Search Results

Search found 98 results on 4 pages for 'btrfs'.

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 2/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • Online remount btrfs of root filesystem with different subvolume (snapshot) [migrated]

    - by goncalopp
    Let's say you have a btrfs root filesystem on an online system. You want to revert the filesystem to an earlier state, of which you have a snapshot: remount /dev/sdaX / -o remount,subvol=snapshots/Y For the record, I've done this in a test system, and it does not work. The command returns with no errors, but the subvolume mounted is the same. If this did work, what would be the consequences? My guess is that open file descriptors would still point to the old subvolume, thus possibly leading to "data loss" on the new subvolume, if one was not careful. Assuming one goes to the trouble of closing and reopening all open file descriptors, does this sound feasible? Or are there other types of problems?

    Read the article

  • How do I recover a BTRFS filesystem with "parent transid verify failed" errors?

    - by Evan P.
    I've got an external USB disk running btrfs. I use it for backups, and each time I do a backup I take a snapshot. However, it's giving me this error now: parent transid verify failed on 109973766144 wanted 1823 found 1821 parent transid verify failed on 109973766144 wanted 1823 found 1821 Obviously, this is a non-critical disk, but I have a few files on here that aren't available elsewhere. Is there any way to recover data from this disk? Maybe by mounting one of the snapshots as root?

    Read the article

  • How to make a redundant desktop system with daily snapshots? (Is btrfs ready for use?)

    - by TestUser16418
    I want to configure a desktop system in which the home filesystem would be redundant (e.g. RAID-1), and would have weekly snapshots taken. I've already done this with ZFS, the snapshot system is wonderful, and with send/recv you can easily create backups on external media. Unfortunately, at that point, I want GNU+Linux and not FreeBSD or Solaris, so I'm looking for suggestions for good alternatives. I reckon that my alternatives are: btrfs - it seems to be exactly what I need, it has snapshots and commands that allow you to easily replicate zfs send. Yet all documentation mentions that it's still experimental. I can't seem to find any actual reports on its reliability or usability issues. Can you point me to any information on that issue that could clarify whether it would be a possible choice? I have a large preference for this option, mostly because I don't want to reformat the drives when btrfs becomes ready, but I there's no information on whether it's usable at all, whether it's a silly idea to use it, etc. The question that I cannot get the answer to is what does "experimental" mean. lvm snapshots and ext4 - preferably not, since it can consume an awful amount of space when new files are created. Creating 200 GB files requres 200 GB free space and 200 GB additionally for snapshots. I also have found it unreliable -- failed metadata rewrite results in an unreadable PV. I'm wondering how btrfs would compare here. A single filesystem (ext4) on a RAID-1 array with custom COW snapshots with hardlinks (like cp -al). That's my current preference if I can't use btrfs. So how experimental btrfs is, which should I choose, and do I have any other options? What if I don't keep external incremental backups, would that affect my choice?

    Read the article

  • should I put my multi-device btrfs filesystem on disk partitions or raw devices?

    - by Glyph
    If I'm going to create a multi-device btrfs filesystem. The official recommendation from the documentation apppears to be to create it on raw devices; i.e. /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, etc, but this is not explained. Are there any advantages to creating a partition table on these devices first, either GPT or MBR, and then creating the filesystem on /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1 et cetera? Does feeding btrfs whole devices have some particular advantage, or are these basically equivalent?

    Read the article

  • Upgrade from 10.04 to 11.04, must maintain minimum kernel 2.6.38

    - by Steve
    I have a machine running 10.04 and am using BTRFS with lzo compression. I upgraded the kernel to 2.6.38 to enable this (using a PPA). I have my /home folder on a separate (4 TB) BTRFS drive. / is on ext4. My only complaint with this setup is that it uses the old BTRFS tools. How can I upgrade first to 10.10, then 11.04 as required, when 10.10 uses 2.6.35? I don't want it to crash/choke on mounting /home. Will it just let me keep booting the newer kernel I have while upgrading?

    Read the article

  • ZFS/Btrfs/LVM2-like storage with advanced features on Linux?

