9:13 a.m.
I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
I have a laptop with 74Gb hdd. At the first I thought to partition it
having single partition on it - it is very useful - no need to look for
the free space of a partition - if whole disk is full then it is full -
unlike with several partitions on it - when it is necessary to move
data from one to another just to have the necessary sum of free space.
Then I sought on defragmentation of fs, that it would be much less
defragmented/higher_performance/longer_hdd_life if I divide the often
changable data from relatively constant - that is the OS files from
var/home/other_storage dirs. So, I decided to use at least 2 partitions.
What is the list opinions and arguments on this matter regarding what
have been said? Big thanks.
12:25 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:11:42 -0500 "Mark Haney"
<mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org> wrote:
Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for
desktop/laptop
users
I guess only experience/time will show what is the true size of swap if
any for Your system.
By the way I use a swap file - instead of partition. - I like it
because of its thing size tuning. Do I loose any performance because of
file and not partition? I have no possibility for now to test it on my
system.
12:20 p.m.
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:19:42 +0530 "Vivek J. Patankar"
<vivek.patankar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Across versions, I do a full install where I leave the data partition
intact. This has made upgrading almost painless and without any major
backups.
And configure software again, and again... ?
4:41 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:16:51AM +0700, Strong wrote:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen"
<lowen(a)pari.edu> wrote:
> I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
> 200MB or so /boot
> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
> 8-10GB /
> remainder /home
Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
1. Why separate /boot?
Fedora install does that all by itself given a blank unpartitioned
disk. I think it's because it's easier for grub to have its own
partition that's not an LVM partition.
--
Chris Green
4:45 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Chris G wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:16:51AM +0700, Strong wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen" <lowen(a)pari.edu>
wrote:
> > I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
> > 200MB or so /boot
> > swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
> > 8-10GB /
> > remainder /home
>
> Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
> 1. Why separate /boot?
Fedora install does that all by itself given a blank unpartitioned
disk. I think it's because it's easier for grub to have its own
partition that's not an LVM partition.
i think we had this conversation before -- didn't we agree that grub
can't access logical volumes? so that /boot *can't* be in a logical
volume? i thought that's how that previous thread played out.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
4:44 p.m.
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 10:41:58 pm Chris G wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:16:51AM +0700, Strong wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen" <lowen(a)pari.edu>
wrote:
> > I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
> > 200MB or so /boot
> > swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
> > 8-10GB /
> > remainder /home
>
> Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
> 1. Why separate /boot?
Fedora install does that all by itself given a blank unpartitioned
disk. I think it's because it's easier for grub to have its own
partition that's not an LVM partition.
--
Chris Green
Grub dosn't understand LVM so it has to be separate (if / is on an LVM Logical
Volume)
--
Benjamin Lewis
Fedora Ambassador
ben.lewis(a)benl.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://benl.co.uk./ PGP Key: 0x647E480C
"In cases of major discrepancy, it is always reality that got it wrong"
-- RFC 1118
12:48 p.m.
Strong wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:19:42 +0530 "Vivek J. Patankar"
<vivek.patankar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Across versions, I do a full install where I leave the data partition
> intact. This has made upgrading almost painless and without any major
> backups.
And configure software again, and again... ?
Not exactly. I said I do it without "major" backups. The home folder is
the only backup that I take. Firefox and Thunderbird settings are the
only restores that I do. When I went from 5 to 6, using the old home
folder kind off hosed my new Gnome profile, so I don't do that any more.
Rest of the stuff in my home are symlinks to /data anyways.
--
Regards,
विवेक ज. पाटणकर (Vivek J. Patankar)
Registered Linux User #374218
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine)
Linux 2.6.22.4-65.fc7 x86_64
12:16 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen" <lowen(a)pari.edu> wrote:
I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
200MB or so /boot
swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
8-10GB /
remainder /home
Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
1. Why separate /boot?
2. 10Gb - for OS is static/dynamic data mixing as Jonathan W wisely has
pointed out?
11:45 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:39 -0700, Steve Lindemann wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Steve Lindemann wrote:
>> In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
>> size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not
on
>> the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
>> it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
>>
> I though the old rule was to for swap to be 2x RAM. This was because
> a core dump would use 1x RAM size of swap. This is no longer the
> case. Now days, if you are doing suspend to disk, you need slightly
> more then the amount of RAM in swap space, plus what you need for
> normal operation. If you are not going to suspend to disk, then the
> swap space needed depends on the system. If you have enough RAM, you
> do not need any swap space. For example, this system has 1M of RAM,
> and it normally uses more then 5M of swap space. There are no simple
> rules for swap size any more.
>
> The thing to remember is that swap space is used for when you do not
> have enough physical memory. It is sometime used for keeping
> program that are sleeping handy for reloading, but still freeing up
> RAM for other uses. (A program may get swapped out when more RAM is
> needed, and left swapped out even though there is RAM being used for
> buffers...)
>
> Mikkel
>
hhhmmm.... now that you mention it, I do remember way *way* back using
2x RAM for swap. But we were lucky to a 1MB of RAM back then, 256K and
512K was pretty common in the big servers. Somewhere along the way, as
RAM size increased, I picked up the 1/2 RAM rule of thumb (probably when
we passed the 1MB mark) and it's worked ok for me for some while now so
I pretty much forgot about the 2x rule of thumb. I wish I could blame
old age, but I've pretty much always had a rotten memory (probably could
use some swap space of my own 8^)
----
how to locate problematic memory banks...
linux memtest86
Craig
11:39 a.m.
