Search Results

Search found 35507 results on 1421 pages for 'performance test'.

Page 49/1421 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • Improved Performance on PeopleSoft Combined Benchmark using SPARC T4-4

    - by Brian
    Oracle's SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle's PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 combined online and batch benchmark achieved a world record 18,000 concurrent users experiencing subsecond response time while executing a PeopleSoft Payroll batch job of 500,000 employees in 32.4 minutes. This result was obtained with a SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle Database 11g Release 2, a SPARC T4-4 server running PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 application server and a SPARC T4-2 server running Oracle WebLogic Server in the web tier. The SPARC T4-4 server running the application tier used Oracle Solaris Zones which provide a flexible, scalable and manageable virtualization environment. The average CPU utilization on the SPARC T4-2 server in the web tier was 17%, on the SPARC T4-4 server in the application tier it was 59%, and on the SPARC T4-4 server in the database tier was 47% (online and batch) leaving significant headroom for additional processing across the three tiers. The SPARC T4-4 server used for the database tier hosted Oracle Database 11g Release 2 using Oracle Automatic Storage Management (ASM) for database files management with I/O performance equivalent to raw devices. Performance Landscape Results are presented for the PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service and Payroll combined benchmark. The new result with 128 streams shows significant improvement in the payroll batch processing time with little impact on the self-service component response time. PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service and Payroll Benchmark Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) SPARC T4-4 (db) 18,000 0.988 0.539 32.4 128 SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) SPARC T4-4 (db) 18,000 0.944 0.503 43.3 64 The following results are for the PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service benchmark that was previous run. The results are not directly comparable with the combined results because they do not include the payroll component. PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service 9.1 Benchmark Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) 2x SPARC T4-2 (db) 18,000 1.048 0.742 N/A N/A The following results are for the PeopleSoft Payroll benchmark that was previous run. The results are not directly comparable with the combined results because they do not include the self-service component. PeopleSoft Payroll (N.A.) 9.1 - 500K Employees (7 Million SQL PayCalc, Unicode) Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-4 (db) N/A N/A N/A 30.84 96 Configuration Summary Application Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-4 server with 4 x SPARC T4 processors, 3.0 GHz 512 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 PeopleTools 8.52 PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 Oracle Tuxedo, Version 10.3.0.0, 64-bit, Patch Level 031 Java Platform, Standard Edition Development Kit 6 Update 32 Database Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-4 server with 4 x SPARC T4 processors, 3.0 GHz 256 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle Database 11g Release 2 PeopleTools 8.52 Oracle Tuxedo, Version 10.3.0.0, 64-bit, Patch Level 031 Micro Focus Server Express (COBOL v 5.1.00) Web Tier Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-2 server with 2 x SPARC T4 processors, 2.85 GHz 256 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 PeopleTools 8.52 Oracle WebLogic Server 10.3.4 Java Platform, Standard Edition Development Kit 6 Update 32 Storage Configuration: 1 x Sun Server X2-4 as a COMSTAR head for data 4 x Intel Xeon X7550, 2.0 GHz 128 GB memory 1 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (80 flash modules) 1 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 as a COMSTAR head for redo logs 12 x 2 TB SAS disks with Niwot Raid controller Benchmark Description This benchmark combines PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 HR Self Service online and PeopleSoft Payroll batch workloads to run on a unified database deployed on Oracle Database 11g Release 2. The PeopleSoft HRSS benchmark kit is a Oracle standard benchmark kit run by all platform vendors to measure the performance. It's an OLTP benchmark where DB SQLs are moderately complex. The results are certified by Oracle and a white paper is published. PeopleSoft HR SS defines a business transaction as a series of HTML pages that guide a user through a particular scenario. Users are defined as corporate Employees, Managers and HR administrators. The benchmark consist of 14 scenarios which emulate users performing typical HCM transactions such as viewing paycheck, promoting and hiring employees, updating employee profile and other typical HCM application transactions. All these transactions are well-defined in the PeopleSoft HR Self-Service 9.1 benchmark kit. This benchmark metric is the weighted average response search/save time for all the transactions. The PeopleSoft 9.1 Payroll (North America) benchmark demonstrates system performance for a range of processing volumes in a specific configuration. This workload represents large batch runs typical of a ERP environment during a mass update. The benchmark measures five application business process run times for a database representing large organization. They are Paysheet Creation, Payroll Calculation, Payroll Confirmation, Print Advice forms, and Create Direct Deposit File. The benchmark metric is the cumulative elapsed time taken to complete the Paysheet Creation, Payroll Calculation and Payroll Confirmation business application processes. The benchmark metrics are taken for each respective benchmark while running simultaneously on the same database back-end. Specifically, the payroll batch processes are started when the online workload reaches steady state (the maximum number of online users) and overlap with online transactions for the duration of the steady state. Key Points and Best Practices Two PeopleSoft Domain sets with 200 application servers each on a SPARC T4-4 server were hosted in 2 separate Oracle Solaris Zones to demonstrate consolidation of multiple application servers, ease of administration and performance tuning. Each Oracle Solaris Zone was bound to a separate processor set, each containing 15 cores (total 120 threads). The default set (1 core from first and third processor socket, total 16 threads) was used for network and disk interrupt handling. This was done to improve performance by reducing memory access latency by using the physical memory closest to the processors and offload I/O interrupt handling to default set threads, freeing up cpu resources for Application Servers threads and balancing application workload across 240 threads. A total of 128 PeopleSoft streams server processes where used on the database node to complete payroll batch job of 500,000 employees in 32.4 minutes. See Also Oracle PeopleSoft Benchmark White Papers oracle.com SPARC T4-2 Server oracle.com OTN SPARC T4-4 Server oracle.com OTN PeopleSoft Enterprise Human Capital Managementoracle.com OTN PeopleSoft Enterprise Human Capital Management (Payroll) oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement Copyright 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. Results as of 8 November 2012.

    Read the article

  • Tester la performance de votre réseau avec Iperf, un tutoriel par Nicolas Hennion

    Bonjour à tous !La rubrique Réseaux vous propose un article expliquant comment tester les performances du réseau avec Iperf par nicolargo : Tester la performance de votre réseau avec Iperf. Citation: Iperf est un des outils indispensables pour tout administrateur réseau qui se respecte. En effet, ce logiciel de mesure de performance réseau, disponible sur de nombreuses plateformes (Linux, BSD, Mac, Windows?) se présente sous la forme d'une ligne de commande à exécuter sur deux machines...

    Read the article

  • A Perspective on Database Performance Tuning

    Fundamentally, database performance tuning is done for two basic reasons, to reduce response time and to reduce resource usage, both of which can apply for any given situation. Julian Stuhler looks at database performance tuning, and why it remains one of the most important topics for any DBA, developer or systems administrator.

    Read the article

  • Data Quality Services Performance Best Practices Guide

    This guide details high-level performance numbers expected and a set of best practices on getting optimal performance when using Data Quality Services (DQS) in SQL Server 2012 with Cumulative Update 1. Schedule Azure backupsRed Gate’s Cloud Services makes it simple to create and schedule backups of your SQL Azure databases to Azure blob storage or Amazon S3. Try it for free today.

    Read the article

  • Talend vs. SSIS: A Simple Performance Comparison

    With all of the ETL tools in the marketplace, which one is best? Jeff Singleton brings us simple performance comparison pitting SSIS against open source powerhouse Talend. Optimize SQL Server performance“With SQL Monitor, we can be proactive in our optimization process, instead of waiting until a customer reports a problem,” John Trumbul, Sr. Software Engineer. Optimize your servers with a free trial.

    Read the article

  • A Perspective on Database Performance Tuning

    Fundamentally, database performance tuning is done for two basic reasons, to reduce response time and to reduce resource usage, both of which can apply for any given situation. Julian Stuhler looks at database performance tuning, and why it remains one of the most important topics for any DBA, developer or systems administrator.

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to go about testing that we handle failures appropriately?

    - by Earlz
    we're working on error handling in an application. We try to have fairly good automated test coverage. One big problem though is that we don't really know of a way to test some of our error handling. For instance, we need to test that whenever there is an uncaught exception, a message is sent to our server with exception information. The big problem with this is that we strive to never have an uncaught exception(and instead have descriptive error messages). So, how do we test something what we never want to actually happen?

    Read the article

  • Profiling SharePoint with ANTS Performance Profiler 5.2

    Using ANTS Performance Profiler with SharePoint has, previously, been possible, but not easy. Version 5.2 of ANTS Performance Profiler changes all that, and Chris Allen has put together a straight-forward guide to profiling SharePoint, demonstrating just how much easier it has become.

    Read the article

  • Will using FAT32 provide better pagefile performance than NTFS?

    - by llazzaro
    Hello, I was discussing with my others personalities, and came up with a conflict. In http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938440.aspx , says that FAT32 is faster when using smaller volumes. Ok separate disk, will give more performance than same disk. But did anyone test this? Scenario 1 : Separate hard disk FAT32 (small volume) Scenario 2 : Separate hard disk NTFS which one will win? minimum gain?

    Read the article

  • Who should write the test plan?

    - by Cheng Kiang
    Hi, I am in the in-house development team of my company, and we develop our company's web sites according to the requirements of the marketing team. Before releasing the site to them for acceptance testing, we were requested to give them a test plan to follow. However, the development team feels that since the requirements came from the requestors, they would have the best knowledge of what to test, what to lookout for, how things should behave etc and a test plan is thus not required. We are always in an argument over this, and developers find it a waste of time to write down things like:- Click on button A. Key in XYZ in the form field and click button B. You should see behaviour C. which we have to repeat for each requirement/feature requested. This is basically rephrasing what's already in the requirements document. We are moving towards using an Agile approach for managing our projects and this is also requested at the end of each iteration. Unit and integration testing aside, who should be the one to come up with the end user acceptance test plan? Should it be the reqestors or the developers? Many thanks in advance. Regards CK

    Read the article

  • IIS SMTP unable to relay for domain on local network.

    - by MartinHN
    Hi I have a network with the following servers: EXCH01 - Exchange Server for @domain.com e-mails. TEST-REP01 - Local reporting server. Have IIS SMTP installed and configured. What happens on the TEST-REP01, is that I have a Windows Service that reads reports in a SQL server that is ready for delivery. All reports is sent one at a time, using the local SMTP server. It works perfectly, unless the recipient e-mail address is [email protected] - the domain that the EXCH01 server manages. I get the following error: Mailbox unavailable. The server response was: 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [email protected] What can I do to troubleshoot this further? I can't seem to find useful information in the SMTP log: 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 EHLO - +TEST-REP01 250 0 210 15 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 MAIL - +FROM:<[email protected]> 250 0 44 31 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 RCPT - +TO:<[email protected]> 550 0 50 28 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 QUIT - TEST-REP01 240 0 50 28 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 EHLO - +TEST-REP01 250 0 210 15 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 MAIL - +FROM:<[email protected]> 250 0 44 31 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 RCPT - +TO:<[email protected]> 550 0 50 28 0 SMTP - - - - 2011-01-05 03:01:38 192.168.8.168 TEST-REP01 SMTPSVC1 TEST-REP01 192.168.8.168 0 QUIT - TEST-REP01 240 0 50 28 0 SMTP - - - - Relay access on the local IIS (TEST-REP01) are set to allow 127.0.0.1, TEST-REP01 and other servers such as TEST-WEB01. DNS settings on the local network is not domain.com - but companyname-domain.local.

    Read the article

  • 4 Places To Find Up-To-Date Antivirus Test Results Online

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Everyone wants to be using the best antivirus and wants to know how they perform, so a list of places you can find this information would be useful. It’s not really reasonable to do any testing yourself; way too time-consuming. x places you can find antivirus test results – av comparatives, av test, http://www.westcoastlabs.com/realTimeTesting/article/?articleID=1   Do you know how effective your antivirus programs is? A variety of organizations regularly compare antivirus programs, throwing a large amount of malware samples at them, seeing how they perform, and ranking them in comparison to each other. It would be very time-consuming to test 30 different antivirus programs in virtual machines with a large amoutn of malware samples yourself, which is why these test results are so useful. Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder? Why Your Android Phone Isn’t Getting Operating System Updates and What You Can Do About It How To Delete, Move, or Rename Locked Files in Windows

    Read the article

  • Revenue Recognition: Performance Obligation Pass a Hurdle

    - by Theresa Hickman
    I met up with Seamus Moran, our resident accounting expert, to get his thoughts about the latest happenings with IFRS. Last week, on March 13,  the comment period on the FASB and IASB exposure draft “Revenue From Contracts with Customers” closed.  FASB and IASB have just over 20 comment letters – a very small number.  The implication is that that the exposure draft does reflect general acceptance, and therefore will be published as both a US and Internationally Generally Accepted Accounting Standard. At a recent conference call, FASB and IASB expected to complete their report to both Boards on the comments by early summer, complete their deliberation of the comments by the fall and draft the final standard text by late this year. It is assumed the concept of Performance Obligations would become US GAAP and IFRS in place of the existing standards.  They confirmed that all existing US GAAP and IFRS guidelines would be withdrawn, and that they were in dialogue with the SEC on withdrawing the SEC guidelines on the revenue issue as well.The open question is when will Performance Obligations become effective?  The Boards have said that they would like this Revenue Recognition standard and the the Lease Accounting standard to be effective at the same time because what isn’t either insurance, interest, or a lease is a revenue arrangement.  However, ascertaining what is generally acceptable in respect of Leases is proving a little elusive, and the Boards have recently diverged a little on the P&L side of the accounting (although both are in agreement that there will be no off-balance sheet leases).  It is therefore likely that the Lease standard might be delayed. One wonders if the Boards will  define effectivity of the Revenue standard independently of the Lease standard or if they will stick with their resolve to make them co-effective.  The Boards have also said that neither standard will be effective before June 2015.Here is the gist of the new Revenue Recognition principle and the steps to apply it:Recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services.Steps to apply the core principles: Identify the contract with the customer Identify the separate performance obligations Determine the transaction price Allocate the the transaction price Recognize Revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied  

    Read the article

  • Real performance gain from faster IDE or SATA hard drive?

    - by raw_noob
    How much of a real-world performance gain would you expect from: replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a 7200rpm IDE HD? replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a SATA-150? It's assumed that the drive in question is both the system drive and the only drive. A modest AMD Sempron-based home computer with adequate DDR memory running Windows XP Home SP3. Thanks for looking.

    Read the article

  • How do large blobs affect SQL delete performance, and how can I mitigate the impact?

    - by Max Pollack
    I'm currently experiencing a strange issue that my understanding of SQL Server doesn't quite mesh with. We use SQL as our file storage for our internal storage service, and our database has about half a million rows in it. Most of the files (86%) are 1mb or under, but even on fresh copies of our database where we simply populate the table with data for the purposes of a test, it appears that rows with large amounts of data stored in a BLOB frequently cause timeouts when our SQL Server is under load. My understanding of how SQL Server deletes rows is that it's a garbage collection process, i.e. the row is marked as a ghost and the row is later deleted by the ghost cleanup process after the changes are copied to the transaction log. This suggests to me that regardless of the size of the data in the blob, row deletion should be close to instantaneous. However when deleting these rows we are definitely experiencing large numbers of timeouts and astoundingly low performance. In our test data set, its files over 30mb that cause this issue. This is an edge case, we don't frequently encounter these, and even though we're looking into SQL filestream as a solution to some of our problems, we're trying to narrow down where these issues are originating from. We ARE performing our deletes inside of a transaction. We're also performing updates to metadata such as file size stats, but these exist in a separate table away from the file data itself. Hierarchy data is stored in the table that contains the file information. Really, in the end it's not so much what we're doing around the deletes that matters, we just can't find any references to low delete performance on rows that contain a large amount of data in a BLOB. We are trying to determine if this is even an avenue worth exploring, or if it has to be one of our processes around the delete that's causing the issue. Are there any situations in which this could occur? Is it common for a database server to come to the point of complete timeouts when many of these deletes are occurring simultaneously? Is there a way to combat this issue if it exists? (cross-posted from StackOverflow )

    Read the article

  • How have Guava unit tests been generated automatically?

    - by dzieciou
    Guava has unit test cases automatically generated: Guava has staggering numbers of unit tests: as of July 2012, the guava-tests package includes over 286,000 individual test cases. Most of these are automatically generated, not written by hand, but Guava's test coverage is extremely thorough, especially for com.google.common.collect. How they were generated? What techniques and technologies were used to design and generate them?

    Read the article

  • GDD-BR 2010 [1G] Android: Building High-Performance Applications

    GDD-BR 2010 [1G] Android: Building High-Performance Applications Speaker: Tim Bray Track: Android Time: G [16:30 - 17:15] Room: 1 Level: 151 Build Android applications that are smooth, fast, responsive, and a pleasure to use. Also, learn about the tools and techniques we use to track down and fix performance problems. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 20 0 ratings Time: 33:34 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • PAL–Performance Analysis of Logs

    - by GavinPayneUK
    I was doing some research earlier this week on SQL Server related troubleshooting tools and was surprised I’d forgotten about Microsoft’s PAL tool – Performance Analysis of Logs. PAL is a free PowerShell UI based tool from Microsoft that creates a perfmon template which can then be used to capture counters most relevant to a high-level performance review PAL will them give for specific Microsoft server deployments, SQL Server being one of them.  Everyone knows what perfmon does, probably too...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for an automated mechanical test bench

    - by JJS
    Background I have a test fixture with a number of communication/data acquisition devices on it that is used as an end of line test for a product. Because of all the various sensors used in the bench and the need to run the test procedure in near real-time, I'm having a hard time structuring the program to be more friendly to modify later on. For example, a National Instruments USB data acquisition device is used to control an analog output (load) and monitor an analog input (current), a digital scale with a serial data interface measures position, an air pressure gauge with a different serial data interface, and the product is interfaced through a proprietary DLL that handles its own serial communication. The hard part The "real-time" aspect of the program is my biggest tripping point. For example, I need to time how long the product needs to go from position 0 to position 10,000 to the tenth of a second. While it's traveling, I need to ramp up an output of the NI DAQ when it reaches position 6,000 and ramp it down when it reaches position 8,000. This sort of control looks easy from browsing NI's LabVIEW docs but I'm stuck with C# for now. All external communication is done by polling which makes for lots of annoying loops. I've slapped together a loose Producer Consumer model where the Producer thread loops through reading the sensors and sets the outputs. The Consumer thread executes functions containing timed loops that poll the Producer for current data and execute movement commands as required. The UI thread polls both threads for updating some gauges indicating current test progress. Unsure where to start Is there a more appropriate pattern for this type of application? Are there any good resources for writing control loops in software (non-LabVIEW) that interface with external sensors and whatnot?

    Read the article

  • How to select li range and move them inside div [closed]

    - by user8012
    How can I select a range of li and move them inside div element. For example: <ul> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> </ul> If the li is more than 6 create a column like this: <ul> <li> <div class="column1"> <ul> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> </ul> </div> </li> <li> <div class="column2"> <ul> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> <li>test</li> </ul> </div> </li> </ul>

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - For Butter or Worse: Smoothing Out Performance in Android UIs

    Google I/O 2012 - For Butter or Worse: Smoothing Out Performance in Android UIs Chet Haase, Romain Guy Great user experience requires buttery smoothness in rendering and animating your interface; your app must have a good, consistent frame rate. This session deep-dives into our work on the Android framework to find and fix performance issues, along with tips on how you can do the same for your applications. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 4804 116 ratings Time: 58:50 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Independent Research on 1500 Companies Reveals Challenges in Performance Visibility – Part 1

    - by ndwyouell
    At the end of May I was joined by Professor Andy Neely of Cambridge University on a webinar, with an audience of over 700, to discuss the results of this extensive study which covered 13 countries and nearly every commercial and industrial sector.  What stunned both of us was not so much the number listening but the 100 questions they asked in just 1 hour.  This certainly represents a record in my experience and for those that organized the webinar. So what was all the fuss about?  Well, to begin with this was a pretty big sample and it represented organizations with over $100m sales across the USA, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It also delivered some pretty interesting results across a wide range of EPM subjects such as profitability, planning and reporting.  Let’s look at some of those findings. We kicked off with profitability, one of the key factors in driving performance, or that is what you would think, but in fact 82% of our respondents said they did not have complete visibility into the profitability of their organization. 91% of these went further to say that, not surprisingly, this lack of knowledge into the profitability has implications with over half citing 3 or more implications.  Implications cited included misallocated resources, revenue opportunities not maximized, erroneous decisions made and impaired financial performance.  Quite a list of implications, especially given the difficult economic circumstances many organizations are operating in at this time. So why is this?  Well other results in the study point to some of the potential reasons.  Firstly 59% of respondents that use spreadsheets use them for monitoring profitability and 93% of all managers responding to the study use spreadsheets to gather and analyze information.  This is an enormous proportion given the problems with using spreadsheets based performance management systems that have been widely talked about for many years.  For profitability analysis this is particularly important when you consider the typical requirement will be to allocate cost and revenue across 6+ dimensions based on many different allocation methods.  Not something that can be done easily in spreadsheets plus it gets to be a nightmare once you want to change allocations, run different scenarios and then change the basis of your planning and budgeting! It is no wonder so many organizations have challenges in performance visibility. My next blog will look at the fragmented nature of many organizations’ planning.  In the meantime if you want to read the complete report on the research go to: http://www.oracle.com/webapps/dialogue/ns/dlgwelcome.jsp?p_ext=Y&p_dlg_id=10077790&src=7038701&Act=29

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >