Search Results

Search found 1864 results on 75 pages for 'raid 5'.

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 21/75 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Can I set up a separate RAID 5 devices?

    - by GregH
    I have a GIGABYTE GA-P55M-UD2 motherboard in my system (Windows 7 64 bit) and currently have a Western Digital SATA 10k RPM drive in it. Is it possible to add three more SATA drives to make a single RAID 5 device that is separate from the current 10k rpm drive that I have in it? Once I enable RAID for the SATA drives, I am not required to make all of the drives part of the RAID volume am I? I can have separate RAID'ed and non-RAID'ed volumes can't I?

    Read the article

  • Can I rebuild degraded RAID1 on a SAS 5 i controller with a larger mirror drive size?

    - by Kenny
    A drive failed on a Dell SAS 5i controller - see controller bios screengrab: http://imagebin.ca/view/SkZbszA.html The primary is a 160GB 10k sata drive. I added a 250GB 7k rpm drive in the hope that the array would rebuild onto this drive. This did not happen. (assuming that the controller would just operate at the speed of the slowest drive) The controller could see the new drive, but it didn't automatically rebuild the raid1 onto this drive. (my assumption is that it did not do this rebuild as the drive sizes are different). There was an option to add the new drive to the existing raid1 array - but when I tried this a message appeared stating that all data on the array would be lost. (I didn't get a screenshot of this message, I will later) Should the SAS 5i allow me to rebuild the array onto a larger drive? Is the option to add the drive to the array the right way to go? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Linking FreeNAS Boxes

    - by John
    I have two different FreeNAS boxes that are being used for storage. It is possible to link them in a manner that the linked connection can be presented as a single storage destination for clients? For example, I have one FreeNAS installation that has 6 TB of storage and another one that has 4 TB of storage. I would like to be able to present or have a single mapped drive for clients that would be able to span across both of them; however, the client would only see it as one drive. Is this possible? If not, is there a different way I should be approaching this problem? Is there a different OS distribution that would work better for this?

    Read the article

  • 2 drives, slow software RAID1 (md)

    - by bart613
    Hello, I've got a server from hetzner.de (EQ4) with 2* SAMSUNG HD753LJ drives (750G 32MB cache). OS is CentOS 5 (x86_64). Drives are combined together into two RAID1 partitions: /dev/md0 which is 512MB big and has only /boot partitions /dev/md1 which is over 700GB big and is one big LVM which hosts other partitions Now, I've been running some benchmarks and it seems like even though exactly the same drives, speed differs a bit on each of them. # hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 25612 MB in 1.99 seconds = 12860.70 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 352 MB in 3.01 seconds = 116.80 MB/sec # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 25524 MB in 1.99 seconds = 12815.99 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 342 MB in 3.01 seconds = 113.64 MB/sec Also, when I run eg. pgbench which is stressing IO quite heavily, I can see following from iostat output: Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 231.40 0.00 298.00 0.00 9683.20 32.49 0.17 0.58 0.34 10.24 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 231.40 0.00 298.00 0.00 9683.20 32.49 0.17 0.58 0.34 10.24 sdb 0.00 231.40 0.00 301.80 0.00 9740.80 32.28 14.19 51.17 3.10 93.68 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 231.40 0.00 301.80 0.00 9740.80 32.28 14.19 51.17 3.10 93.68 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.60 0.00 9692.80 18.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 4.80 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.00 0.00 9688.00 18.31 24.51 49.91 1.81 95.92 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 152.40 0.00 330.60 0.00 5176.00 15.66 0.19 0.57 0.19 6.24 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 152.40 0.00 330.60 0.00 5176.00 15.66 0.19 0.57 0.19 6.24 sdb 0.00 152.40 0.00 326.20 0.00 5118.40 15.69 19.96 55.36 3.01 98.16 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 152.40 0.00 326.20 0.00 5118.40 15.69 19.96 55.36 3.01 98.16 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 482.80 0.00 5166.40 10.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 482.80 0.00 5166.40 10.70 30.19 56.92 2.05 99.04 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 181.64 0.00 324.55 0.00 5445.11 16.78 0.15 0.45 0.21 6.87 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sda2 0.00 181.64 0.00 324.55 0.00 5445.11 16.78 0.15 0.45 0.21 6.87 sdb 0.00 181.84 0.00 328.54 0.00 5493.01 16.72 18.34 61.57 3.01 99.00 sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sdb2 0.00 181.84 0.00 328.54 0.00 5493.01 16.72 18.34 61.57 3.01 99.00 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 506.39 0.00 5477.05 10.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dm-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 506.39 0.00 5477.05 10.82 28.77 62.15 1.96 99.00 And this is completely getting me confused. How come two exactly the same specced drives have such a difference in write speed (see util%)? I haven't really paid attention to those speeds before, so perhaps that something normal -- if someone could confirm I would be really grateful. Otherwise, if someone have seen such behavior again or knows what is causing such behavior I would really appreciate answer. I'll also add that both "smartctl -a" and "hdparm -I" output are exactly the same and are not indicating any hardware problems. The slower drive was changed already two times (to new ones). Also I asked to change the drives with places, and then sda were slower and sdb quicker (so the slow one was the same drive). SATA cables were changed two times already.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server: One 12-drive RAID-10 array or 2 arrays of 8-drives and 4-drives

