Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Memory and Storage

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2010, 07:56 PM   #1
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default Best Use of RAMdisk?

I am running XP and have 8 gigs of RAM, 5 of which is being used for RAMdisk. I have a 4 gig Pagefile on the RAMdisk, which leaves me with a gig left for other stuff. I was thinking of putting Firefox cache on there... but was wondering what other options would be good.

What suggestions do people ahve for using RAMdisk? Is using 4 gigs of it for a pagefile a good idea? Just looking for people's opinions on what will bring about the best performance.

thanks
__________________
HEAT
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 08:45 PM   #2
her209
No Lifer
 
her209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: ::1
Posts: 55,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittledip View Post
I am running XP and have 8 gigs of RAM, 5 of which is being used for RAMdisk. I have a 4 gig Pagefile on the RAMdisk, which leaves me with a gig left for other stuff. I was thinking of putting Firefox cache on there... but was wondering what other options would be good.
Why would you do this? You're paging pages of memory back into memory (Ramdisk). Its self-defeating.

To answer your original question, I use to do PAR2 recovery, RAR file extraction, etc.
__________________
Stop pleasing others and start pleasing yourself.
her209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 09:16 PM   #3
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by her209 View Post
Why would you do this? You're paging pages of memory back into memory (Ramdisk). Its self-defeating.

To answer your original question, I use to do PAR2 recovery, RAR file extraction, etc.
I figure that however XP uses the pagefile with the RAM (seems like people disagree about how it is used in XP), it would improve performance to keep all "swapping" on the RAM rather than on the hard drive. Not really sure though, that is why I ask.

Thanks for the input.. I think I will do some RAR extracts to see how it works
__________________
HEAT
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 10:05 PM   #4
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default

I just installed FF on it and redirected the cache to it- much snappier now.

Any more ideas for using RAMdisk are welcomed.
__________________
HEAT

Last edited by spittledip; 01-28-2010 at 10:18 PM.
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 10:18 PM   #5
jjmIII
Diamond Member
 
jjmIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canton, OH
Posts: 8,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittledip View Post
I figure that however XP uses the pagefile with the RAM (seems like people disagree about how it is used in XP), it would improve performance to keep all "swapping" on the RAM rather than on the hard drive. Not really sure though, that is why I ask.
You could use less for that pagefile since XP itself has 3gb.. shouldn't really need that much.
__________________
Heatware
jjmIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 11:27 PM   #6
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittledip View Post
I am running XP and have 8 gigs of RAM, 5 of which is being used for RAMdisk. I have a 4 gig Pagefile on the RAMdisk, which leaves me with a gig left for other stuff. I was thinking of putting Firefox cache on there... but was wondering what other options would be good.

What suggestions do people ahve for using RAMdisk? Is using 4 gigs of it for a pagefile a good idea? Just looking for people's opinions on what will bring about the best performance.

thanks
best advice would be to stop using XP. its 9 years old man, its memory management subsystem is archaic. back then comps had 128mb of ram total. woot.
__________________
Desktop: 2500k @ 4.4ghz @ 1.35v on Noctua NH-D14, 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9-9-9-24, Gigabyte Z68 UD4 B3, Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI, 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition & 2TB WD Black, Auzentech Forte 7.1, Seasonic 760wt Platinum, DELL U2711 @ 1440p, Corsair 300R, Win7
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN, i5 4200u, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 840m, IPS Matte @ 1080p, 256GB SSD, Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 11:52 PM   #7
Blain
Lifer
 
Blain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Indiana
Posts: 23,032
Default

With that much system memory, what applications are you running that would even need to hit the page file?
__________________
USA...
Too many delicate hothouse flowers
Blain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 01:38 AM   #8
her209
No Lifer
 
her209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: ::1
Posts: 55,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poohbear View Post
best advice would be to stop using XP. its 9 years old man, its memory management subsystem is archaic. back then comps had 128mb of ram total. woot.
There's nothing wrong with Windows XP memory management.
__________________
Stop pleasing others and start pleasing yourself.
her209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 06:08 AM   #9
Emulex
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ATL
Posts: 9,540
Default

other than the 2/2gb memory split? limited kernel memory?

xp-64 is really 2003 in disguide; so i don't count that as XP.

