Search Results

Search found 24220 results on 969 pages for 'performance tools'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 140/969 | < Previous Page | 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147  | Next Page >

  • MS SQL tuning tools for finding overload

    - by SkyFox
    I use MS SQL server as a DBMS for my very big corporate DB (with different financial data). And some times my system go down. I don't understand why. What programs/tools I can use for finding process/program/thread, that overload my SQL-server? Thanks for all answers!

    Read the article

  • Tools and tips for switching CMS

    - by Jimmy
    I work for a university, and in the past year we finally broke away from our static HTML site of several thousand pages and moved to a Drupal site. This obviously entails massive amounts of data entry. What if you're already using a CMS and are switching to another one that better suits your needs? How do you minimize the mountain of data entry during such a huge change? Are there tools built for this, or some best practices one should follow?

    Read the article

  • XPath tools for Mac OS X

    - by Paul Lefebvre
    When I worked mostly in Windows, I used Stylus Studio to test out XPath on my XML files. Now that I primarily use OS X, I haven't found an equivalent tool. What tools for OS X do you recommend for XPath work?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2005- 2008 IDE Editor Tools

    - by GutierrezDev
    Hi everyone. I'm looking for some Vs 2005-2008 Editor Tools like those one in NetBeans or Eclipse that auto insert a close bracket '}' or auto insert a line after an opening bracket '{'. In general a tool that enhance the Editor. I know that resharper does some of the tricks but it is expensive for me.

    Read the article

  • Middleware Test Automation Tools

    Hi I would like to know about any Test Automation Solution adopted in Middle ware Testing. Is it similar to automation solutions provided for functional tests? I would like to know in what ways it is similar / different than Functional test automation. What are the tools which can be used to accomplish test automation in Middleware testing?

    Read the article

  • In Windows 7, why can't I use perfmon against a remote server?

    - by SomeGuy
    I am on Windows 7 and trying to run perfmon against Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 servers. I am running into the same issue with all remote machines. When creating a data collector set, I specify a domain account that is in the administrators group on the remote machines (and "Performance Log Users" and "Performance Monitor Users" to be safe). On the "Available Counters" screen, When I type in a remote computer name, PerfMon locks up for a good 2-3 minutes before I can add any counters. I can then save the collector set. However, when I save it, the go/stop buttons are disabled if I click the set in the left panel, and missing if I click the Data collector set itself in the right panel. See the screens below. I can run data collector sets against my local machine with no problem. I am opening perfmon with my local account in both scenarios. I also have Remote Registry Service started on each remote machine. What is going on?

    Read the article

  • Is basing storage requirements based on IOPS sufficient?

    - by Boden
    The current system in question is running SBS 2003, and is going to be migrated on new hardware to SBS 2008. Currently I'm seeing on average 200-300 disk transfers per second total across all the arrays in the system. The array seeing the bulk of activity is a 6 disk 7200RPM RAID 6 and it struggles to keep up during high traffic times (idle time often only 10-20%; response times peaking 20-50+ ms). Based on some rough calculations this makes sense (avg ~245 IOPS on this array at 70/30 read to write ratio). I'm considering using a much simpler disk configuration using a single RAID 10 array of 10K disks. Using the same parameters for my calculations above, I'm getting 583 average random IOPS / sec. Granted SBS 2008 is not the same beast as 2003, but I'd like to make the assumption that it'll be similar in terms of disk performance, if not better (Exchange 2007 is easier on the disk and there's no ISA server). Am I correct in believing that the proposed system will be sufficient in terms of performance, or am I missing something? I've read so much about recommended disk configurations for various products like Exchange, and they often mention things like dedicating spindles to logs, etc. I understand the reasoning behind this, but if I've got more than enough random I/O overhead, does it really matter? I've always at the very least had separate spindles for the OS, but I could really reduce cost and complexity if I just had a single, good performing array. So as not to make you guys do my job for me, the generic version of this question is: if I have a projected IOPS figure for a new system, is it sufficient to use this value alone to spec the storage, ignoring "best practice" configurations? (given similar technology, not going from DAS to SAN or anything)

    Read the article

  • Determining a realistic measure of requests per second for a web server

    - by Don
    I'm setting up a nginx stack and optimizing the configuration before going live. Running ab to stress test the machine, I was disappointed to see things topping out at 150 requests per second with a significant number of requests taking 1 second to return. Oddly, the machine itself wasn't even breathing hard. I finally thought to ping the box and saw ping times around 100-125 ms. (The machine, to my surprise, is across the country). So, it seems like network latency is dominating my testing. Running the same tests from a machine on the same network as the server (ping times < 1ms) and I see 5000 requests per second, which is more in-line with what I expected from the machine. But this got me thinking: How do I determine and report a "realistic" measure of requests per second for a web server? You always see claims about performance, but shouldn't network latency be taken into consideration? Sure I can serve 5000 request per second to a machine next to the server, but not to a machine across the country. If I have a lot of slow connections, they will eventually impact my server's performance, right? Or am I thinking about this all wrong? Forgive me if this is network engineering 101 stuff. I'm a developer by trade. Update: Edited for clarity.

    Read the article

  • Different network response for indentical co-located machines

    - by Santosh
    We have a situation as follows: We have a two different virtual machines (VMs) on some remote server farm. The machines are identical in terms of hardware/software(OS) configurations. We have a J2EE application running on JBoss on each of those two machines. These two applications are of different version sav V1 on VM1 and V2 on VM2. We observed some degraded response time for application V2 when accessed via public URL. When we accessed the application through a secured VPN, there is hardly any difference. The bandwidth test (upload/download speed, ping etc) shows that VM1 is responding better when accessed via secured VPN. We concluded that the application does not seem to have performance issue. Because, it that's the case the performance degradation should also be there when access via VPN. So we concluded its the network problem. But since those two identical VMs are on same network we are looking for the reasons for different responses. My question is, given the above situation, what could be reasons for such a behavior ?

    Read the article

  • Some free cloud solution to enhance your business

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am co-owner of a small internet business. I am in charge of IT, and I try to get things done as low cost as possible. When investing in servers, resources and overall business costs your project can soon turn into a financial disaster. Cloud solutions can help you in solving some financial problems, they can help you in scalability problems, and overall performance problems of your server or web application. Recently I moved the whole internal/external communication(email,calendar,documents) of my business to the cloud. I did this by using the free version of Google Apps. This works great and is a big advantage on multiple levels. I do not have to fight spam anymore on my system, and there are less resources used on my system. Also switching servers will go a lot easier. Questions Can you name some cloud solution that you have used, or some you just recommend. They can fairy form financial benefits, organizational benefits, performance benefits. It doesn't matter as soon as it helps you spread the load of your business.

    Read the article

  • Postfix spool on ext3 optimiziations in >=linux-2.6.34 days

    - by Luke404
    Given the very specific nature of the subject (we're not talking about mailboxes, just the spool; we're not talking about other filesystems, just ext3; and so on...) and the maturity of the softwares involved (linux kernel, ext3fs, postfix) I'd think there should be a more or less agreed on set of best practices to filesystem related tuning. I'm trying to get a roundup of them: data=journal became the default in recent kernels (somewhere around 2.6.30 IIRC) so we should be ok with that Wietse Venema says atime must be on, but Postfix documentation recommendsnoatime while talking about the Incoming Queue. Does that mean that postfix needs atime on just for some queue directories and will benefit from noatime on the others? can we use noatime if we just don't use ETRN? filesystem can be mounted nodev,noexec,nosuid - no* won't prevent you from setting attributes (postfix uses exec attr) they just won't have any effect (we don't run anything from the spool) the fsync() issue cited by Wietse and/or the chattr -S are probably linked to sync/async options of ext3fs but I do not understand them enough. Mouting the filesystem with async option is equivalent to chattr -R -S the whole fs? Seems like it will increase performance, but will that pose a risk of "loss of mail after a system crash" or is it really "safe on /var/spool/postfix" ? would you tune anything else on postfix-2.6.x to work better on ext3 or do you leave defaults everywhere? is there a "best" linux I/O scheduler for this kind of workload (namely CFQ or deadline?) or that's something that will vary too much based on hardware configuration? would you tune anything else in the filesystem or in the kernel? anything else? References: Postfix Performance here on SF Postfix documentation about the Incoming Queue Wietse Venema in Best file system on [email protected] here Postfix and ext3 on [email protected] here and there

    Read the article

  • What is the best VM for developing WPF apps from within OS X?

