This is great information. Thanks Bruno. Keep us posted if you find anything more when you have your isolated tests done.
Regards Ram On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:36 PM Bruno Dumon <bru...@ngdata.com> wrote: > Hi Ram, > > Sorry I missed your question. Yes, we do use addColumns. > > Specifically, we also query the Phoenix existence marker, which is a column > named "_0", which is typically the last column in the row (we query this > through custom scans, not through Phoenix). It does seem that reading the > last column in the row does have an extra impact compared to HBase 1.2. > > I have been trying to further pin down our performance issues in an > isolated test but I have not yet arrived at anything conclusive. I'll try > to look into it further next week. > > I did also notice that HBase 2.x spends some more time iterating over the > coprocessors, and we quite a few of those (19, some of those are from > Phoenix, then some endpoint coprocessors and quite some region observers). > We don't do anything in the pre/postScannerNext but still it consumes quite > some time during scanning. Replacing all the region observer coprocessors > by a single one does have a nice effect, 15-20% improvement, though I still > need to test with a wider variety of queries. > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM ramkrishna vasudevan < > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Bruno/Jan > > > > Just a query here. I read your emails in this thread. One simple question > > just to ensure if your tests were similar to Andrew's test. Did your scan > > query have addColumns explicitly added covering all (or most of) the > > columns in the rows? > > > > Regards > > Ram > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:02 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > This is a good finding, nice work! > > > I added a comment on HBASE-24742 that mentions HBASE-24637 on the off > > > chance they are related, although I suspect more changes are implicated > > by > > > the 2.x regression. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Bharath Vissapragada < > > bhara...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > FYI, we filed this today > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24742 > > > > . > > > > We ran into a similar regression when upgrading from 1.3 based branch > > to > > > > 1.6 based branch. After some profiling and code analysis we narrowed > > down > > > > the code paths. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:38 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow. Great stuff, Andrew! > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for compiling and posting it all here. I can only imagine > > how > > > > > time-consuming this was. > > > > > > > > > > On 6/26/20 1:57 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > > Hey Anoop, I opened > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24637 > > > > > and > > > > > > attached the patches and script used to make the comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:33 AM Anoop John < > anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Great investigation Andy. Do you know any Jiras which made > > changes > > > in > > > > > SQM? > > > > > >> Would be great if you can attach your patch which tracks the > scan > > > > > flow. If > > > > > >> we have a Jira for this issue, can you pls attach? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Anoop > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:56 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Related, I think I found a bug in branch-1 where we don’t > > heartbeat > > > > in > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> filter all case until we switch store files, so scanning a very > > > large > > > > > >> store > > > > > >>> file might time out with client defaults. Remarking on this > here > > > so I > > > > > >> don’t > > > > > >>> forget to follow up. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On Jun 25, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I repeated this test with pe --filterAll and the results were > > > > > >> revealing, > > > > > >>> at least for this case. I also patched in thread local hash map > > for > > > > > >> atomic > > > > > >>> counters that I could update from code paths in SQM, > > StoreScanner, > > > > > >>> HFileReader*, and HFileBlock. Because a RPC is processed by a > > > single > > > > > >>> handler thread I could update counters and accumulate > > micro-timings > > > > via > > > > > >>> System#nanoTime() per RPC and dump them out of CallRunner in > some > > > new > > > > > >> trace > > > > > >>> logging. I spent a couple of days making sure the > instrumentation > > > was > > > > > >>> placed equivalently in both 1.6 and 2.2 code bases and was > > > producing > > > > > >>> consistent results. I can provide these patches upon request. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Again, test tables with one family and 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and > 100 > > > > > >>> distinct column-qualifiers per row. After loading the table I > > made > > > a > > > > > >>> snapshot and cloned the snapshot for testing, for both 1.6 and > > 2.2, > > > > so > > > > > >> both > > > > > >>> versions were tested using the exact same data files on HDFS. I > > > also > > > > > used > > > > > >>> the 1.6 version of PE for both, so the only change is on the > > server > > > > > (1.6 > > > > > >> vs > > > > > >>> 2.2 masters and regionservers). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> It appears a refactor to ScanQueryMatcher and friends has > > disabled > > > > the > > > > > >>> ability of filters to provide SKIP hints, which prevents us > from > > > > > >> bypassing > > > > > >>> version checking (so some extra cost in SQM), and appears to > > > disable > > > > an > > > > > >>> optimization that avoids reseeking, leading to a serious and > > > > > proportional > > > > > >>> regression in reseek activity and time spent in that code path. > > So > > > > for > > > > > >>> queries that use filters, there can be a substantial > regression. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Other test cases that did not use filters did not show a > > > regression. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> A test case where I used ROW_INDEX_V1 encoding showed an > > expected > > > > > >> modest > > > > > >>> proportional regression in seeking time, due to the fact it is > > > > > optimized > > > > > >>> for point queries and not optimized for the full table scan > case. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I will come back here when I understand this better. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Here are the results for the pe --filterAll case: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c1 2.2.5 c1 > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c5 2.2.5 c5 > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c10 2.2.5 c10 > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c20 2.2.5 c20 > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c50 2.2.5 c50 > > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c100 2.2.5 c100 > > > > > >>>> Counts > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) > > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) > > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) > > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) > > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) > > > > > >>>> rpcs 1 2 200% 2 6 300% 2 > 10 > > > > > >>> 500% 3 17 567% 4 37 925% 8 > > 72 > > > > > >> 900% > > > > > >>>> block_reads 11507 11508 100% 57255 57257 100% > > > 114471 > > > > > >>> 114474 100% 230372 230377 100% 578292 578298 100% > > > > 1157955 > > > > > >>> 1157963 100% > > > > > >>>> block_unpacks 11507 11508 100% 57255 57257 100% > > > 114471 > > > > > >>> 114474 100% 230372 230377 100% 578292 578298 100% > > > > 1157955 > > > > > >>> 1157963 100% > > > > > >>>> seeker_next 10000000 10000000 100% 50000000 > > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 100% > > > > > 200000000 > > > > > >>> 200000000 100% 500000000 500000000 > > 100% > > > > > >>> 1000000000 1000000000 100% > > > > > >>>> store_next 10000000 9988268 100% 50000000 > > > > 49940082 > > > > > >>> 100% 100000000 99879401 100% > 200000000 > > > > > >>> 199766539 100% 500000000 499414653 100% > > > > > >>> 1000000000 998836518 100% > > > > > >>>> store_reseek 1 11733 > ! 2 59924 > ! > 8 > > > > > >>> 120607 > ! 6 233467 > ! 10 585357 > ! > > 8 > > > > > >>> 1163490 > ! > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> cells_matched 20000000 20000000 100% 60000000 > > > > > >>> 60000000 100% 110000000 110000000 100% > > > > > 210000000 > > > > > >>> 210000000 100% 510000000 510000000 > > 100% > > > > > >>> 1010000000 1010000000 100% > > > > > >>>> column_hint_include 10000000 10000000 100% > > > > 50000000 > > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 > > 100% > > > > > >>> 200000000 200000000 100% 500000000 > 500000000 > > > > > >>> 100% 1000000000 1000000000 100% > > > > > >>>> filter_hint_skip 10000000 10000000 100% > > > > 50000000 > > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 > > 100% > > > > > >>> 200000000 200000000 100% 500000000 > 500000000 > > > > > >>> 100% 1000000000 1000000000 100% > > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_done 9999999 9999999 100% 9999998 9999998 100% > > > > 9999998 > > > > > >>> 9999998 100% 9999997 9999997 100% 9999996 9999996 100% > > > > 9999992 > > > > > >>> 9999992 100% > > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_seek_next_col 1 0 0% 2 > > > > 40000002 > > > > > >>> > ! 2 90000002 > ! 3 > 190000003 > > > > > > ! > > > > > >>> 4 490000004 > ! 8 990000008 > ! > > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_seek_next_row 0 10000000 > ! > 2 > > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 > > > > > 10000000 > > > > > >>> > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > > > > > > ! > > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_skip 10000000 0 0% 50000000 > 0 > > > > > >>> 0% 100000000 0 0% 200000000 0 > > > 0% > > > > > >>> 500000000 0 0% 1000000000 0 0% > > > > > >>>> versions_hint_include_and_seek_next_col 0 0 > 0% > > > > > 0 > > > > > >>> 40000000 > ! 0 90000000 > ! 0 > > > > > >>> 190000000 > ! 0 490000000 > ! 0 > > > > > >> 990000000 > > > > > >>> > ! > > > > > >>>> versions_hint_include_and_seek_next_row 0 0 > 0% > > > > > 0 > > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 > > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 > > > > > 10000000 > > > > > >>> > ! > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Times > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> block_read_ms 174.12 215.96 124% 683.78 883.02 129% > > > > 1724.66 > > > > > >>> 1937.87 112% 3199.93 3470.92 108% 7582.96 7941.45 105% > > > > > 14701.52 > > > > > >>> 16022.57 109% > > > > > >>>> block_unpack_ms 0.63 0.62 99% 2.35 2.35 > > 100% > > > > > >>> 4.36 4.56 105% 9.10 8.30 91% 21.59 22.01 > > > 102% > > > > > >>> 40.97 40.93 100% > > > > > >>>> seeker_next_ms 1073.45 1053.51 98% 4452.52 4728.96 > > 106% > > > > > >>> 9359.61 9706.06 104% 18879.28 18330.93 97% > > > > > 47664.95 > > > > > >>> 46404.26 97% 96511.83 92121.30 > 95% > > > > > >>>> store_next_ms 2651.11 2423.27 91% 12048.64 11398.63 > > > > > >>> 95% 24833.68 23586.20 95% 48493.26 > > > > > 46574.38 > > > > > >>> 96% 120786.00 115603.00 96% 240627.00 > > > > > >>> 227945.00 95% > > > > > >>>> store_reseek_ms 2.71 62.17 2297% 10.93 233.67 > > > 2139% > > > > > >>> 10.88 401.88 3693% 13.98 783.18 5601% 22.26 > 1939.28 > > > > 8714% > > > > > >>> 24.32 4065.25 16714% > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Rows=10000000 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> ValueSize=20 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> BlockEncoding=FAST_DIFF > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Compress=NONE > > > > > >>>> Filter=ALL > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:08 PM Andrew Purtell < > > > apurt...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> I used PE to generate 10M row tables with one family with > > either > > > 1, > > > > > >> 10, > > > > > >>> 20, 50, or 100 values per row (unique column-qualifiers). An > > > increase > > > > > in > > > > > >>> wall clock time was noticeable, for example: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 1.6.0 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> time ./bin/hbase pe --rows=5000000 --table=TestTable_f1_c20 > > > > > >>> --columns=20 --nomapred scan 2 > > > > > >>>>> real 1m20.179s > > > > > >>>>> user 0m45.470s > > > > > >>>>> sys 0m16.572s > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 2.2.5 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> time ./bin/hbase pe --rows=5000000 --table=TestTable_f1_c20 > > > > > >>> --columns=20 --nomapred scan 2 > > > > > >>>>> real 1m31.016s > > > > > >>>>> user 0m48.658s > > > > > >>>>> sys 0m16.965s > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> It didnt really make a difference if I used 1 thread or 4 or > > 10, > > > > the > > > > > >>> delta was about the same, proportionally. I picked two threads > in > > > the > > > > > end > > > > > >>> so I'd have enough time to launch async-profiler twice in > another > > > > > shell, > > > > > >> to > > > > > >>> capture flamegraph and call tree output, respectively. > > > async-profiler > > > > > >>> captured 10 seconds at steady state per test case. Upon first > > > > > inspection > > > > > >>> what jumps out is an increasing proportion of CPU time spent in > > GC > > > in > > > > > >> 2.2.5 > > > > > >>> vs 1.6.0. The difference increases as the number of column > > families > > > > > >>> increase. There is little apparent difference at 1 column > family, > > > > but a > > > > > >> 2x > > > > > >>> or more difference at 20 columns, and a 10x or more difference > at > > > 100 > > > > > >>> columns, eyeballing the charts, flipping back and forth between > > > > browser > > > > > >>> windows. This seems more than coincidental but obviously calls > > for > > > > > >> capture > > > > > >>> and analysis of GC trace, with JFR. Will do that next. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> JVM: openjdk version "1.8.0_232" OpenJDK Runtime Environment > > > (Zulu > > > > > >>> 8.42.0.21-CA-macosx) (build 1.8.0_232-b18) OpenJDK 64-Bit > Server > > VM > > > > > (Zulu > > > > > >>> 8.42.0.21-CA-macosx) (build 25.232-b18, mixed mode) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Regionserver JVM flags: -Xms10g -Xmx10g -XX:+UseG1GC > > > > > >>> -XX:+AlwaysPreTouch -XX:+UseNUMA -XX:-UseBiasedLocking > > > > > >>> -XX:+ParallelRefProcEnabled > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:06 AM Jan Van Besien < > > ja...@ngdata.com > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> This is promising, thanks a lot. Testing with hbase 2.2.5 > > shows > > > an > > > > > >>>>>> improvement, but we're not there yet. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> As reported earlier, hbase 2.1.0 was about 60% slower than > > hbase > > > > > >> 1.2.0 > > > > > >>>>>> in a test that simply scans all the regions in parallel > > without > > > > any > > > > > >>>>>> filter. A test with hbase 2.2.5 shows it to be about 40% > > slower > > > > than > > > > > >>>>>> 1.2.0. So that is better than 2.1.0, but still substantially > > > > slower > > > > > >>>>>> than what hbase 1.2.0 was. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> As before, I tested this both on a 3 node cluster as well as > > > with > > > > a > > > > > >>>>>> unit test using HBaseTestingUtility. Both tests show very > > > similar > > > > > >>>>>> relative differences. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Jan > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:16 PM Anoop John < > > > anoop.hb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> In another mail thread Zheng Hu brought up an important Jra > > fix > > > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657 > > > > > >>>>>>> Can u pls check with this once? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Anoop > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:08 PM Jan Van Besien < > > > ja...@ngdata.com> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:49 AM Anoop John < > > > > anoop.hb...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> As per the above configs, it looks like Bucket Cache is > not > > > > > >>> being used. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Only on heap LRU cache in use. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> True (but it is large enough to hold everything, so I > don't > > > > think > > > > > >>> it > > > > > >>>>>>>> matters). > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> @Jan - Is it possible for you to test with off heap > Bucket > > > > > >> Cache? > > > > > >>>>>>>> Config > > > > > >>>>>>>>> bucket cache off heap mode with size ~7.5 GB > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I did a quick test but it seems not to make a measurable > > > > > >>> difference. > > > > > >>>>>>>> If anything, it is actually slightly slower even. I see > 100% > > > hit > > > > > >>> ratio > > > > > >>>>>>>> in the L1 > > > > > >>>>>>>> LruBlockCache and effectively also 100% in the L2 > > BucketCache > > > > > >> (hit > > > > > >>>>>>>> ratio is not yet at 100% but hits increase with every test > > and > > > > > >>> misses > > > > > >>>>>>>> do not). > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Given that the LruBlockCache was already large enough to > > cache > > > > > >> all > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>> data anyway, I did not expect this to help either, to be > > > honest. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Do you have any DataBlockEncoding enabled on the CF? > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, FAST_DIFF. But this is of course true in both the > tests > > > > with > > > > > >>>>>>>> hbase2 and hbase1. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jan > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>>> Andrew > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn > from > > > > > truth's > > > > > >>> decrepit hands > > > > > >>>>> - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > > >>>> Andrew > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > > > > truth's > > > > > >>> decrepit hands > > > > > >>>> - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > > decrepit hands > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > > > -- > Bruno Dumon > NGDATA > http://www.ngdata.com/ >