32bit is more of a hinderance these days
__________________
-------------------------
NAS: Dell 530 Q6600 8gb 4tb headless VHP
KID PC1: Mac Pro Dual nehalem - 6gb - GF120 - HP ZR30W
Browser: Dell 530 Q6600 4GB - Kingston 96gb -gt240- hp LP3065 IPS - 7ult
Tabs: IPAD 1,2,3 IPOD3,HTC flyer, Galaxy Tab - all rooted/jb
Couch1: Macbook Air/Macbook White
Couch2: Macbook Pro 17 2.66 Matte screen - 8GB - SSD
HTPC: Asus C2Q8300/X25-V - Geforce 430- 7ult - Antec MicroFusion 350
Emulex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 07:15 AM   #10
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default

OK, as much as I appreciate people arguing about how well XP manages memory, I would prefer other suggestions for the use RAMdisk.

So I could shrink the pagefile and use more of the RAMdisk for other stuff.. was wondering about that. Will do that.
__________________
HEAT
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 07:40 AM   #11
NoQuarter
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,004
Default

At 8GB of ram on XP you would never need to touch a pagefile unless some app has a memory leak anyway.

Your best bet would be to disable the page file entirely (or rather reduce it to the minimum size, ~16MB, just for app compatibility, and disable kernel paging). This would prevent Windows from proactively paging out memory, while keeping more of your ram available. Putting a large page file on ramdisk is only causing paging to happen that wouldn't if it weren't for the ramdisk to begin with, but there shouldn't be any performance penalty or benefit either method since virtual memory access is seamless.

Cache files on ramdisk isn't a bad idea, but I've never had any other ideas for ramdisk use since loading apps on there always involves front-loading them off the HD anyway.
NoQuarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 07:55 AM   #12
Engineer
Elite Member
 
Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 36,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_noquarter View Post

Your best bet would be to disable the page file entirely (or rather reduce it to the minimum size, ~16MB, just for app compatibility, and disable kernel paging).
OT: I know how to change the size of the page file, but how do you disable kernel paging?

Edit: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \System \CurrentControlSet \Control \Session Manager \Memory Management]
DisablePagingExecutive = 1 (1 = Force to RAM, 0 = Allow to page, Default = 0)

This must be it. I wonder if it still works on Windows 7? I might just do that.

As for the OP, I don't have an issue with running the ramdisk on XP, especially if it's 32 bit XP. The ramdisk can take advantage of the ram that 32bit XP cannot use (above 4GB). As for the page file in ram, not sure about that one.
__________________
University of Kentucky Wildcats!

Go Big Blue...Go Big Blue...Go Big Blue!!!

"Opportunities look a lot like work" - Ashton Kutcher

Last edited by Engineer; 01-29-2010 at 07:58 AM.
Engineer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 08:10 AM   #13
Nothinman
Elite Member
 
Nothinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,672
Default

Quote:
xp-64 is really 2003 in disguide; so i don't count that as XP.
Which makes no sense since they share the same kernel. The version in 2003 may be slightly newer but it's still mostly the same code.

Quote:
32bit is more of a hinderance these days
Only because MS made it so. A proper 32-bit OS with real PAE support would be fine for most people.

Quote:
OK, as much as I appreciate people arguing about how well XP manages memory, I would prefer other suggestions for the use RAMdisk.
The best suggestion is to upgrade to 64-bit Vista or Win7 and ditch the RAMdisk idea completely.

Quote:
Your best bet would be to disable the page file entirely (or rather reduce it to the minimum size, ~16MB, just for app compatibility, and disable kernel paging). This would prevent Windows from proactively paging out memory, while keeping more of your ram available
None of those are good ideas. Just leave the pagefile system managed, it'll create a smallish one on bootup and only grow it if it starts to fill up. And disabling kernel paging won't help anything, the only stuff that would be eligible for paging would be the unused stuff like serial drivers and forcing them to stay in memory is pointless. And the kernel code is so small that you're only talking a few megs anyway.

The pagefile is only 1 part of the equation when dealing with paging and removing it makes the kernel make worse decisions, not better.
__________________
http://www.debian.org
Nothinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 08:25 AM   #14
NoQuarter
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothinman View Post
The pagefile is only 1 part of the equation when dealing with paging and removing it makes the kernel make worse decisions, not better.
Well it makes the kernel not able to make any decisions at all lol


From what I remember about XP's memory management, it's very proactive about paging, and would page out as much as it could including the important parts of the kernel just based on inactivity rather than necessity of RAM. So if you spent a long time in a game, exiting the game would cause a lot of disk thrashing as it pulled everything back out of the page file even though the game never demanded the RAM that would cause it to need paging.

I know in Linux you can very specifically set the behavior of the paging to determine how proactive it is. The advantage of proactive paging is the RAM is ready to use right when you need it, the disadvantage of proactive paging is things you may still want in RAM get pushed out by the whim of the OS because it decided it was inactive too long. I prefer non-proactive paging because have more RAM than all my apps will need (so none of them should be paged out proactively because I have nothing else I plan on loading, even if I haven't alt-tabbed to it in an hour).


But at 8GB an XP system shouldn't even have to make decisions about paging.. it can easily keep every part of the kernel (as you said those parts are small) and all running apps in ram without paging anything unless you're running some monster apps.


I know Vista and Win 7 have a much smarter memory management system worked out so I wouldn't bother in those OS's.


Also using the RAMdisk for page file may be a workaround for the default 2GB user mode app limit since Windows uses PAE to redirect memory to the virtual ram (page file), and should give the app access to more memory through that. But I doubt OP has a >2GB app..

Last edited by NoQuarter; 01-29-2010 at 08:30 AM.
NoQuarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 09:00 AM   #15
Nothinman
Elite Member
 
Nothinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,672
Default

Quote:
Well it makes the kernel not able to make any decisions at all lol
No, it doesn't. All I/O is done via paging and the kernel can still evict unmodified pages from memory, which it does with or without a pagefile. All you've done is restrict it's ability to put modified pages into the pagefile, paging to normal files, binaries, shared libraries, etc will still happen.

Quote:
From what I remember about XP's memory management, it's very proactive about paging, and would page out as much as it could including the important parts of the kernel just based on inactivity rather than necessity of RAM
No, the whole thing is based on LRU lists and while it may proactively put some modified pages into the pagefile that haven't been used in a long time it's not evicting them from memory until necessary and that's generally a good thing. It's not like XP is looking to keep memory free for no good reason.

Quote:
I know in Linux you can very specifically set the behavior of the paging to determine how proactive it is.
A bit. You can change /proc/sys/vm/swappiness if you want, but that's directly related to the swap space usage and not paging in general.

Quote:
The advantage of proactive paging is the RAM is ready to use right when you need it, the disadvantage of proactive paging is things you may still want in RAM get pushed out by the whim of the OS because it decided it was inactive too long. I prefer non-proactive paging because have more RAM than all my apps will need (so none of them should be paged out proactively because I have nothing else I plan on loading, even if I haven't alt-tabbed to it in an hour).
You'd be right if it worked like that.

Quote:
But at 8GB an XP system shouldn't even have to make decisions about paging.. it can easily keep every part of the kernel (as you said those parts are small) and all running apps in ram without paging anything unless you're running some monster apps.
Exactly, so in the best case scenario none of your tweaks do anything.

Quote:
I know Vista and Win 7 have a much smarter memory management system worked out so I wouldn't bother in those OS's.
The core memory management is virtually the same, but they also include userland portions in SuperFetch that watch usage and preload things they think you might want to use soon.

Quote:
Also using the RAMdisk for page file may be a workaround for the default 2GB user mode app limit since Windows uses PAE to redirect memory to the virtual ram (page file), and should give the app access to more memory through that. But I doubt OP has a >2GB app..
Not at all, where you put the pagefile has absolutely zero affect on the VM layout of the kernel or any userland processes. The only workaround for the 2G per-process VM limit is to boot with /3GB and make sure any binaries that need more VM are marked LargeAddressAware.

And PAE has nothing to do with the pagefile or the VM layout. All it does is add another level to the pagetables so that the kernel can address >32-bits of physical memory. Virtual memory is unaffected.

You really should get a copy of Inside Windows or Understanding the Linux kernel and read the chapters on memory management. The details of the implementations differ, but the core ideas about virtual memory are the same.
__________________
http://www.debian.org
Nothinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 09:24 AM   #16
NoQuarter
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothinman View Post
And PAE has nothing to do with the pagefile or the VM layout. All it does is add another level to the pagetables so that the kernel can address >32-bits of physical memory. Virtual memory is unaffected.
Oh, I guess I was confused, I know the location of the pagefile doesn't matter from the VM perspective, but I thought it used some sort of address translation that was PAE or fundamentally similar to PAE to effectively change which pagetable the app is addressing (and the new pagetable happens to be the VM) which also allowed an app beyond 2GB in spite of the arbitrary restriction (1 2GB pagetable for usermode and 1 2GB pagetable for the OS?).

Also I was under the impression that XP basically operated under a swappiness around 80 while Vista and Win7 are more in the ball park of 60 or so, as far as their behavior goes (I know there isn't a swappiness setting for Win.. just comparing)

Last edited by NoQuarter; 01-29-2010 at 09:29 AM.
NoQuarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 09:30 AM   #17
Ben90
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothinman View Post
Exactly, so in the best case scenario none of your tweaks do anything.
lolol, its so sad but completely true... A few years back when I was rocking xp-64 I went on this "optimization spree" only to find out that performance either stayed the same or went down when doing this kinda stuff
Ben90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 09:46 AM   #18
Nothinman
Elite Member
 
Nothinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,672
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_noquarter View Post
Oh, I guess I was confused, I thought it used some sort of address translation that was PAE or fundamentally similar to PAE to effectively change which pagetable the app is addressing (and the new pagetable happens to be the VM).

I was under the impression that XP basically operated under a swappiness around 80 while Vista and Win7 are more in the ball park of 60 or so, as far as their behavior goes (I know there isn't a swappiness setting for Win.. just comparing)
The page tables are a structure used by the OS to track physical->virtual mappings. The only thing PAE does is add another level to expand the physical addresses from 32-bit up to whatever the OS and CPU support. The virtual addresses seen and used by processes are still only 32-bit and are completely unrelated to pagefile activity.

Despite what many of the docs written by MS interns say, the pagefile and virtual memory aren't the same thing. The kernel uses virtual memory to facilitate usage of the pagefile, but that's it.

IMO XP seems to favor the filesystem cache a little too much causing it to generate more I/O than necessary when moving files around and such which makes it seem worse than it is. However, portions of that I/O will also be from non-pagefile sources like runnings binaries, shared libraries, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben90
lolol, its so sad but completely true... A few years back when I was rocking xp-64 I went on this "optimization spree" only to find out that performance either stayed the same or went down when doing this kinda stuff
I wouldn't call it sad, it just means that the MS engineers actually know more than most people give them credit for. Memory management tuning is a difficult thing to get right because no two workloads are exactly alike. But even so, the engineers at MS generally know more than about the subject than Windows' users and the defaults set by those engineers are usually good enough.
__________________
http://www.debian.org
Nothinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 09:59 AM   #19
Engineer
Elite Member
 
Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 36,561
Default

Not to get OT here (as this thread is about ramdisk), but how would you guys optimize the system and pagefile usage to keep writes down to an SSD (which has limited lifetime cell writes of about 10,000 per cell)? Or should I say the hell with it and buy a new SSD in a few years after I wear this one out, lol?

The ramdisk could be used to cache temporary files from IE, Firefox and the Windows TEMP and TMP folders. No reason to move the pagefile there as it would be removing memory from the main pool just to place a pagefile there to swap memory to/from. Sort of self defeating in an OS that can take advantage of ALL of the memory natively.
__________________
University of Kentucky Wildcats!

Go Big Blue...Go Big Blue...Go Big Blue!!!

"Opportunities look a lot like work" - Ashton Kutcher
Engineer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 10:16 AM   #20
Blain
Lifer
 
Blain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Indiana
Posts: 23,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittledip View Post
OK, as much as I appreciate people arguing about how well XP manages memory, I would prefer other suggestions for the use RAMdisk.
As much as we'd like to give you more suggestions about RAMdisk usage, we would prefer that you tell us what applications you're running on your 8GB XP 64-bit machine that would even tap the page file/RAMdisk.
__________________
USA...
Too many delicate hothouse flowers
Blain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 10:19 AM   #21
Nothinman
Elite Member
 
Nothinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engineer View Post
Not to get OT here (as this thread is about ramdisk), but how would you guys optimize the system and pagefile usage to keep writes down to an SSD (which has limited lifetime cell writes of about 10,000 per cell)? Or should I say the hell with it and buy a new SSD in a few years after I wear this one out, lol?
Well, chances are good that you'll be considering a new SSD in a few years regardless. But it's pretty difficult to keep Windows from periodically writing to the system drive. Profiles, registry, temp files, etc will touch that volume at some point regardless of what you do. Sadly, you can't just mount the partition read-only like you can with Linux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engineer View Post
The ramdisk could be used to cache temporary files from IE, Firefox and the Windows TEMP and TMP folders. No reason to move the pagefile there as it would be removing memory from the main pool just to place a pagefile there to swap memory to/from. Sort of self defeating in an OS that can take advantage of ALL of the memory natively.
Putting the pagefile on a RAMdisk is a pretty bad idea, however it's a slightly less bad idea when you're using 32-bit Windows since you can't just let the OS do it's thing with all of your memory. But even so, I'd probably say it's not really worth it, just put it on a decent normal disk and don't worry about it. Those kind of optimizations don't have anywhere near the kind of net effect that people think or want.
__________________
http://www.debian.org
Nothinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 12:33 PM   #22
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default

i am running 32 bit XP, not 64. I got the extra RAM specifically for a RAMdisk for now. I will be upgrading to 7 eventually on this same machine. So, 5 gigs of the RAM are available for the RAMdisk (capped at 3.25, choosing to use just 3 gigs for the OS). So, any talk of using all the RAM for the system is not relevant.

edit-

Will also be getting an SSD around the same time I get W7... when prices are reasonable.
__________________
HEAT
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 07:48 AM   #23
spittledip
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,483
Default

To reduce disk usage I put the temp folders (both user and system) on the ramdrive and dropped the pagefile to 2 gigs. The machine seems generally snappier. I continue to look for other ideas if anyone has any.
__________________
HEAT
spittledip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 10:18 AM   #24
Blain
Lifer
 
Blain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Indiana
Posts: 23,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittledip View Post
The machine seems generally snappier.
I continue to look for other ideas if anyone has any.
We're all out.
__________________
USA...
Too many delicate hothouse flowers
Blain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 09:14 PM   #25
ozkoe
Junior Member
 
ozkoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Default

you have to first sit back and understand ramdisk just as much as you would understand your pet that you love more than your girlfriend. the best way to set up ramdisk realyl depends on how much memory and hard drive space you have, what kind of hard drive interfaces you have, and speed differences to read and write.. im not about to write up a ramdisk bible, but heres my setup and i love it<3
win2k3 server x86 desktop
2.9ghz quad core athlon x4
6gb ddr2 memory
500gb sata hdd

2 gigs dedicated to ramdisk (R:\ with just two directories; R:\TEMP, and R:\FF_CACHE.
search on how to set a cache directory on firefox via about:config, and point it to R:\FF_CACHE, and right click my computer, select properties, advanced tab, Click "Environment Variables" button, and set any %TEMP% or %TMP% variable to R:\TEMP.
i then disable virtual memory/pagefile, why would you use ramdisk for virtual memory? correct me if im wrong but wouldnt the performance degrade a bit due to re-routing to the same medium? you probably dont notice because ram is fast.
i also use fat32 not ntfs =]
(somebody please buy me a super fast ssd + 2tb sata drive =/)
ozkoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.