    - by MarqueIV
    All of my machines are Macs (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac Mini (and Apple TV 2.0 too! :) ) but for my day-job, I develop .NET/WPF applications. Normally I just boot into Boot Camp and develop that way, which of course works great, but there are times when I need to simultaneously get to things on my Mac-side of the equation, so I've bought both VMware 3.1 and Parallels 6. Both work, however, even on my Mac Pro where I paid to upgrade to the better video cards (the NVidia 8600s I think vs. the stock ATI cards) the WPF performance bites!! Now this confuses me since both boast that they support not only hardware-accelerated OpenGL 2.1, but also hardware-accelerated DirectX 9 (VMware even allegedly supports DirectX 10!) via their respective virtual drivers and both can run 3D games just fine, even in a window. But even the simple act of resizing a WPF window that has a tiled background results in some HIDEOUS repainting and resizing behaviors. It's damn near closer to what you'd expect over RDP let alone a software-only renderer (forget accelerated hardware completely!) So... can anyone please tell me WTF WPF is doing differently? More importantly, how can I speed up the WPF performance? Should I switch to VirtualBox that also has support for DirectX? Or am I just gonna have to 'byte' the bullet (sorry... had to. So I like puns! Thank Jon Stewart!) and continue using Boot Camp?

    Read the article

  • Real benefits of tcp TIME-WAIT and implications in production environment

    - by user64204
    SOME THEORY I've been doing some reading on tcp TIME-WAIT (here and there) and what I read is that it's a value set to 2 x MSL (maximum segment life) which keeps a connection in the "connection table" for a while to guarantee that, "before your allowed to create a connection with the same tuple, all the packets belonging to previous incarnations of that tuple will be dead". Since segments received (apart from SYN under specific circumstances) while a connection is either in TIME-WAIT or no longer existing would be discarded, why not close the connection right away? Q1: Is it because there is less processing involved in dealing with segments from old connections and less processing to create a new connection on the same tuple when in TIME-WAIT (i.e. are there performance benefits)? If the above explanation doesn't stand, the only reason I see the TIME-WAIT being useful would be if a client sends a SYN for a connection before it sends remaining segments for an old connection on the same tuple in which case the receiver would re-open the connection but then get bad segments and and would have to terminate it. Q2: Is this analysis correct? Q3: Are there other benefits to using TIME-WAIT? SOME PRACTICE I've been looking at the munin graphs on a production server that I administrate. Here is one: As you can see there are more connections in TIME-WAIT than ESTABLISHED, around twice as many most of the time, on some occasions four times as many. Q4: Does this have an impact on performance? Q5: If so, is it wise/recommended to reduce the TIME-WAIT value (and what to)? Q6: Is this ratio of TIME-WAIT / ESTABLISHED connections normal? Could this be related to malicious connection attempts?

    Read the article

  • ZFS with L2ARC (SSD) slower for random seeks than without L2ARC

    - by Florian Kruse
    I am currently testing ZFS (Opensolaris 2009.06) in an older fileserver to evaluate its use for our needs. Our current setup is as follows: Dual core (2,4 GHz) with 4 GB RAM 3x SATA controller with 11 HDDs (250 GB) and one SSD (OCZ Vertex 2 100 GB) We want to evaluate the use of a L2ARC, so the current ZPOOL is: $ zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM afstank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache c14t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 where c14t3d0 is the SSD (of course). We run IO tests with bonnie++ 1.03d, size is set to 200 GB (-s 200g) so that the test sample will never be completely in ARC/L2ARC. The results without SSD are (average values over several runs which show no differences) write_chr write_blk rewrite read_chr read_blk random seeks 101.998 kB/s 214.258 kB/s 96.673 kB/s 77.702 kB/s 254.695 kB/s 900 /s With SSD it becomes interesting. My assumption was that the results should be in worst case at least the same. While write/read/rewrite rates are not different, the random seek rate differs significantly between individual bonnie++ runs (between 188 /s and 1333 /s so far), average is 548 +- 200 /s, so below the value w/o SSD. So, my questions are mainly: Why do the random seek rates differ so much? If the seeks are really random, they should not differ much (my assumption). So, even if the SSD is impairing the performance it should be the same in each bonnie++ run. Why is the random seek performance worse in most of the bonnie++ runs? I would assume that some part of the bonnie++ data is in the L2ARC and random seeks on this data performs better while random seeks on other data just performs similarly like before.

    Read the article

  • HP Proliant DL380 G4 - Can this server still perform in 2011?

    - by BSchriver
    Can the HP Proliant DL380 G4 series server still perform at high a quality in the 2011 IT world? This may sound like a weird question but we are a very small company whose primary business is NOT IT related. So my IT dollars have to stretch a long way. I am in need of a good web and database server. The load and demand for a while will be fairly low so I am not looking nor do I have the money to buy a brand new HP Dl380 G7 series box for $6K. While searching around today I found a company in ATL that buys servers off business leases and then stripes them down to parts. They clean, check and test each part and then custom "rebuild" the server based on whatever specs you request. The interesting thing is they also provide a 3-year warranty on all their servers they sell. I am contemplating buying two of the following: HP Proliant DL380 G4 Dual (2) Intel Xeon 3.6 GHz 800Mhz 1MB Cache processors 8GB PC3200R ECC Memory 6 x 73GB U320 15K rpm SCSI drives Smart Array 6i Card Dual Power Supplies Plus the usual cdrom, dual nic, etc... All this for $750 each or $1500 for two pretty nicely equipped servers. The price then jumps up on the next model up which is the G5 series. It goes from $750 to like $2000 for a comparable server. I just do not have $4000 to buy two servers right now. So back to my original question, if I load Windows 2008 R2 Server and IIS 7 on one of the machines and Windows 2008 R2 server and MS SQL 2008 R2 Server on another machine, what kind of performance might I expect to see from these machines? The facts is this series is now 3 versions behind the G7's and this series of server was built when Windows 200 Server was the dominant OS and Windows 2003 Server was just coming out. If you are running Windows 2008 R2 Server on a G4 with similar or less specs I would love to hear what your performance is like.

    Read the article

  • Organizing automatically Windows Files and Folders

    - by Kiquenet
    For Windows only, Organizing the eleventy-billion files you've got stuffed into folders on your hard drive is very "hard". For example, I have one folder on my computer that I save all web downloads to, regardless of file type, size or purpose. Many of the files are only temporary downloads, for instance setup files of applications that I test, demonstration videos that I watch once or documents that I want to read. Some files on the other hand are there to stay, and I used to move them out of the download folder manually in the past. Another files in folders in my computer: many source code, tests, programs, tools, ... I need tecnology for organize billion files. Which best tools for organize, sort, etc automatically your files-folders? Digital Janitor http://davidevitelaru.com/software/digital-janitor/ Belverede http://lifehacker.com/5510961/how-to-automatically-clean-and-organize-your-desktop-downloads-and-other-folders Download Mover http://www.neoteo.com/download-mover-reorganiza-tus-descargas-14188 File/Folder Date Organizer http://seedling.dcmembers.com/other/ffdorg.zip DropIt http://www.lupopensuite.com/db/dropit.htm Others issues about organization files, desktop, etc How to automate the process of organizing audio files on Windows Organizing My Windows Desktop What's a good way for organizing PDF documents on Windows? Folksonomy tagging for files What is your method of “folksonomy” tagging for files on your local machine?

    Read the article

  • What's throttling the database?

    - by Troels Arvin
    Hardware: Intel x86_64 with 192GB of RAM. OS: CentOS 5.4 x86_64. DBMS: DB2 v. 9.7.1 64 bit. During certain special workloads (e.g. parallel REORGs/RUNSTATs), I've seen the server transporting 450MB/s with 25000IO/s (yes, there is probably some storage system caching happening here) while all CPU cores were happily working in an even mix of usermode/wait. And disk benchmark tools can also bring some very satisfying bandwith and IO/s numbers to the table. On the other hand, we also have another scenario: A single rather complex query with at least one large table scan. db2's "list applications" reports that the query is Executing (not locked). IO: At most 10MB/s, 500 IO/s; CPU: two cores in 99.9% wait state, all other cores 100% idle. The tables which the query reads from have been altered to have LOCKSIZE=TABLE, so I would think that lock list work is zero. What's going on in such a situation? What tools/snapshots/... can I use to gain better insight in such a case?

    Read the article

  • Caching all files in varnish

    - by csgwro
    I want my varnish servers to cache all files. At backend there is lighttpd hosting only static files, and there is an md5 in the url in case of file change, ex. /gfx/Bird.b6e0bc2d6cbb7dfe1a52bc45dd2b05c4.swf). However my hit ratio is very poorly (about 0.18) My config: sub vcl_recv { set req.backend=default; ### passing health to backend if (req.url ~ "^/health.html$") { return (pass); } remove req.http.If-None-Match; remove req.http.cookie; remove req.http.authenticate; if (req.request == "GET") { return (lookup); } } sub vcl_fetch { ### do not cache wrong codes if (beresp.status == 404 || beresp.status >= 500) { set beresp.ttl = 0s; } remove beresp.http.Etag; remove beresp.http.Last-Modified; } sub vcl_deliver { set resp.http.expires = "Thu, 31 Dec 2037 23:55:55 GMT"; } I have made an performance tuning: DAEMON_OPTS="${DAEMON_OPTS} -p thread_pool_min=200 -p thread_pool_max=4000 -p thread_pool_add_delay=2 -p session_linger=100" The main url which is missed is... /health.html. Is that forward to backend correctly configured? Disabling health checking hit ratio increases to 0.45. Now mostly "/crossdomain.xml" is missed (from many domains, as it is wildcard). How can I avoid that? Should I carry on other headers like User-Agent or Accept-Encoding? I thing that default hashing mechanism is using url + host/IP. Compression is used at the backend. What else can improve performance?

    Read the article

  • Server slowdown

    - by Clinton Bosch
    I have a GWT application running on Tomcat on a cloud linux(Ubuntu) server, recently I released a new version of the application and suddenly my server response times have gone from 500ms average to 15s average. I have run every monitoring tool I know. iostat says my disks are 0.03% utilised mysqltuner.pl says I am OK other see below top says my processor is 99% idle and load average: 0.20, 0.31, 0.33 memory usage is 50% (-/+ buffers/cache: 3997 3974) mysqltuner output [OK] Logged in using credentials from debian maintenance account. -------- General Statistics -------------------------------------------------- [--] Skipped version check for MySQLTuner script [OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.1.63-0ubuntu0.10.04.1-log [OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture -------- Storage Engine Statistics ------------------------------------------- [--] Status: +Archive -BDB -Federated +InnoDB -ISAM -NDBCluster [--] Data in MyISAM tables: 370M (Tables: 52) [--] Data in InnoDB tables: 697M (Tables: 1749) [!!] Total fragmented tables: 1754 -------- Security Recommendations ------------------------------------------- [OK] All database users have passwords assigned -------- Performance Metrics ------------------------------------------------- [--] Up for: 19h 25m 41s (1M q [28.122 qps], 1K conn, TX: 2B, RX: 1B) [--] Reads / Writes: 98% / 2% [--] Total buffers: 1.0G global + 2.7M per thread (500 max threads) [OK] Maximum possible memory usage: 2.4G (30% of installed RAM) [OK] Slow queries: 0% (1/1M) [OK] Highest usage of available connections: 34% (173/500) [OK] Key buffer size / total MyISAM indexes: 16.0M/279.0K [OK] Key buffer hit rate: 99.9% (50K cached / 40 reads) [OK] Query cache efficiency: 61.4% (844K cached / 1M selects) [!!] Query cache prunes per day: 553779 [OK] Sorts requiring temporary tables: 0% (0 temp sorts / 34K sorts) [OK] Temporary tables created on disk: 4% (4K on disk / 102K total) [OK] Thread cache hit rate: 84% (185 created / 1K connections) [!!] Table cache hit rate: 0% (256 open / 27K opened) [OK] Open file limit used: 0% (20/2K) [OK] Table locks acquired immediately: 100% (692K immediate / 692K locks) [OK] InnoDB data size / buffer pool: 697.2M/1.0G -------- Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- General recommendations: Run OPTIMIZE TABLE to defragment tables for better performance MySQL started within last 24 hours - recommendations may be inaccurate Enable the slow query log to troubleshoot bad queries Increase table_cache gradually to avoid file descriptor limits Variables to adjust: query_cache_size (> 16M) table_cache (> 256)

    Read the article

  • Why database partitioning didn't work? Extract from thedailywtf.com

    - by questzen
    Original link. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Certified-DBA.aspx. Article summary: The DBA suggests an approach involving rigorous partitioning, 10 partitions per disk (3 actual disks and 3 raid). The stats show that the performance is non-optimal. Then the DBA suggests an alternative of 1 partition per disk (with more added disks). This also fails. The sys-admin then sets up a single disk, single partition and saves the day. The size of disks was not mentioned but given today,s typical disk sizes (of the order of 100 GB), the partitions ; would be huge, it surprises me that a single disk with all partitions outperformed. Initially I suspect that the data was segregated and hence faster reads. But how come the performance didn't degrade as time went by with all the inserts and updates happening? Saw this on reddit, but the explanation was by far spindle/platter centered. There was no mention in the article about this. Is there any other reason? I can only guess that the tables were using a incorrect hash distribution causing non-uniform allocation across disks (wrong partitioning); this would increase fetch times. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Is there an objective way to measure slowness of PC/WINDOWS?

    - by ekms
    We've a lot of users that usually complain about that his PC is "slow". (we use win XP). We usually check startup programs, virus, fragmentation, disk health and common problems that causes slowness (Symantec AV drops disk to 1mb/s , or a seagate HD firmware error in certain models), but in those cases the slowness is pretty evident. In other hand, the most common is the user complaining about his pc but for us looks OK, even in 6 years old desktops. People sometimes even complains about his new quad core desktops speed!!! So, we are asking if there's a way to OBJECTIVELY check that a computer didn't dropped its performance, compared with similar ones o previous measures, specially for work use (I don't think that 3dmark benchmark o similar may help). The only thing that I found that was useful is HDTune, but it only check hard disk performance. Basically, what we want is something that enable us to say to our users "see? your PC is as slow as was three years ago! stop complaining! Is all in your head!"

    Read the article

  • Disk fragmentation when dealing with many small files

    - by Zorlack
    On a daily basis we generate about 3.4 Million small jpeg files. We also delete about 3.4 Million 90 day old images. To date, we've dealt with this content by storing the images in a hierarchical manner. The heriarchy is something like this: /Year/Month/Day/Source/ This heirarchy allows us to effectively delete days worth of content across all sources. The files are stored on a Windows 2003 server connected to a 14 disk SATA RAID6. We've started having significant performance issues when writing-to and reading-from the disks. This may be due to the performance of the hardware, but I suspect that disk fragmentation may be a culprit at well. Some people have recommended storing the data in a database, but I've been hesitant to do this. An other thought was to use some sort of container file, like a VHD or something. Does anyone have any advice for mitigating this kind of fragmentation? Additional Info: The average file size is 8-14KB Format information from fsutil: NTFS Volume Serial Number : 0x2ae2ea00e2e9d05d Version : 3.1 Number Sectors : 0x00000001e847ffff Total Clusters : 0x000000003d08ffff Free Clusters : 0x000000001c1a4df0 Total Reserved : 0x0000000000000000 Bytes Per Sector : 512 Bytes Per Cluster : 4096 Bytes Per FileRecord Segment : 1024 Clusters Per FileRecord Segment : 0 Mft Valid Data Length : 0x000000208f020000 Mft Start Lcn : 0x00000000000c0000 Mft2 Start Lcn : 0x000000001e847fff Mft Zone Start : 0x0000000002163b20 Mft Zone End : 0x0000000007ad2000

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147  | Next Page >