OT: Comparison of filesystems

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OT: Comparison of filesystems

Rick Friedman
Currently, I run Debian Sid with two different partitions: / & /home. Each
partition is an ext3 filesystem. I am thinking of changing filesystems (just
to satisfy my curiosity). My system is a typical home user's system.

I would like to hear from others their opinions about differing filesystems
such as: ext3, Reiserfs, XFS, JFS, etc.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Rick
--
Rick's Law: What cannot be imagined will be accomplished by a fool.

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

chris roddy-2
Rick Friedman wrote:
> Currently, I run Debian Sid with two different partitions: / & /home. Each
> partition is an ext3 filesystem. I am thinking of changing filesystems (just
> to satisfy my curiosity). My system is a typical home user's system.
>
> I would like to hear from others their opinions about differing filesystems
> such as: ext3, Reiserfs, XFS, JFS, etc.
>  
You may be interested in this post:

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388



cmr


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Monique Y. Mudama
In reply to this post by Rick Friedman
On 2006-04-24, Rick Friedman penned:
>
> I would like to hear from others their opinions about differing
> filesystems such as: ext3, Reiserfs, XFS, JFS, etc.20

I use ext3 primarily because it's broadly supported.  If the fecal
matter hits the rotary device and I want to be able to read the drive
on another machine, or boot with a different install or repair disk,
anything with ext2 support can read ext3, even though of course you
won't have the journalling support.

Granted, I made this decision a few years ago and maybe support for
reiser etc. is more common now.  Also, I tend to build my own kernels
and streamline them for only what I use, which affects this decision.

--
monique

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Curt Howland
In reply to this post by Rick Friedman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 24 April 2006 11:02, Rick Friedman
<[hidden email]> was heard to say:
> Currently, I run Debian Sid with two different partitions: / &
> /home. Each partition is an ext3 filesystem. I am thinking of
> changing filesystems (just to satisfy my curiosity). My system is a
> typical home user's system.

Personally, I don't see how file system choices are "off-topic", since
a Linux based Debian system has some wonderful flexibility where file
system is concerned, and everyone has to make this decision at some
point even if that decision is go with the "default".

Filesystems (ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, JFS) comparison on Debian Etch
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

The external links on the Wikipedia entry are useful for benchmarking,
the "comparison" is feature comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.

If I were to decide on something more than just ext3, I think I would
go with ReiserFS "just because". It seems quite flexible, and while
it does require a periodic "defragmentation", well, such is life.
Ext2/3 doesn't require defragmentation, but they are also not as
optimized in their performance. There are always trade-offs.

Hope this helps,

Curt-



- --
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRE0Isy9Y35yItIgBAQKqJwf+IBbDQw1UO0spbr+FQs0VIsf8FMnIBNtn
q4J9yCP3GcZ3zEj4XXIhxNz8a6hv3Nv/1pBHw1OjgF6Ebo9uxWIgBKtH5qseGaOq
Wyb/T02JRGGckN68hzbv3WrAYv7cxCuIbWl2Ru74/oggh/SZfAKx0155Dm+kPfkm
YC/2lBs4UTprQgZ+6arOHu9U+q4vK30fUHvArR+hFUndqYf2TCYVovEhm53EH2Cc
TIL5rTXelj/0XmHW3UTxDJW/vI4LtXn1afsqDH9A80kAVSN9LiOTmowIMsxcFNV0
rQfzinRu1gNU2puLjv8i9qm4Ko3btM277G2JczkUcQWydhvjXnVHMg==
=0FB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
[snip]
> My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
> FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
> journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
> ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.

Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2.  They use the same on-
disk structure, but the drivers share little code.

ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"It's a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president
. . . except me."
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Doofus
Ron Johnson wrote:

>On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
>  
>
>>My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
>>FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
>>journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
>>ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2.  They use the same on-
>disk structure, but the drivers share little code.
>
>ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though.
>

And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3
journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this  new and original
code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two?
Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume
the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why
are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same
file system?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Matt Zagrabelny
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:49 +0100, Doofus wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
> >>FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
> >>journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
> >>ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2.  They use the same on-
> >disk structure, but the drivers share little code.
> >
> >ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though.
> >
>
> And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3
> journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this  new and original
> code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two?
> Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume
> the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why
> are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same
> file system?
yes, i believe it is possible to edit /etc/fstab. but not all things
(like data recovery) are possible with a native ext3 mounted as a ext2
partition as are with a native ext2 partition.

--
Matt Zagrabelny - [hidden email] - (218) 726 8844
University of Minnesota Duluth
Information Technology Systems & Services
PGP key 1024D/84E22DA2 2005-11-07
Fingerprint: 78F9 18B3 EF58 56F5 FC85  C5CA 53E7 887F 84E2 2DA2

He is not a fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot
lose.
-Jim Elliot

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Curt Howland
In reply to this post by Rick Friedman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes. You can mount an ext3 system as an ext2 without missing a bit,
*EXCEPT* for what is in the journal. If the ext3 partition was not
unmounted cleanly, data will be lost.

Ext3 does add overhead, and takes up space on the disk, so there are
minimalist reasons for keeping ext2. Whether or not they actually are
different source trees and ext2 isn't just a subset of ext3 now as
ext3 was just a patch on ext2 in the past, is beyond my knowledge.

Curt-

On Monday 24 April 2006 16:22, Doofus <[hidden email]> was
heard to say:
> And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the
> ext3 journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this  new and
> original code? And if so, is there any performance difference
> between the two? Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems
> reasonable to assume the new code is an improvement on the old
> (otherwise why bother), so why are two lines of development being
> maintained for essentially the same file system?

- --
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRE1Jri9Y35yItIgBAQKItgf/RjtnO7YcTyW3FJLKLYfdA3Lg9bWswxQw
ym7ZVegkRiPaoL1fMvtVhCLP6LNKqS2fPkMC1fuFJI7Pmsn8/kLFjJsjfp7XRB6Y
3wpURG24dUsRi9+IKBfz6LTe0UbojGsCGMXS4aHILwb82kNTLT3OF+xJH6g0roS9
wLSG8l3k734EIssaey39PBYxmoCMNVTO/e+9Mgn3OqDr+04kN2vFC24UiFsMJ/2R
fnOvakML5vGbYw08ZthUwP92sNzFcQGMhJJwm4/vK6VDW2PxwJ9fhPRUybAr6mEJ
1UC1Plv2EdCQ1cuhDABiQ6Gj6dkFnAClaUpBBwuMxhUal14RgHoNCA==
=dza7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Doofus
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:49 +0100, Doofus wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
> >>FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
> >>journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
> >>ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2.  They use the same on-
> >disk structure, but the drivers share little code.
> >
> >ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though.
> >
>
> And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3
> journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this  new and original
> code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two?

ext2 is definitely faster than ext3.

> Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume
> the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why
> are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same
> file system?

Choice and flexibility.  Remember, Linux runs on everything from
wristwatches to mainframes.

Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs.  So, you re-
mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re-
mount as ext3.

Besides, I don't think there's much active development happening
on ext2.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"One of the pleasures of pessimism is that you are correct 90% of
the time, and delighted when you are wrong."
George Will


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Matthew R. Dempsky
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:13:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> ext2 is definitely faster than ext3.

A quick googling turned up a filesystem benchmark comparison at
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html, which shows ext2 and ext3
almost indistinguishable.

Do you know of measurements indicating otherwise?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 20:26 -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:13:06PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > ext2 is definitely faster than ext3.
>
> A quick googling turned up a filesystem benchmark comparison at
> http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html, which shows ext2 and ext3
> almost indistinguishable.
>
> Do you know of measurements indicating otherwise?

2 years ago, ext3 was definitely slower.  This is what I remember.

http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

4 degrees from Vladimir Putin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
Ron Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs.  So, you re-
> mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re-
> mount as ext3.
> [...]

Huh?

Are you suggesting that you can't permanently delete a file's data by
overwriting the file before deleting it?




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 20:54 -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > [...]
> > Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs.  So, you re-
> > mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re-
> > mount as ext3.
> > [...]
>
> Huh?
>
> Are you suggesting that you can't permanently delete a file's data by
> overwriting the file before deleting it?

Not in any journaling fs.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"I think of lotteries as a tax on the mathematically challenged."
Roger Jones


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[hidden email]>,
Ron Johnson  <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 20:54 -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
>wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs.  So, you re-
>> > mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re-
>> > mount as ext3.
>> > [...]
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that you can't permanently delete a file's data by
>> overwriting the file before deleting it?
>
>Not in any journaling fs.

Not in any fs that journals that _data_, but ext3 doesn't do that
by default. It only journals meta-data, and you can overwrite
files just fine.

If you do use ext3 in data-journalling mode (mount -o data=journal)
that yes, it will be a lot slower than ext2. That's why the default
is data=ordered. You can make it even faster, and still more safe than
ext2, by using data=writeback. See "man mount".

Mike.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Alvin Oga
In reply to this post by Rick Friedman


On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Rick Friedman wrote:

> Currently, I run Debian Sid with two different partitions: / & /home. Each
> partition is an ext3 filesystem. I am thinking of changing filesystems (just
> to satisfy my curiosity). My system is a typical home user's system.
>
> I would like to hear from others their opinions about differing filesystems
> such as: ext3, Reiserfs, XFS, JFS, etc.
>
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

what is the purpose of the FS comparison ...
depending on what you want, the other fs could be a different
"better choice"  and vice versa

if you don't want to sit and twiddle your thumb for a day while
the system formats your 1TB disk space..
        - you would use xfs, jfs, reiserfs

if you use athlon-2x00 series ( p3/p4 era ) cpu or earlier,
you would probably find out the hard way, not to use reiserfs-3.6.x
on linux-2.4 kernels ( latest version seems to be fine(better) )

if you use compact flash or usb-stick ( embedded linux ), you probably
want msdos for /boot and boot into ramdisk so that oyu can power off
anytime with no side effects

        pull the plug 100 times at any random time
        to simulate the end user powering off anytime

        at a minimum, you always want embedded systems to boot
        and give some kind of useful message like "help, call home
        for me" vs a "blank screen"

for normal day-to-day use on 20GB/40GB disks .. ext3 might be good enough

for normal day-to-day use with 500GB of disk space.. you might want
xfs, jfs, reiserfs

if you want the fastest FS .. plan your partition tables
correctly and amt of memory needed to do the tasks
and in all cases, ext2 will be maybe 2x faster than the others
but you shouldn't hit reset or power off either

-------

always use the latest fs from the originating authors unless
you like to watch 1TB of data randomly disappear due to "old bugs"

more fs fun ..
        http://Linux-Sec.net/FS

c ya
alvin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
In reply to this post by Miquel van Smoorenburg
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> [...]
> If you do use ext3 in data-journalling mode (mount -o data=journal)
> that yes, it will be a lot slower than ext2. That's why the default
> is data=ordered. You can make it even faster, and still more safe than
> ext2, by using data=writeback. See "man mount".
>
> Mike.
>
>

Can I disable data journalizing with reiserfs (and thus make files
overwritable)?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Hendrik Boom-2
In reply to this post by Alvin Oga
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:57:30AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:

> if you don't want to sit and twiddle your thumb for a day while
> the system formats your 1TB disk space..
> - you would use xfs, jfs, reiserfs

While we're on the subject of file systems ... Are there any useful
runours about the long-awaited landing of reiser4 at Debian?

-- hendrik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Johannes Wiedersich
[hidden email] wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:57:30AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> While we're on the subject of file systems ... Are there any useful
> runours about the long-awaited landing of reiser4 at Debian?
>
While we are at it: reiser4 was one of the main reasons, why I switched
from suse to debian :-)

My laptop came with an installation cd to install suse 9.x on my
thinkpad. It installed one big reiser4 partition for everything. After
that I couldn't resize that partition from suse, because it was / and
not from knoppix etc., because reiser4 was not supported.

The simplest solution to have a separate /home was to install debian :-)

Well how would I recommend on reiserfs?

Johannes


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Justin Guerin-2
In reply to this post by Hendrik Boom-2
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 09:16, [hidden email] wrote:
> While we're on the subject of file systems ... Are there any useful
> runours about the long-awaited landing of reiser4 at Debian?
>

The rumors are true (at least on sid):
jguerin@jguerin:/usr/src$ apt-cache search reiser4
kernel-patch-2.6-reiser4 - Kernel patches for Reiser4 FS
libaal-dev - Reiser4's application abstraction library
libreiser4-dev - Reiser4's filesystem access and manipulation library
reiser4progs - administration utilities for the Reiser4 filesystem

from the kernel-patch-2.6-reiser4 package description:
Description: Kernel patches for Reiser4 FS
 Patches to build Reiser4 FS support in your kernel.
 .
 Supported kernel version(s): 2.6.12, 2.6.12.1, 2.6.12.2, 2.6.12.3.
 .
 WARNING: this software is to be considered usable but its deployment in
 production environments is still not recommended. Use at your own risk.

Justin Guerin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems

Mike McCarty
In reply to this post by Curt Howland
Curt Howland wrote:

[snip]

> My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
> FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add

Seconded.

> journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
> ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.

I use ext3, but have disabled simply coming up on the journal after
powerfail/crash.

> If I were to decide on something more than just ext3, I think I would
> go with ReiserFS "just because". It seems quite flexible, and while
> it does require a periodic "defragmentation", well, such is life.
> Ext2/3 doesn't require defragmentation, but they are also not as
> optimized in their performance. There are always trade-offs.

Reiser is somewhat faster than ext3, but has much less error recovery
toolset. It is also somewhat better at actual disc usage for many
small files. OTOH, when large files are involved, it seems to be
somewhat slower than ext3.

IMO, "journaling" provides *no* advantage, and some significant
disadvantages for small file systems. For small discs (like
a few 100 GB or so) a full fsck takes very little time anyway, and is
much better than using a journal. Journaling is sometimes touted
as being "atomic action" resulting in an "incorruptible" file
system. This is just untrue, and the journal, if corrupt, can
result in permanent damage when used. For large file systems,
there can be a significant advantage in speed of recovery from
power fail. This may justify the lesser confidence that using
the journal rather than fsck introduces.

When a powerfail occurs, one does not know what has happened
to the discs. Writes may take place anywhere on the surface.
Using a journal on next reboot may result in the disc being
declared "clean" after applying the journal, but it may actually
be in a very sad state. Using fsck is much better at detecting
errors.

If you need atomic disc access, this can be done, but it
requires more than a journal.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

12