    - by Easter Sunshine
    I have 3 identical internal 7200 RPM SATA hard disk drives on a Linux machine. I'm looking for a storage set-up that will give me all of this: Different data sets (filesystems or subtrees) can have different RAID levels so I can choose performance, space overhead, and risk trade-offs differently for different data sets while having a few number of physical disks (very important data can be 3xRAID1, important data can be 3xRAID5, unimportant reproducible data can be 3xRAID0). If each data set has an explicit size or size limit, then the ability to grow and shrink the size limit (offline if need be) Avoid out-of-kernel modules R/W or read-only COW snapshots. If it's a block-level snapshots, the filesystem should be synced and quiesced during a snapshot. Ability to add physical disks and then grow/redistribute RAID1, RAID5, and RAID0 volumes to take advantage of the new spindle and make sure no spindle is hotter than the rest (e.g., in NetApp, growing a RAID-DP raid group by a few disks will not balance the I/O across them without an explicit redistribution) Not required but nice-to-haves: Transparent compression, per-file or subtree. Even better if, like NetApps, analyzes the data first for compressibility and only compresses compressible data Deduplication that doesn't have huge performance penalties or require obscene amounts of memory (NetApp does scheduled deduplication on weekends, which is good) Resistance to silent data corruption like ZFS (this is not required because I have never seen ZFS report any data corruption on these specific disks) Storage tiering, either automatic (based on caching rules) or user-defined rules (yes, I have all-identical disks now but this will let me add a read/write SSD cache in the future). If it's user-defined rules, these rules should have the ability to promote to SSD on a file level and not a block level. Space-efficient packing of small files I tried ZFS on Linux but the limitations were: Upgrading is additional work because the package is in an external repository and is tied to specific kernel versions; it is not integrated with the package manager Write IOPS does not scale with number of devices in a raidz vdev. Cannot add disks to raidz vdevs Cannot have select data on RAID0 to reduce overhead and improve performance without additional physical disks or giving ZFS a single partition of the disks ext4 on LVM2 looks like an option except I can't tell whether I can shrink, extend, and redistribute onto new spindles RAID-type logical volumes (of course, I can experiment with LVM on a bunch of files). As far as I can tell, it doesn't have any of the nice-to-haves so I was wondering if there is something better out there. I did look at LVM dangers and caveats but then again, no system is perfect.

    Read the article

  • Block-level deduplicating filesystem

    - by James Haigh
    I'm looking for a deduplicating copy-on-write filesystem solution for general user data such as /home and backups of it. It should use online/inline/synchronous deduplication at the block-level using secure hashing (for negligible chance of collisions) such as SHA256 or TTH. Duplicate blocks need not even touch the disk. The idea is that I should be able to just copy /home/<user> to an external HDD with the same such filesystem to do a backup. Simple. No messing around with incremental backups where corruption to any of the snapshots will nearly always break all later snapshots, and no need to use a specific tool to delete or 'checkout' a snapshot. Everything should simply be done from the file browser without worry. Can you imagine how easy this would be? I'd never have to think twice about backing-up again! I don't mind a performance hit, reliability is the main concern. Although, with specific implementations of cp, mv and scp, and a file browser plugin, these operations would be very fast, especially when there is a lot of duplication as they would only need to transfer the absent blocks. Accidentally using conventional copy tools that do not integrate with the FS would merely take longer, waste some bandwidth when copying remotely and waste some CPU, as the duplicate data would be re-read, re-transferred and re-hashed (although nothing would be re-written), but would absolutely not corrupt anything. (Some filesharing software may also be able to benefit by integrating with the FS.) So what's the best way of doing this? I've looked at some options: lessfs - Looks unmaintained. Any good? [Opendedup/SDFS][3] - Java? Could I use this on Android?! What does [SDFS][4] stand for? [Btrfs][5] - Some patches floating around on mailing list archives, but no real support. [ZFS][6] - Hopefully they'll one day relicense under a true Free/Opensource GPL-compatible licence. Also, 2 years ago I had a go at an attempt in Python using Fuse at the file-level to be used over the top of a typical solid FS such as EXT4, but I found Fuse for Python underdocumented and didn't manage to implement all of the system calls. My first post here, so I can't post more than 2 links until I get over 10 rep: [3]: http://www.opendedup.org/ [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SDFS&action=edit&redlink=1 [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs#Features [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Server 12.04 start fails after update

    - by Abbgrade
    I did an system update on ubuntu server 12.04, which requestet an reboot. Since that, the system never reaches the login. It hangs on: mount: mounting /dev on /root/dev failed: No such file or directory done. mount: mounting /sys on /root/sys failed: No such file or directory mount: mounting /proc on /root/proc failed: No such file or directory Target filesystem doesn't have requested /sbin/init. No init found. Try passing init= bootarg. BusyBox v1.18.5 (Ubuntu 1:1.18.5-1ubuntu4) build-in shell (ash) Enter 'help' for a list of build-in commands. (initramfs) i tried already to repair it using a live system: + Mounting the filesystems (/boot ext, / btrfs) + fsck ran without problems. + /etc/fstab seems to be OK. + apt update/upgrade on chroot succeed. now, i have no more ideas :/

    Read the article

  • How do I improve my incremental-backup performance?

    - by Alistair Bell
    I'm currently using the traditional rsync+cp -al method to create incremental/snapshot backups of our server tree. The backups are going onto a pair of eight-disk towers connected to the backup machine (a Sandy Bridge machine with 16 GB of RAM, running CentOS 5.5) via four eSATA connections (four disks per connection). Each disk is a regular 2 TB disk, so we have 32 TB of disk space connected to the backup machine. We're backing up about 20 TB of data on the servers with this. The problem is that each daily backup is taking more than 24 hours, and the real time-killer isn't the actual rsync, but the time it takes to perform a cp -al of the tree locally on the backup machine. It's taking more than 12 hours just to make the shadow copy of the tree, and as far as I can tell the performance backlog is at the disk (top shows the cp using a lot of RAM but not a lot of CPU and mostly in uninterruptible-sleep state) We have the server data split into four major volumes (and a few minor ones), and each of these backups runs in parallel (with some offsets in the cron to try to get some disks' cp done first). There are two volumes on the backup drive, both striped LVM volumes of 16 TB each. So obviously I need to improve the performance because it's unusable as it stands. The first question is: when CentOS 6 comes out, with support for btrfs, will making snapshots of subvolumes with btrfs substantially increase this performance? The second is: is there a way, with ext3 or something else supported in CentOS 5 or 6, to 'encourage' it to put the directories/inodes in one part of a volume (which could happen to be the part that's on an SSD, via LVM) and the files in another? That would presumably solve the problem, but I don't know of ways to hint ext3 like that.

    Read the article

  • How do I reinstall/enable snapper?

    - by Aaron Digulla
    I had errors in my root filesystem (btrfs) so I recreated it from a backup but now, snapper doesn't work anymore: # /usr/bin/snapper -v -v -v -v create --description test IO Error. # snapper -v delete-config Deleting config failed (deleting snapshot failed). # snapper create-config / Creating config failed (subvolume already covered). # snapper -c root create-config / Creating config failed (subvolume already covered). # snapper list Type | # | Pre # | Date | User | Cleanup | Description | Userdata -------+---+-------+------+------+---------+-------------+--------- single | 0 | | | root | | current | I also tries to reinstall/remove and install the package snapper but without any luck. Any ideas how I can make snapper work again? openSUSE 12.3 with kernel 3.7.10-1.1-desktop.

    Read the article

  • Le noyau Linux 3.2 disponible : intégration du code d'Android, améliorations réseaux, Btrfs et support d'une nouvelle architecture

    Le noyau Linux 3.2 disponible : intégration du code d'Android améliorations réseaux, Btrfs et support d'une nouvelle architecture Linus Torvalds vient d'annoncer la disponibilité de la version 3.3 du noyau Linux. Au menu des nouveautés, on notera essentiellement la réintégration des portions de code du noyau d'Android . Pour rappel, en 2009, les pilotes d'Android avaient été exclus du noyau parce qu'ils n'étaient pas suffisamment maintenus. L'intégration d'Android permettra aux développeurs d'utiliser le noyau Linux pour faire fonctionner un système Android, développer un pilote pour les deux et réduira les couts de maintenance des correctifs indépendants d'une...

    Read the article

  • Le noyau Linux 3.3 disponible : intégration du code d'Android, améliorations réseaux, Btrfs et support d'une nouvelle architecture

    Le noyau Linux 3.3 disponible : intégration du code d'Android améliorations réseaux, Btrfs et support d'une nouvelle architecture Linus Torvalds vient d'annoncer la disponibilité de la version 3.3 du noyau Linux. Au menu des nouveautés, on notera essentiellement la réintégration des portions de code du noyau d'Android . Pour rappel, en 2009, les pilotes d'Android avaient été exclus du noyau parce qu'ils n'étaient pas suffisamment maintenus. L'intégration d'Android permettra aux développeurs d'utiliser le noyau Linux pour faire fonctionner un système Android, développer un pilote pour les deux et réduira les couts de maintenance des correctifs indépendants d'une...

    Read the article

  • Linux 3.6 sort en version stable : veille hybride, TCP Fast Open, VFIO, améliorations de Btrfs et suppression du cache IPv4

    Linux 3.6 sort en version stable ajout de la veille hybride, TCP Fast Open, VFIO, améliorations de Btrfs et suppression du cache IPv4 Linus Torvalds vient d'annoncer la sortie de la version 3.6 stable du Kernel Linux. La nouveauté phare de cette mouture est l'introduction d'un mode de veille hybride, longtemps supporté par Windows et Mac OS X. L'option Suspend to Both (Veille et hibernation combinée) permet de suspendre l'activité de l'ordinateur tout en conservant le contenu de la mémoire vive sur le disque dur (uspend-to-disk) et ensuite une sauvegarde du système dans la mémoire (suspend-to-RAM). Le grand avantage de ces deux techniques liées est qu'elles permettent le retou...

    Read the article

  • Oracle Linux sort en version 6.3 : améliorations du système de fichiers Btrfs, des performances et optimisations du Kernel

    Oracle Linux sort en version 6.3 améliorations du système de fichiers Btrfs, des performances et optimisations du Kernel Oracle a publié récemment la version 6.3 de son système d'exploitation Oracle Linux. Créée à partir du clonage des sources de la distribution Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), cette mouture contient toutes les améliorations et nouveautés de RHEL 6.3. La plus grande différence entre Oracle Linux 6.3 et RHEL 6.3 est l'utilisation du noyau optimisé 2.6.39, qui dispose de plusieurs améliorations et corrections par rapport à l'original, et l'installation par défaut de « Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel 3.0.16 ». Oracle Linux 6.3 propose également la mise à jour de plusi...

    Read the article

  • Linux 3.7 sort en version stable : support de multiples plateformes ARM, améliorations de Btrfs, Ext4, TCP Fast Open et IPv6

    Linux 3.7 sort en version stable support de multiples plateformes ARM, améliorations de Btrfs, Ext4, TCP Fast Open et IPv6 Près de deux mois après la sortie du noyau Linux 3.6, Linus Torvalds, annonce la publication de la version stable de Linux 3.7, avec un nombre important de nouvelles fonctionnalités. La nouveauté vedette de cette mouture est sans aucun doute la proposition d'une version unique du Kernel capable de prendre en charge plusieurs architectures ARM. Bien que le support de toutes les plateformes ARM du marché ne soit pas complet, Linux 3.7 est compatible avec les plateformes populaires comme les processeurs Calxeda's Higbank ARM utilisés dans les serveurs Moo...

    Read the article

  • Setting up a home server - what to use? (ZFS vs btrfs, BSD vs Linux, misc other requirements)

    - by monch1962
    I need to get all our home content off individual machines and onto a central server. What I'd like to have is the metaphorical "server under the stairs". Stuff we need: expandable storage. I want to be able to add extra disc as we go along, with minimal maintenance required. Currently we've got about 3Tb of files we need to host, and that's likely to grow by another Tb every 6-12 months based on recent history. I need to be able to add additional disc with minimal pain needs to store all the media (i.e. photos, video, music) we have, and run services to serve the various devices we have in the house to playback (e.g. DAAP so we can play stuff through iTunes, ccxstream so we can play stuff over XBMC). DAAP and ccxstream are needed now, but we also need to support new standards as they emerge (so a closed-box solution isn't going to work) RAID 5, or something broadly equivalent (e.g. RAID-Z) BitTorrent client ssh, NFS, Samba access snapshot capability (as in ZFS), so we can snapshot individual file systems regularly and rollback when my kids delete their school assignments the day before they're due... ability to recover quickly from power outages (it's not unusual for us to have power outages that last longer than our UPS' batteries) FOSS software a modern distributed version control system running on the box, such as Mercurial Stuff I'd like to have on the server, but can live without: PVR capability, so I could record TV to the box Web server. We currently run a small Web server on a very old box, and I'd ideally like to turn the old box off and move the content to the new server just to save some electricity Nagios + mrtg I've been looking at using a EEE Box as the server, primarily because I can get them cheap and they don't consume much power. The choice of OS and file system is more difficult, from what I've found: I've got most experience with various Linux distros, but am happy to use another Unix FreeBSD and OpenSolaris seem to be the best choices for hosting ZFS OpenSolaris' hardware support is nowhere near as good as e.g. Ubuntu btrfs, while looking very good, doesn't seem ready for prime-time yet ZFS doesn't let you (easily?) add new discs to a RAID5 or RAID-Z reading around, it seems that ZFS is a bit short of tools for recovering lost data At the moment, I'm leaning towards running FreeNAS+ZFS, but I'm concerned about the requirement to be able to add new disc on a fairly regular basis to an existing RAID-Z. Can anyone provide some recommendations, or share experiences? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Setting up a home server - what to use? (ZFS vs btrfs, BSD vs Linux, misc other requirements)

    - by monch1962
    I need to get all our home content off individual machines and onto a central server. What I'd like to have is the metaphorical "server under the stairs". Stuff we need: expandable storage. I want to be able to add extra disc as we go along, with minimal maintenance required. Currently we've got about 3Tb of files we need to host, and that's likely to grow by another Tb every 6-12 months based on recent history. I need to be able to add additional disc with minimal pain needs to store all the media (i.e. photos, video, music) we have, and run services to serve the various devices we have in the house to playback (e.g. DAAP so we can play stuff through iTunes, ccxstream so we can play stuff over XBMC). DAAP and ccxstream are needed now, but we also need to support new standards as they emerge (so a closed-box solution isn't going to work) RAID 5, or something broadly equivalent (e.g. RAID-Z) BitTorrent client ssh, NFS, Samba access snapshot capability (as in ZFS), so we can snapshot individual file systems regularly and rollback when my kids delete their school assignments the day before they're due... ability to recover quickly from power outages (it's not unusual for us to have power outages that last longer than our UPS' batteries) FOSS software a modern distributed version control system running on the box, such as Mercurial Stuff I'd like to have on the server, but can live without: PVR capability, so I could record TV to the box Web server. We currently run a small Web server on a very old box, and I'd ideally like to turn the old box off and move the content to the new server just to save some electricity Nagios + mrtg I've been looking at using a EEE Box as the server, primarily because I can get them cheap and they don't consume much power. The choice of OS and file system is more difficult, from what I've found: I've got most experience with various Linux distros, but am happy to use another Unix FreeBSD and OpenSolaris seem to be the best choices for hosting ZFS OpenSolaris' hardware support is nowhere near as good as e.g. Ubuntu btrfs, while looking very good, doesn't seem ready for prime-time yet ZFS doesn't let you (easily?) add new discs to a RAID5 or RAID-Z reading around, it seems that ZFS is a bit short of tools for recovering lost data At the moment, I'm leaning towards running FreeNAS+ZFS, but I'm concerned about the requirement to be able to add new disc on a fairly regular basis to an existing RAID-Z. Can anyone provide some recommendations, or share experiences? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Setting up a home server - what to use? (ZFS vs btrfs, BSD vs Linux, misc other requirements)

    - by monch1962
    I need to get all our home content off individual machines and onto a central server. What I'd like to have is the metaphorical "server under the stairs". Stuff we need: expandable storage. I want to be able to add extra disc as we go along, with minimal maintenance required. Currently we've got about 3Tb of files we need to host, and that's likely to grow by another Tb every 6-12 months based on recent history. I need to be able to add additional disc with minimal pain needs to store all the media (i.e. photos, video, music) we have, and run services to serve the various devices we have in the house to playback (e.g. DAAP so we can play stuff through iTunes, ccxstream so we can play stuff over XBMC). DAAP and ccxstream are needed now, but we also need to support new standards as they emerge (so a closed-box solution isn't going to work) RAID 5, or something broadly equivalent (e.g. RAID-Z) BitTorrent client ssh, NFS, Samba access snapshot capability (as in ZFS), so we can snapshot individual file systems regularly and rollback when my kids delete their school assignments the day before they're due... ability to recover quickly from power outages (it's not unusual for us to have power outages that last longer than our UPS' batteries) FOSS software a modern distributed version control system running on the box, such as Mercurial Stuff I'd like to have on the server, but can live without: PVR capability, so I could record TV to the box Web server. We currently run a small Web server on a very old box, and I'd ideally like to turn the old box off and move the content to the new server just to save some electricity Nagios + mrtg I've been looking at using a EEE Box as the server, primarily because I can get them cheap and they don't consume much power. The choice of OS and file system is more difficult, from what I've found: I've got most experience with various Linux distros, but am happy to use another Unix FreeBSD and OpenSolaris seem to be the best choices for hosting ZFS OpenSolaris' hardware support is nowhere near as good as e.g. Ubuntu btrfs, while looking very good, doesn't seem ready for prime-time yet ZFS doesn't let you (easily?) add new discs to a RAID5 or RAID-Z reading around, it seems that ZFS is a bit short of tools for recovering lost data At the moment, I'm leaning towards running FreeNAS+ZFS, but I'm concerned about the requirement to be able to add new disc on a fairly regular basis to an existing RAID-Z. Can anyone provide some recommendations, or share experiences? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • My new Intel X25-M G2 and the alignment thingy

    - by Oli
    I just bought a new SSD for my laptop, which is going to be a server running ArchLinux with grub2, GPT and btrfs. My layout should look like this: (grub-partition?) /boot ext2 75MB / btrfs 15GB /home btrfs remaining What do I need to do to create these partitions in a correctly aligned fashion using parted? Do I need to consider alignment when formatting each partition with the desired file system?

    Read the article

  • Size of modules within initrd

    - by LiKao
    I am currently trying to manually replace the kernel within ubuntu-core on an embedded device with a custom kernel. However when I try to update the initrd my initrd becomes much bigger. Here is what I did: Extract the initrd that was shipped with ubuntu Make a list of all modules within the old initrd get the same modules from the new module director at /lib/modules/new_kernel_version add these modules to the initrd and remove the old ones If I do this my initrd becomes quite bigger than the original one, so I checked the individual modules. I picked the btrfs.ko filesystem driver as an example. So by comparing these two modules I noticed the one I just picked into the initrd was much bigger, which caused the difference in size. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 999K Nov 14 15:06 btrfs.ko For the btrfs.ko within the shipped initrd. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.2M Nov 14 15:08 btrfs.ko For the new btrfs.ko. What is different between these two modules? Could this be caused by some faulty setting for the new kernel? When producing the kernel I copied /proc/config.gz and used make oldconfig to update it, so all optimisations should be the same for both kernels. Or is there something else which is being done to the modules before they are put into the initrd? Maybe is there even some better way to build a new initrd for the new kernel in ubuntu altogether. Update: I just also tested with an initrd which I created from scratch using the mkinitrfs command within ubuntu, and it has the same size difference that I found for the initrd I manually updated.

    Read the article

  • Dual Boot ubuntu 12.04 and Windows 7 with on two separate SSDs with UEFI

    - by Björn
    With the following setup I get a blinking cursor after installation: Windows 7 64bit installed in first SSD (not UEFI, using MBR) Installation of Ubuntu 12.04 64Bit on gpt partioned disk seems to work without problems but does not boot. It stops with a blinking cursor. Partitioning scheme: sdb1 efi boot partition fat32 sdb2 root btrfs sdb3 home btrfs sdb4 swap Is it possible to mix uefi BIOS with MBR and gpt when using two separate SSDs? I tried grub2 into a MBR as well but it would not install there...

    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 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >