usable.
Virtually all the Kingston data relates to the
SSDNOW 300V series.
Best info I can get out of
Kingston is, "some of our older drives don't support TRIM".

I put win10 on it and ran TRIM from the optimization dialog.
It claimed it was trimming. But, I also read that TRIM
is merely a suggestion to the drive and there's no feedback whether it
actually TRIMmed.
Is there a test to confirm this?

Without TRIM support, doesn't that put a big question mark into write
amplification?

I read a bunch of the techreport stuff.

Now, I've got another concern, unpowered data retention. I have laptops
that sit in the drawer
unused for a year. It appears that the electrons
are leaking out of the memory cells. This seems to
suggest that the effect is cumulative. I can't find any mention of it,
but if half the electrons required to maintain data integrity have
leaked out,
how do they get refreshed? It appears that they don't
unless you erase/write the block. That leaves a big
question mark regarding data integrity of lightly used systems. And
it's not clear that it's any better
for heavily used systems for blocks infrequently written. Stated
another way, is wear leveling always adequate to keep the data error
free even
when you have lots of unwritten blocks available?

The more I learn, the less I like SSD.
So far, the only thing that looks better for my usage than a HDD
is boot time. Great for battery-powered devices,
but not much help for devices that don't get powered
down.

start to worry when it's in the petabyte range.

https://techreport.com/review/27436/...eriment-two-fr
eaking-petabytes/2
Flash failures started piling up after 600TB of writes. Apart from a
few undulations, the retirement rate has been fairly consistent since.

The 840 Pro is now up to 5591 reallocated sectors, which translates
to over 8GB of flash. That may sound like a lot, but it's only 3% of
the drive's 256GB total. The SMART data indicates that we're only 61%
into the used block reserve.

https://techreport.com/r.x/endurance-2pb/vitals-840pro-reallocated.gif
https://techreport.com/r.x/endurance-2pb/vitals-hyperxcomp-life.gif


  #11  
Old December 15th 18, 04:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

In article , mike
wrote:


If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.


63 gig is nothing these days.

Can't argue with that. BUT...if you have an older drive that's near
full, how does that 63GB relate to
actual TBW?


that info should be in smart data as lba written, which is the number
of sectors (normally 512 bytes).

however, it's not worth worrying about because in typical use (and
63gb/yr is *way* under that), the ssd will last a *really* long time.


One of the drives I'd like to use is a 256GB Kingston SSDNOW 200V. I
don't know the history
of this drive, but the SMART data seems OK.
It was made near the transition when SSDs went from
crap to marginally usable.


then get a new one. 256g ssds are cheap because 512gb and 1tb are more
cost effective. a very quick check shows samsung around $50 and other
brands for less.

Virtually all the Kingston data relates to the
SSDNOW 300V series.
Best info I can get out of
Kingston is, "some of our older drives don't support TRIM".


trim is helpful but not required. modern ssds have their own garbage
collection.

I put win10 on it and ran TRIM from the optimization dialog.
It claimed it was trimming. But, I also read that TRIM
is merely a suggestion to the drive and there's no feedback whether it
actually TRIMmed.
Is there a test to confirm this?


probably, but i never looked. it's not worth worrying about.

Without TRIM support, doesn't that put a big question mark into write
amplification?


no.

I read a bunch of the techreport stuff.

Now, I've got another concern, unpowered data retention. I have laptops
that sit in the drawer
unused for a year. It appears that the electrons
are leaking out of the memory cells. This seems to
suggest that the effect is cumulative. I can't find any mention of it,
but if half the electrons required to maintain data integrity have
leaked out,
how do they get refreshed? It appears that they don't
unless you erase/write the block. That leaves a big
question mark regarding data integrity of lightly used systems. And
it's not clear that it's any better
for heavily used systems for blocks infrequently written. Stated
another way, is wear leveling always adequate to keep the data error
free even
when you have lots of unwritten blocks available?


ssds are not ideal for very long term storage, especially as they
approach end of life, but from what you describe, that won't be for a
very long time.

in any event, no matter what type of storage you use, make multiple
backups of anything important. if it fails (and eventually they all
will), there are other copies.

The more I learn, the less I like SSD.


nothing is perfect, but the benefits *greatly* outweigh the drawbacks,
notably speed and reliability.

So far, the only thing that looks better for my usage than a HDD
is boot time. Great for battery-powered devices,
but not much help for devices that don't get powered
down.


anything disk-bound will see an improvement, sometimes a very dramatic
one, including app launch time, copying files and overall performance,
particularly for apps that use a lot of scratch files or read & write
large document files.

that said, a surveillance camera doesn't really need an ssd.
  #12  
Old December 15th 18, 07:20 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

On 12/14/2018 5:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , mike
wrote:

I'd be interested to hear about an IPCAM viewer that
can display a compact window without a lot of overhead.
I can't use anything that captures images from a live stream. That uses
way too much local network bandwidth.



most output an mpeg stream, which uses very little bandwidth, however,
there are cameras that will upload snapshots at a user-defined interval
to a user-defined server (or public) if that's what you want.

I really don't want to download (as in store the image somewhere)
anything. I want to read the image data and render it to the
screen...period. The only reason I care about it being saved is because
of disk clutter and SSD life.
I run bleachbit about once a week. It typically throws away about half
a gigabyte of stuff, mostly in .ie5.

As for the mpeg stream, my network can easily handle the data rate, but
it obscures my ability to watch
internet access going on in the background.
  #13  
Old December 15th 18, 07:46 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

In article , mike
wrote:

I'd be interested to hear about an IPCAM viewer that
can display a compact window without a lot of overhead.
I can't use anything that captures images from a live stream. That uses
way too much local network bandwidth.



most output an mpeg stream, which uses very little bandwidth, however,
there are cameras that will upload snapshots at a user-defined interval
to a user-defined server (or public) if that's what you want.

I really don't want to download (as in store the image somewhere)
anything. I want to read the image data and render it to the
screen...period. The only reason I care about it being saved is because
of disk clutter and SSD life.


I run bleachbit about once a week. It typically throws away about half
a gigabyte of stuff, mostly in .ie5.

As for the mpeg stream, my network can easily handle the data rate, but
it obscures my ability to watch
internet access going on in the background.


it should have no effect on internet access since it's entirely local.
  #14  
Old December 15th 18, 02:20 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:35:25 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/14/2018 12:19 PM, Pat wrote:
One option would be to use a RAM disk. Then just periodically wipe
the files if not needed. I use a RAM disk for camera images and
periodically write them to the SSD. There must be a better way for
you, though. If you don't want or need the files and your software
can't be told to throw the images away, find new software. There are
plenty of camera handling packages available for free. Good luck.


I'd be interested in particular recommendations
for free viewers that don't write to the C: drive, don't put up big
windows with lots of frames and buttons and...,
and don't require capturing a stream. That wastes way too much local
network bandwidth.


Do you need video to be displayed or will a periodic "snapshot" do?
As nospam said, your camera has the ability to send snapshots when
requested to do so. (I also have a few Panasonic cameras). I wrote a
program in C# that requests a snapshot from the camera once per second
and displays it in a borderless window with no other buttons or
controls. In another post you said all you want is "an IPCAM viewer".
By coincidence, I named my program IPCam. If you can program in C#,
you could write something similar (the tools are free). Mine wouldn't
work for you because I get sloppy when writing software for my own use
and I embed all sorts of hard coded network address, passwords, and
such).

Pat

  #15  
Old December 15th 18, 03:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
John Doe[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,378
Default SSD and surveillance camera?

mike wrote:

SSD and surveillance camera?
On the system I'm migrating from win7 to win10
I have a sidebar gadget called "coconutview" which monitors an IP
surveillance camera and displays the image.

It creates a 22KByte file every second.

If my math is correct, that's about 63GB/year times write
amplification.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary small writes to the SSD.
Multiply that by all the other old programs that had no concept
of SSD limitations and it seems worth looking into.


MicroSD are standard equipment on surveillance cameras.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.