    - by ben
    Setting up a box for SQL Server 2008, which would give the best performance (heavy OLTP)? The more drives in a RAID-10 array the better performance, but will losing 4 drives to dedicate them to the transaction logs give us more performance. 12-drives in RAID-10 plus one hot spare. OR 8-drives in RAID-10 for database and 4-drives RAID-10 for transaction logs plus 2 hot spares (one for each array). We have 14-drive slots to work with and it's an older PowerVault that doesn't support global hot spares.

    Read the article

  • Can I rebuild degraded RAID1 on a SAS 5 i controller with a larger mirror drive size?

    - by Kenny
    Hi, A drive failed on a Dell SAS 5i controller - see controller bios screengrab: http://imagebin.ca/view/SkZbszA.html The primary is a 160GB 10k sata drive. I added a 250GB 7k rpm drive in the hope that the array would rebuild onto this drive. This did not happen. (assuming that the controller would just operate at the speed of the slowest drive) The controller could see the new drive, but it didn't automatically rebuild the raid1 onto this drive. (my assumption is that it did not do this rebuild as the drive sizes are different). There was an option to add the new drive to the existing raid1 array - but when I tried this a message appeared stating that all data on the array would be lost. (I didn't get a screenshot of this message, I will later) Should the SAS 5i allow me to rebuild the array onto a larger drive? Is the option to add the drive to the array the right way to go? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Any new Sony RAID laptops coming after March 2010?

    - by Simon
    My current Sony laptop has RAID 0 (don't worry I back it up 100% every day). I have 2 × 320gb drives giving me 640gb. I want my next laptop to be RAID but with SSD + 500GB drive Unfortunately Sony's current line seems to have abandoned two disk configuations and I really don't want to go to a slower system than I have now. Anybody know if Sony has any RAID laptops (16" or larger) in the pipeline - or do I have to switch to DELL or something else

    Read the article

  • How to re-add a RAID-10 failed drive on Ubuntu?

    - by thiesdiggity
    I have a problem that I can't seem to solve. We have a Ubuntu server setup with RAID-10 and two of the drives dropped out of the array. When I try to re-add them using the following command: mdadm --manage --re-add /dev/md2 /dev/sdc1 I get the following error message: mdadm: Cannot open /dev/sdc1: Device or resource busy When I do a "cat /proc/mdstat" I get the following: Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [r$ md2 : active raid10 sdb1[0] sdd1[3] 1953519872 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [4/2] [U__U] md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdc2[1] 468853696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdc1[1] 19530688 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> When I run "/sbin/mdadm --detail /dev/md2" I get the following: /dev/md2: Version : 00.90 Creation Time : Mon Sep 5 23:41:13 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 1953519872 (1863.02 GiB 2000.40 GB) Used Dev Size : 976759936 (931.51 GiB 1000.20 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Oct 25 09:25:08 2012 State : active, degraded Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Layout : near=2, far=1 Chunk Size : 64K UUID : c6d87d27:aeefcb2e:d4453e2e:0b7266cb Events : 0.6688691 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1 1 0 0 1 removed 2 0 0 2 removed 3 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1 Output of df -h is: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 441G 2.0G 416G 1% / none 32G 236K 32G 1% /dev tmpfs 32G 0 32G 0% /dev/shm none 32G 112K 32G 1% /var/run none 32G 0 32G 0% /var/lock none 32G 0 32G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64G 215M 63G 1% /mnt/vmware none 441G 2.0G 416G 1% /var/lib/ureadahead/debugfs /dev/mapper/RAID10VG-RAID10LV 1.8T 139G 1.6T 8% /mnt/RAID10 When I do a "fdisk -l" I can see all the drives needed for the RAID-10. The RAID-10 is part of the /dev/mapper, could that be the reason why the device is coming back as busy? Anyone have any suggestions on what I can try to get the drives back into the array? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can someone explain the physical architecture of RAID 10 in complete layman's terms?

    - by Hank
    I am a newbie in the world of storage and I am having a hard time digesting the physical architecture of some of the RAID levels. I am particularly interested in RAID 10, and 50. I asked the question specifically about RAID 10, because I feel if I understand that, I'll understand the other. So, I get the definition of RAID 10 - "minimum 4 disks, a striped array whose segments are mirrored". If I've got 4 disks and Disks 1 and 2 are a mirrored pair, and Disks 3 and 4 are a mirrored pair - where does the data get striped? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do you monitor the health of a mirrored disk in Windows?

    - by NitroxDM
    I have a Mirrored Dynamic disk on my Windows 2003 Server. How do you monitor the health of the volume? Is there a way to have the server send an email when there is an issue with the volume? Is there a way to have the server run S.M.A.R.T. tests? EDIT: Nothing says WTF like logging into a client server, running DISKPART LIST VOLUME and seeing this. Volume ### Ltr Label Fs Type Size Status Info ---------- --- ----------- ----- ---------- ------- --------- -------- Volume 0 X xDrive NTFS Mirror 233 GB Failed Rd Volume 1 C NTFS Simple 57 GB Healthy System Volume 2 D DVD-ROM 0 B Healthy Volume 3 F RAW Partition 466 GB Healthy Volume 4 E New Volume NTFS Partition 932 GB Healthy

    Read the article

  • How to setup RAID 1 with Intel RST on an existing Windows 7 system?

    - by instcode
    I'd like to setup RAID-1 using Intel Rapid Storage Technology on my Windows 7 64-bit system. I have an 1TB SATA HDD with Windows 7 system installed on the first primary partition (leftmost, ~200GB). The rest of this HDD is unallocated (~800GB). I bought another 2TB SATA, then created a primary partition (leftmost, ~500GB) and filled my data in. The rest of this HDD is unallocated (~1.5TB). A quick disk layout (XXX is the unallocated region): HDD1 (1TB): [ 200GB C:\ SYSTEM | XXXXXXXXXXXX ] HDD2 (2TB): [ 500GB Z:\ PROGRAM | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ] Now, I want to create a 500GB RAID-1 partition (I'm not sure if using "partition" is correct here) on the rightmost of the 2 HDDs above without losing any existing data from both disks. Here is the expected layout: HDD1 (1TB): [ 200GB C:\ SYSTEM | XXXXXX | 500GB D:\ DATA - RAID-1 ] HDD2 (2TB): [ 500GB Z:\ PROGRAM | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 500GB D:\ DATA RAID-1] Let's not concern about data lost, is it possible to have that final layout using Intel RST? Previously, I tried this layout using dynamic disk & software RAID from Windows and it worked as expected, however, it's quite ugly in resynching after an OS failure that I don't want. If yes, is there a way to keep the data on existing partitions untouched or, at least, it should keep the SYSTEM partition safe (I'm okay if the PROGRAM partition has to be gone.)? Well, are there any strict/special steps I should follow when using the Intel RST manager in order to achieve that? If none of those questions above are "Yes", could you please suggest some other possible layouts that leave the C:SYSTEM partition untouched?

    Read the article

  • RAID 6 that can read with least 1000 Mbit/s?

    - by Diblo Dk
    I purchased a Dell PERC 6/i which I expected to be able to read with 1000 Mbps. There is not much to do now, but there are some things I wanted knowledge about for another time. I have configured it with four 2 TByte drives and RAID 6. It have 256 MByt ram and transfer rate of 300 Mbps. The benchmark test showed: Min read rate: 136.3 Mbps Max read rate: 329,6 Mbps Avg read rate: 242,2 Mbps What could I had done to get at least 1000 Mbps? Is it normal for internal and external RAID controllers to have a lower transfer rate eg. 300 Mbps? (I did not noticed at the time that it was not 3 Gbps) How would a RAID 10 had performed compared to RAID 6 or 5? Would it have been better to use software RAID (Linux) with the internal 3 Gbps SATA controller? UPDATE: The drives is SATA III 6 Gbps. http://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/desktop-hdd-data-sheet-ds1770-1-1212us.pdf (2TB)

    Read the article

  • Simple Ubuntu Server - Expanding disk space - adding a new drive LVM, RAID0 existing setup - how?

    - by NightWolf
    I have a 1TB ext4 partition mounted at / with all my data and Ubuntu 11.04 (natty) installed. Now this drive is almost full (I used it as a database server for some processing). RAID0 is ok, I can take a failure (touch wood). But I need a way to grow this partition. I have a new 1TB drive I want to add, however as my Ubuntu boot and all data is on the one partition I'm not sure how I can go about setting up a RAID0 or LVM array without loosing all my data. So the question is how can I extend my existing ext4 partition over two physical drives without losing data? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • 5 x 3GB drives and 4 x 1500GB drive best raid setup?

    - by Zen_Silence
    Hello, I am building a file server my plan is the have the Operating system on one raid partition and the data storage on another partition. I currently have 5 x 3GB IDE drives that i would like to put the operating system on theses drives are old but that doesnt matter to me at the moment i have a ton of them so for this raid partition i would probably want to be able to pull out dead a drive and rebuild the array. My file partition is going to consist of 4 x 1.5TB SATA drives I would like the maximum storage with some redundancy. Any suggestions to which Raid level i should use would be greatly appreciated and if you could also suggest a PCI or PCI-e raid controller to handle theses arrays. Thanks in Advance, Zen_Silence

    Read the article

  • Linux RAID0 - relocating member disk

    - by qdot
    I've got an issue I would rather handle with the array online - I am using RAID0 for temporary video storage - data that is low-cost to restore, but that is used frequently. The software array looks like this: md1 : active raid0 sdb1[2] sdc1[3] sdd1[0] sde1[1] 1953487616 blocks 64k chunks I have another partition (sda1) in this system, that I want to use to replace sdc1 (The drives are of varying age, and sdc1 is definitely the slowest one, limiting the entire array's sequential read performance to only 300MB/s). Is there a way to migrate the data from sdc1 to sda1 while the array is still online?

    Read the article

  • ASUS P5B Plus motherboard - no any drives found - how to restore RAID array?

    - by Moha
    We have a small server machine with an ASUS P5B Plus motherboard and 4 SATA HDDs. The HDDs were configured in a RAID10 array. Up until now, everything worked fine, but now the system doesn't recognize the drives. BIOS is set to RAID, jMicron controller is set to RAID, yet I can't see any of the drives in the BIOS setup, and jMicron BIOS tells me "no any drives found" The HDDs all spin up, I hear no clicking sounds or anything that would suggest HDD error. I did a search on this problem and replaced the SATA cables as suggested, but nothing's changed. What I have in mind is checking the CMOS battery and resetting the BIOS to use IDE mode, but I don't know if it will ruin the RAID system on the HDDs. It is not a critical server and there's only one database running on it (which I have backup of), but I don't want to setup the server from scratch if not necessary. What should I try to restore the RAID array and put the server back to working order?

    Read the article

  • Does ZFS replace the need for hardware/software RAID?

    - by user53744
    I want to provide protection against data loss on my servers. Typically, I'd use hardware RAID 1 or 5, but I've been reading up on ZFS. Is it correct that ZFS itself provides RAID 1 or 5 like data protection WITHOUT needing a RAID controller card? If so, I assume a single hard drive is not enough to provide data protection since if that drive fails, all data fails, so how many hard drives do I need to be running for ZFS to provide this protection?

    Read the article

  • Linux mdadm software RAID 6 - does it support bit corruption recovery?

    - by user101203
    Wikipedia says "RAID 2 is the only standard RAID level, other than some implementations of RAID 6, which can automatically recover accurate data from single-bit corruption in data." Does anyone know if the RAID 6 mdadm implementation in Linux is one such implementation that can automatically detect and recover from single-bit data corruption. This pertains to CentOS / Red Hat 6 if those are different from other versions. I tried searching online but didn't have much luck. With SATA error rates being 1 in 1E14 bits, and a 2TB SATA disk containing 1.6E13 bits, this is especially relevant to preventing data corruption. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of the 'Personalities' feature under /proc/mdstat

    - by drcelus
    On some systems I see this : Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath] [faulty] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 10485696 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 477371328 blocks [2/2] [UU] And other systems show : Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 204788 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 4193272 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sda3[0] sdb3[1] 483985276 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 0/4 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk I wonder what is the meaning of Personalities and the impact of having different values.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to change the Raid5 chunk size of an existing device?

    - by AlexCombas
    I have an existing raid5 device which I created using mdadm on Linux. When I created the device I set the chunk size to 64 but I would like to test the performance of various sizes but I don't want to have to rebuild my entire system to do so. If it is not possible to do it live then is it possible to do this by booting with a rescue disk? Any advice on the steps how to do this, either live or with a rescue disk, will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to convert WinXP + Apps on RAID0 to use just one of the two RAID disks?

    - by chris5gd
    I have two 150GB SATA drives in hardware RAID 0, on which I have my C: (Win XP) and D: (installed apps). I'm migrating to Windows 7, but I want to keep my XP system until I've got it all running smoothly. So I want to: break the RAID move C: and D: to one of the drives (there's enough room) use the other drive for Win 7 boot into one or the other Clearly I can't move C: and D: after breaking the RAID, so I'm assuming I need to image the two partitions first, then break the RAID and restore the images to one of the drives. So my questions are: Is this possible? If so, what would be a good (free) imaging/restore tool? How do I ensure that the drive will boot after restoring the images? What sort of gotchas should I look out for? If there's a better solution than this, I'd be grateful for suggestions. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • SDcard /dev/sdb2 is apparently in use by the system; will not make a filesystem here

    - by user171223
    I divided my sdcard into 2 partitions, but It got an error and couldn't create a new partition. Error: /dev/sdb2 is apparently in use by the system; will not make a filesystem here! My /dev/sdb was not mounted, and the output of command lsblk was: cxphong@cxphong:~/Desktop$ lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sr0 11:0 1 1024M 0 rom sda 8:0 0 465.8G 0 disk +-sda1 8:1 0 118.8G 0 part +-sda2 8:2 0 147.7G 0 part /media/DATA +-sda3 8:3 0 137.1G 0 part +-sda4 8:4 0 1K 0 part +-sda5 8:5 0 1023M 0 part [SWAP] +-sda6 8:6 0 61.2G 0 part / sdb 8:16 1 3.7G 0 disk +-sdb1 8:17 1 70.6M 0 part +-sdb2 8:18 1 3.6G 0 part +-sdb1 (dm-0) 252:0 0 70.6M 0 part +-sdb2 (dm-1) 252:1 0 3.6G 0 part I couldn't delete /dev/sdb1 (dm-0) & /dev/sdb2 (dm-1). What are they?

    Read the article

  • Most efficient hard drive configuration for multitasking system

    - by user99391
    I hope I didn’t screw up the tile. Currently I’m using for my system 2x500g Raid0 system. I’m thinking about an upgrade but I got hold up by few questions. I need at least 100-120 gb for my system and apps and looking for a technological upgrade also. I've end up with 3 choices. Single 120 ssd (sata 6 drive) 2x60 ssd drives, but I've heard it's not possible. PCI ssd drive (~120gb). They all have very similar read/write values and prices but I was wondering if anyone could give some tips on which way to go. I run win7x64 and do a lot of multitasking(especially adobe stuff).

    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 | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >