Am Dienstag, 16. Februar 2010 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> No need for either, just look up the drive on Samsung's homepage [*]. It's
> 512 bytes/sector, you should be fine.
Gee thanks. Though that still keeps me baffled about my results, I can start
looking for other reasons for it. :) Consider the
Frank Steinmetzger writes:
> Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 schrieb Willie Wong:
> > Instead of guessing using this rather imprecise metric, why not just
> > look up the serial number of your drive and see what the physical
> > sector size is?
>
> Well, at differences of 50%, precision is of no rel
Am Montag, 15. Februar 2010 schrieb Willie Wong:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Sorry if I reheat a topic that some already consider closed. I used the
> > weekend to experiment on that stuff and need to report my results.
> > Because they startle me a li
2010/2/14 Willie Wong :
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>>
>> action SS (1st) SS (2nd) SS+2 SS+4 SS+6 SS+8
>> -+--+--+--+--+--+--
>> untar portage 3m12.517 2m55.916
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48:01AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Sorry if I reheat a topic that some already consider closed. I used the
> weekend to experiment on that stuff and need to report my results. Because
> they startle me a little.
>
> I first tried different start sectors around
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> Hi Willie,
>OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
> default values it had the starting sector was 63 - probably about the
> worst value it could
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:31:15 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> > There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
>> >
>> > 1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdi
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:31:15 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> > There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
> >
> > 1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdisk will still tell
> > you that you can use 63 until
On 10 Feb 2010, at 17:26, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
The mainboard I use (ASUS M3N-WS) has a working hotswap support
(Yes, I tested
this) using hotswap drive bays.
Take a disk out, Linux actually sees it being removed prior to
writing to it
and when I stick it back in, it gets a new device assigned
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:37:47 Stroller wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:14, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
> >> On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Don't get me started on those ;)
> >>> The reason I use Linux Software
On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:14, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally fa
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:03:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > As for recovery, I always use "sysrescuecd" (http://www.sysresccd.org)
> > > and this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Sam
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:03:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > As for recovery, I always use "sysrescuecd" (http://www.sysresccd.org)
> > and this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Same with the Gentoo-livecds)
>
> sysrescuecd failed me har
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:28:59 Stroller wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > ...
> > Don't get me started on those ;)
> > The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
> > 1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
> > 2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
>
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> As for recovery, I always use "sysrescuecd" (http://www.sysresccd.org) and
> this has Raid and LVM support in it. (Same with the Gentoo-livecds)
sysrescuecd failed me hard two nights ago. 64bit kernel paniced with stack
corruptions, 32bit kernel
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:08:44 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this
> > > to get the best performance from it.
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 00:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to
> > get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of
> > figuring this out?
> > I go
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > > so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
> > > removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > > so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
> > > removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 06:59 +, Neil Walker wrote:
> Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand Adaptec
> > 2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
> >
>
> It's a PCI-X card (not PCI-E). Are you sure that's right for your system?
yes, I have
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:31 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > so long as you didn't have any non-detectable disk errors before
> > removing the disk, or any drive failure while one of the drives were
> > removed. And the deterioration in pe
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 01:22:31 Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to
> > get the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of
> > figuring this out?
> > I go
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 17:27 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> Frank,
> >>As best I can tell so far none of the Linux tools will tell you
> >> that the sectors are 4K. I had to go to t
Iain Buchanan wrote:
> I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand Adaptec
> 2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
>
It's a PCI-X card (not PCI-E). Are you sure that's right for your system?
> If I'm buying drives in the 1Tb size - does this 4k issue affect
> hardware
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 February 2010 18:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
>
>
>> Be lucky,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
> How would I go about doing that?
>
Well, you need a rabbit's foot, a four leaf clover, a horseshoe
(remember to keep the open end uppermost), a black cat,
;)
Be
On Mittwoch 10 Februar 2010, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
> > > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
> > > > rinse and
> > > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of
On 9 Feb 2010, at 19:37, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
Don't get me started on those ;)
The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
I'd rather have slow hardware RAID than fast software RAID. I'm not
bein
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>
>
>> > When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
>> > months old internal):
>> > Sector size (
On 9 Feb 2010, at 23:52, Iain Buchanan wrote:
...
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-hand
Adaptec
2420SA - this is real hardware raid right?
Looks like it. Looks pretty nice, too.
The affordable PCI / PCI-X 3wares don't do RAID6 - you have to go PCIe
for that, I
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 14:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
> > months old internal):
> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> > So no speedup for me then. :-
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 18:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
> Be lucky,
>
> Neil
How would I go about doing that?
--
Rgds
Peter.
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 20:37 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Don't get me started on those ;)
> The reason I use Linux Software Raid is because:
> 1) I can't afford hardware raid adapters
> 2) It's generally faster then hardware fakeraid
I'm starting to stray OT here, but I'm considering a second-han
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 13:34 +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
>
> > > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
> > > rinse and
> > > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue.
> >
> > Aren't you thinking of LVM,
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:47 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I now only need to figure out the best way to configure LVM over this to get
> the best performance from it. Does anyone know of a decent way of figuring
> this out?
> I got 6 disks in Raid-5.
why LVM? Planning on changing partition size
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
>
>> I have reset sdb7 to use boundaries divisible by 64.
>> Old range begin%64 size%64 New range begin%64
>> size%64 813113973-976703804 0.8281 0.125
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 22:13:39 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> When I use parted on the drives, it says (both the old external and my 2
> months old internal):
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> So no speedup for me then. :-/
>
That doesn't mean a thing, I'm afraid.
I have the 4KB d
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
> I have reset sdb7 to use boundaries divisible by 64.
> Old rangebegin%64 size%64 New rangebegin%64
> size%64 813113973-976703804 0.82810.125813113984-976703935 0
>0
>
> And guess what - the spe
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:17:48 +, Stroller wrote:
> only applies in the specific case that Paul Hartman is using Linux
> software RAID, not the general case of RAID in general.
That's true, although in the Linux world I expect that the number of
software RAID users far outnumbers the hardware
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 19:03:39 Neil Walker wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> There seems to be a lot of confusion over this RAID thing.
>
> Hardware RAID does not use partitions. The entire drive is used (or,
> actually, the amount defined in setting up the array) and all I/O is
> handled by the BIOS
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 19:25:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stroller
> wrote:
>
> > IMO this is a fdisk "bug". A feature should be added so that it tries to
> > align optimally in most circumstances. RAID controllers should not be
> > trying to do anything clever t
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stroller wrote:
> IMO this is a fdisk "bug". A feature should be added so that it tries to
> align optimally in most circumstances. RAID controllers should not be trying
> to do anything clever to accommodate potential misalignment unless it is
> really cheap to do
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> So sdb7 now ends at sector 976703935. Interestingly, I couldn’t use the
> immediate next sector for sdb8:
> start for sdb8 response by fdisk
> 976703936 sector already allocated
> 976703944 Value out of range. First secto
Hey guys,
There seems to be a lot of confusion over this RAID thing.
Hardware RAID does not use partitions. The entire drive is used (or,
actually, the amount defined in setting up the array) and all I/O is
handled by the BIOS on the RAID controller. The array appears as a
single drive to the OS
On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:27, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:11:14 Stroller wrote:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
array in a
reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am now
>> suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
>> of my RAID5) are starting on sector
On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:43, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:11:14 +, Stroller wrote:
You cannot remove one disk from the array and repartition it, because
the partition is across the array, not the disk. The single disk,
removed from a RAID 5 (specified by Paul Hartman) array does
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
> > 4) Everything I've done so far leave me with messages about partition
> > 1 not ending on a cylinder boundary. Googling on that one says don't
> > worry about it. I don't know...
Well since only the start of a partition determines its a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> There's a few small downsides I've run into with all of this so far:
>
> 1) Since we don't use sector 63 it seems that fdisk will still tell
> you that you can use 63 until you use up all your primary partitions.
> It used to be easier to put
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:11:14 +, Stroller wrote:
> You cannot remove one disk from the array and repartition it, because
> the partition is across the array, not the disk. The single disk,
> removed from a RAID 5 (specified by Paul Hartman) array does not
> contain any partitions, just one
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 16:11:14 Stroller wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > ...
> > With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
> > array in a
> > reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
> > and then re-
> > add the disk
On 9 Feb 2010, at 13:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
...
With Raid (NOT striping) you can remove one disk, leaving the Raid-
array in a
reduced state. Then repartition the disk you removed, repartition
and then re-
add the disk to the array.
Exactly. Except the partitions extend, in the same posit
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 13:46:40 Stroller wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
> >> now
> >> suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (inc
On Dienstag 09 Februar 2010, Stroller wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
> >> now
> >> suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including a
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:46:40 +, Stroller wrote:
> > With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it,
> > rinse and
> > repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue.
>
> Aren't you thinking of LVM, or something?
No. The very nature of RAID is redundancy, so you could
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:27, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am
now
suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
of my RAID5) are starting on sector 63 and I don'
On Monday 08 February 2010 21:34:01 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Valmor de Almeida
wrote:
> > Mark Knecht wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
> >> results also.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > These 4k-sector drives can be
Am Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> 4) Everything I've done so far leave me with messages about partition
> 1 not ending on a cylinder boundary. Googling on that one says don't
> worry about it. I don't know...
Would that be when there’s a + sign behind the end sector? I believe t
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 01:05:11AM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
>
> > Hi Willie,
> >OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
> > sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
> > default value
On 9 Feb 2010, at 00:05, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
...
- probably about the worst value it could be.
Hm what about those first 62 sectors?
If I'm understanding correctly, then the drive will *always* have to
start at the 63rd sector, then swing back round and start reading a
1st sec
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
>
>> Hi Willie,
>> OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
>> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
>> default values it had the s
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote:
> Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am now
> suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts
> of my RAID5) are starting on sector 63 and I don't have sufficient
> free space (or free time) t
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> Hi Willie,
>OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
> default values it had the starting sector was 63
Same here.
> - probably about the worst va
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>>This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
>> results also.
> [snip]
>
> These 4k-sector drives can be problematic when upgrading older
> computers. For instance, my laptop BIOS wo
On 8 Feb 2010, at 05:25, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong > wrote:
[snip]
OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
default values it had the s
Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip]
>
>This has been helpful for me. I'm glad Valmor is getting better
> results also.
[snip]
These 4k-sector drives can be problematic when upgrading older
computers. For instance, my laptop BIOS would not boot from the toshiba
drive I mentioned earlier. However when us
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:42:18PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
>> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
>> default values it had the starting sec
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong wrote:
[snip]
>OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
> default values it had the starting sector was 63 - probably about the
I to
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 01:42:18PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>OK - it turns out if I start fdisk using the -u option it show me
> sector numbers. Looking at the original partition put on just using
> default values it had the starting sector was 63 - probably about the
> worst value it could be
>>> 4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
Good article by Theodore T'so, might be helpful:
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/02/20/aligning-filesystems-to-an-ssds-erase-block-size/
--
Kyle
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> 4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
>>
>> Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
>>
>> Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen. If you
>> misalig
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> 4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
>>
>> Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
>>
>> Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen. If you
>> misalig
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> 4KB physical sectors: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
>
> Pros: Quiet, cool-running, big cache
>
> Cons: The 4KB physical sectors are a problem waiting to happen. If you
> misalign your partitions, disk performance can suffer. I ran
> benc
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
> On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Alexander wrote:
>> On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> > Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
>> >
>> > light turned on solid. That said as far as I know
On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Alexander wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >>Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
> >> light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Alexander wrote:
> On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
>> light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
>> to complete the data is there but I haven't
On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Alexander wrote:
> On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
> >
> > light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
> > to complete the data is there but I haven'
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote:
>Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive
> light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things
> to complete the data is there but I haven't tested it extensively.
>
>Is this a bad drive or a
Hi,
I got a WD 1T drive to use in a new machine for my dad. I didn't
pay a huge amount of attention to the technical details when I
purchased it other than it was SATA2, big, and the price was good.
Here's the NewEgg link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136490
I in
78 matches
Mail list logo
