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 » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 15, 09:46 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

I want to build a Windows 8 box that uses Storage Spaces to create a
Raid-5-like redundant storage space using 12 2-TB drives.

The PC in question has an old Asus mobo with an Intel Core2 Duo
CPU E700 running @2.8GHz with 2 gigs of memory which I plan to upgrade
to 8 gigs before attempting this little venture.

So Far, I see:

- Windows 8
- Windows 8 Pro
- Windows 8.1 Full Version
- Windows 8.1 System BUilder OEM DVD 64-Bit

I don't wan to chince out... OTOH, no sense throwing away good money on
a feature set I don't need.

Which version do you recommend?
--
Pete Cresswell
Ads
  #2  
Old October 19th 15, 09:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per (PeteCresswell):
Which version do you recommend?


Got it... Just plain "Windows 8.1" as per
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ndows-810.html


--
Pete Cresswell
  #3  
Old October 19th 15, 10:29 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per (PeteCresswell):
Which version do you recommend?


Got it... Just plain "Windows 8.1" as per
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ndows-810.html



Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/

https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/

Those refs are from the Wikipedia article on Storage Spaces. I
had to use the references, because the Wiki didn't have enough
"meat" in it.

I don't know what explanation there is for the speed.
If a large file is interleaved across disks, you would
think it would write faster.

Paul
  #4  
Old October 20th 15, 12:37 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/
https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/


Thanks.

Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at
DriveBender.

I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is
just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I
usually just fire them up and go to bed....

The ugly part for me is drive replacement.

I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure
under WHS either...

- Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into
it's physical location/SATA connection?

- Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times
to deal with adding the replacement drive first ?

If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have
any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1....
--
Pete Cresswell
  #5  
Old October 20th 15, 01:35 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/
https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/


Thanks.

Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at
DriveBender.

I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is
just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I
usually just fire them up and go to bed....

The ugly part for me is drive replacement.

I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure
under WHS either...

- Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into
it's physical location/SATA connection?

- Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times
to deal with adding the replacement drive first ?

If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have
any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1....


I would think replacing a bad drive with a good one, then
looking for a "array rebuild" option, is all that is needed.
The bad drive is of no use to you any more, once the status
has changed. If distributed parity of some sort is being used,
the software just "recalculates" the drive contents on the
missing member. You can get some ideas here, how the math
behind it works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

Paul
  #6  
Old October 20th 15, 03:52 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/
https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/


Thanks.

Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at
DriveBender.


DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone
else had even heard of it.

I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is
just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I
usually just fire them up and go to bed....

The ugly part for me is drive replacement.


At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of
any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very
large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively.

Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number
of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create
two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on
different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be
a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space.

With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that
as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger
than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way,
files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the
DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files
from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed.

Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you
create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the
pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to
create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not
have it when it's time to write a file.

I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure
under WHS either...

- Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into
it's physical location/SATA connection?

- Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times
to deal with adding the replacement drive first ?

If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have
any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1....


DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only
be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be
redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive,
so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a
second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as
redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can
still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any
non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new
drive.

I give DriveBender a thumbs up.

If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I
mentioned where to get it in my other post.

Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see
which way you go.

  #7  
Old October 20th 15, 04:24 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/
https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/

Thanks.

Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at
DriveBender.


DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone
else had even heard of it.

I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is
just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I
usually just fire them up and go to bed....

The ugly part for me is drive replacement.


At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of
any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very
large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively.

Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number
of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create
two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on
different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be
a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space.

With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that
as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger
than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way,
files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the
DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files
from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed.

Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you
create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the
pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to
create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not
have it when it's time to write a file.

I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure
under WHS either...

- Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into
it's physical location/SATA connection?

- Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times
to deal with adding the replacement drive first ?

If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have
any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1....


DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only
be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be
redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive,
so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a
second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as
redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can
still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any
non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new
drive.

I give DriveBender a thumbs up.

If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I
mentioned where to get it in my other post.

Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see
which way you go.


Does it have redundancy (parity) to handle
drive failure ?

Paul
  #8  
Old October 20th 15, 09:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:24:48 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/
https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/
Thanks.

Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at
DriveBender.


DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone
else had even heard of it.

I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is
just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I
usually just fire them up and go to bed....

The ugly part for me is drive replacement.


At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of
any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very
large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively.

Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number
of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create
two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on
different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be
a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space.

With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that
as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger
than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way,
files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the
DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files
from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed.

Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you
create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the
pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to
create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not
have it when it's time to write a file.

I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure
under WHS either...

- Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into
it's physical location/SATA connection?

- Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times
to deal with adding the replacement drive first ?

If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have
any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1....


DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only
be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be
redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive,
so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a
second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as
redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can
still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any
non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new
drive.

I give DriveBender a thumbs up.

If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I
mentioned where to get it in my other post.

Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see
which way you go.


Does it have redundancy (parity) to handle
drive failure ?


If "it" is DriveBender, then redundancy is on a 'per folder' basis, rather
than a 'per file' or 'per drive' basis. So you can get to a point where the
entire drive is redundant, but you'd do it by carefully managing your folder
redundancy.

If "it" is SnapRaid, then yes. SnapRaid can be configured to handle any
(within reason) number of simultaneous drive failures.


  #9  
Old October 21st 15, 12:44 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per Char Jackson:
Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number
of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create
two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on
different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be
a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space.


One appeal of both of these products is that I can probably run them
under my old WHS license or one of my spare XP licenses - i.e. I don't
have to spring for another Windows 7 or 8.1 license.

At what level does DriveBender mirror redundant folders to different
physical drives?

e.g. Suppose I have a folder called "B" with subfolders "DVDs_NetFlix",
"Streamed_HBO", "Streamed_NetFlix"... and so-forth.

And under each of those folders are hundreds of individual folders - one
for each movie....and maybe multiple subfolders per movie.

Obviously "B" is going to be huge - as in tens of TB.... and the average
movie's folder is going to be about 4 gigs.

There's more, but you get the idea....

Given redundancy for all folders, are those huge top-level folders going
to be a problem ?


I am looking at SnapRaid right now.... Trying to find some feature that
makes it preferable to DriveBender for my use. But, for something like
this, I think I am partial to paid applications (i.e. DriveBender) over
freebies like SnapRaid.

Do you know anybody who uses SnapRaid ?

58 Terabytes ??? Wow....

Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ?

How are you physically managing all those drives?

- Multiple SATA cards ?
- Some sort of backplane box ?

All I have right now is a large tower case and have it maxed out with 13
drives - but changing drives is a chore and I'm stuck at 13.

--
Pete Cresswell
  #10  
Old October 21st 15, 01:04 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per (PeteCresswell):
Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ?


OK, I think I have it doped out: you are not.... right?

And if/when you do want redundancy, you will implement SnapRaid on top
of DriveBender....

Am I even close ?
--
Pete Cresswell
  #11  
Old October 21st 15, 03:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:04:28 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per (PeteCresswell):
Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ?


OK, I think I have it doped out: you are not.... right?


In DriveBender, I have redundancy enabled on the folder that holds the many
sub-folders containing our life's collection of digital photos, scanned
documents that we care about, home movies, etc. I figure almost everything
else has limited value and can probably be replaced, if necessary.

I *expect* to have hard drive failures, but so far, knock on wood, there
haven't been any.

And if/when you do want redundancy, you will implement SnapRaid on top
of DriveBender....

Am I even close ?


Yes, that was the plan since the two get along well together and don't get
in each other's way. I may still do that, but I'm finding that my need for a
multi-TB storage pool is actually diminishing, so I've been putting it off.

  #12  
Old October 21st 15, 03:37 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:44:52 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Char Jackson:
Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number
of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create
two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on
different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be
a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space.


One appeal of both of these products is that I can probably run them
under my old WHS license or one of my spare XP licenses - i.e. I don't
have to spring for another Windows 7 or 8.1 license.


True. At their core, both are just Windows-compatible programs, happy to run
on consumer versions of Windows as well as server versions. DriveBender gets
its hooks into the storage subsystem, but SnapRaid runs on top and doesn't
care about the underlying architecture.

At what level does DriveBender mirror redundant folders to different
physical drives?


When you designate a folder to be redundant, all of its contents get
mirrored to another drive. So not just files in that immediate folder, but
also any sub-folders and their contents.

Note that you won't see any hint of this mirroring in any Windows file
management tools. You'll see it in the DriveBender management GUI, though.

e.g. Suppose I have a folder called "B" with subfolders "DVDs_NetFlix",
"Streamed_HBO", "Streamed_NetFlix"... and so-forth.

And under each of those folders are hundreds of individual folders - one
for each movie....and maybe multiple subfolders per movie.

Obviously "B" is going to be huge - as in tens of TB.... and the average
movie's folder is going to be about 4 gigs.

There's more, but you get the idea....

Given redundancy for all folders, are those huge top-level folders going
to be a problem ?


Not a technical problem, but keep in mind the double disk space required. If
I were building a large storage pool today, I'd be tempted to build it on
these WD 6TB drives, just so that I wouldn't need so many. At about $190
each, they're a pretty good deal. I have no info on their longevity, though.
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Book-6TB-Hard-Drive-Backup/product/B00KU686HI?context=browse

I am looking at SnapRaid right now.... Trying to find some feature that
makes it preferable to DriveBender for my use. But, for something like
this, I think I am partial to paid applications (i.e. DriveBender) over
freebies like SnapRaid.


Understood. SnapRaid does have a competitor that costs money, but I ruled it
out long ago and don't have a link at hand. If I think of it, I'll post.

Edit: FlexRaid, I think. My gripe at the time was that program development
consisted of a single person working part time, and he would drop out of
sight for months at a time. That may have changed now so give it a chance.

Do you know anybody who uses SnapRaid ?


No one personally, just forum members over at avsforum.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/gtsearch.php?cx=partner-pub-7865546952023728%3A4039054045&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UT F-8&q=snapraid&sa=Search&siteurl=www.avsforum.com%2F forum%2Findex.php&ref=www.avsforum.com%2F&ss=1897j 583275j8

58 Terabytes ??? Wow....

Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ?


Only on our digital photos, scanned docs that we think are important, and
some home movies.

How are you physically managing all those drives?

- Multiple SATA cards ?
- Some sort of backplane box ?


I use a couple of these cards:
SuperMicro AOC-SASLP-MV8 PCI-E x4 8-Port SAS/SATA

The card has a pair of SAS connectors, but using SATA breakout cable turns
each SAS connector into 4 SATA connectors, so each card adds 8 SATA ports.

I have a server case that holds 16 drives, (15x2TB for the storage pool and
the smaller 16th drive for the Win 7 OS.) The other system is a mid-tower
that holds 10 drives (a mix of 2TB and 4TB totaling 28TB, plus a smaller
drive for the Win 7 OS)

All I have right now is a large tower case and have it maxed out with 13
drives - but changing drives is a chore and I'm stuck at 13.


I feel your pain! When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another
$100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case.
It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it
would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I
know, eh?

  #13  
Old October 21st 15, 04:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per Char Jackson:
When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another
$100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case.
It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it
would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I
know, eh?


Do you recall the make/model? That might be on my short list....

Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I
would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit
XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional?

I can afford the eighty bucks - and I don't want my survivors to have
*too* much fun... but, having said that, I've got a bunch of XP licenses
and there's no sense throwing money away...
--
Pete Cresswell
  #14  
Old October 21st 15, 04:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,933
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

Per (PeteCresswell):
Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I
would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit
XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional?


OOPS!... ignore that question.

I just realized that XP does not natively recognize 3-TB drives - and,
as I expand my NAS box by substituting 4-TB drives for the 3's that are
there, the 3's will be re-purposed into this backup server....

So Windows 7 is the no-brainer.
--
Pete Cresswell
  #15  
Old October 21st 15, 05:55 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:53:06 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Char Jackson:
When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another
$100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case.
It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it
would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I
know, eh?


Do you recall the make/model? That might be on my short list....


The case that I bought was the Norco RPC-450B, which holds 15 drives if you
add the 5-bay adapter. My 16th drive wasn't physically mounted, but rather
just laying there. I see that current Newegg pricing is only $90.

The case that I wanted was the Norco RPC-4224, which now sells for a
whopping $416.99 at Newegg. With that case, though, any drive can be hot
swapped just by yanking it out via the front panel. No need to pull the case
out of the equipment rack or open it up. A couple of guys in the avs forums
bought that one and they won't shut up about how sweet it is.


Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I
would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit
XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional?


As far as I know, 32-bit XP would be fine. I took a really quick look at the
site for platform requirements and didn't see it, but you could ask in their
forum or just email support. For me, they've responded really quickly when I
had questions.

I see that the new version of DriveBender now supports UNC paths, so you can
add network drives, NAS drives, etc., to your storage pools now. That could
be handy.

 




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 01:58 PM.


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