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Steve Lindemann wrote:
> In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
> size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
> the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
> it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
>
I though the old rule was to for swap to be 2x RAM. This was because
a core dump would use 1x RAM size of swap. This is no longer the
case. Now days, if you are doing suspend to disk, you need slightly
more then the amount of RAM in swap space, plus what you need for
normal operation. If you are not going to suspend to disk, then the
swap space needed depends on the system. If you have enough RAM, you
do not need any swap space. For example, this system has 1M of RAM,
and it normally uses more then 5M of swap space. There are no simple
rules for swap size any more.
The thing to remember is that swap space is used for when you do not
have enough physical memory. It is sometime used for keeping
program that are sleeping handy for reloading, but still freeing up
RAM for other uses. (A program may get swapped out when more RAM is
needed, and left swapped out even though there is RAM being used for
buffers...)
Mikkel
hhhmmm.... now that you mention it, I do remember way *way* back using
2x RAM for swap. But we were lucky to a 1MB of RAM back then, 256K and
512K was pretty common in the big servers. Somewhere along the way, as
RAM size increased, I picked up the 1/2 RAM rule of thumb (probably when
we passed the 1MB mark) and it's worked ok for me for some while now so
I pretty much forgot about the 2x rule of thumb. I wish I could blame
old age, but I've pretty much always had a rotten memory (probably could
use some swap space of my own 8^)
--
Steve Lindemann __
Network Administrator //\\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Marmot Library Network, Inc. \\// against HTML/RTF email,
url: http://www.marmot.org //\\ vCards & M$ attachments
email: mailto:steve@marmot.org
voice: +1.970.242.3331 ext 16
fax: +1.970.245.7854
11:29 a.m.
Miner, Jonathan W (CSC) (US SSA) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com on behalf of Steve Lindemann
Sent: Wed 11/07/2007 11:36 AM
To: For users of Fedora
Cc:
Subject: Re: Wise disk parting.
In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
----------------------------
How does "hibernation" figure into this equation? I would assume that the
contents of RAM need to stored somewhere on the disk....
hibernation didn't figure into it... not to many *nix laptops when I
started (i.e. none). We also didn't have the huge graphic based
programs of today. My swap sizing is most likely dated and should
probably be scrapped in favor of a new rule of thumb.
I can certainly see your point, I hadn't really considered the need for
hibernation ...I don't use hibernate or other such functions on the few
laptops I do use... besides, almost all of my *nix boxes are servers.
With enough RAM you rarely touch swap (or so my experience has gone).
--
Steve Lindemann __
Network Administrator //\\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Marmot Library Network, Inc. \\// against HTML/RTF email,
url: http://www.marmot.org //\\ vCards & M$ attachments
email: mailto:steve@marmot.org
voice: +1.970.242.3331 ext 16
fax: +1.970.245.7854
11:16 a.m.
Steve Lindemann wrote:
In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
I though the old rule was to for swap to be 2x RAM. This was because
a core dump would use 1x RAM size of swap. This is no longer the
case. Now days, if you are doing suspend to disk, you need slightly
more then the amount of RAM in swap space, plus what you need for
normal operation. If you are not going to suspend to disk, then the
swap space needed depends on the system. If you have enough RAM, you
do not need any swap space. For example, this system has 1M of RAM,
and it normally uses more then 5M of swap space. There are no simple
rules for swap size any more.
The thing to remember is that swap space is used for when you do not
have enough physical memory. It is sometime used for keeping
program that are sleeping handy for reloading, but still freeing up
RAM for other uses. (A program may get swapped out when more RAM is
needed, and left swapped out even though there is RAM being used for
buffers...)
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
11:07 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com on behalf of Steve Lindemann
Sent: Wed 11/07/2007 11:36 AM
To: For users of Fedora
Cc:
Subject: Re: Wise disk parting.
In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
----------------------------
How does "hibernation" figure into this equation? I would assume that the
contents of RAM need to stored somewhere on the disk....
11:06 a.m.
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Mark Haney wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
FWIW, my swap file is only half the size of the RAM I have. Even
with
compiling things like KDE I've never come close to hit the swap limit.
Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for desktop/laptop
users if they aren't just pushing the devil out of the system?
There was a time long ago in the 2.6.x series where you absolutely had to have
swap of twice system RAM or things could get ugly. Also, suspend to disk
with swap writer needs swap to be twice RAM size.
This laptop has a 2G swap and 2G RAM; I am somewhat at a loss to remember how
that came about, as I do tend to clone my drive onto the newer systems. I
think it's the partitioning set up by FC6 on my previous laptop which had 1G
of RAM, and then the Partition Manager clone/move to this laptop kept that
size; but i'm not sure whether I wiped the whole disk when I did the F7 KDE
LiveCD install.
When I install F8 I'll keep better notes, and do a real wipe and reinstall,
then restore /home....
--
Lamar Owen
Chief Information Officer
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
1:07 a.m.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:21:30 +0900 John Summerfield
<debian(a)herakles.homelinux.org> wrote:
Also, some systems' BIOS can't read all the disk. I thought
the
problem was long solved, then got bitten and I've not finished being
twice shy yet.
What's about F - bios update program? Is it available or we have
to use
the manufactors' ones that is ms windos/dos programs?
3:19 p.m.
Strong wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:11:42 -0500 "Mark Haney"
<mhaney(a)ercbroadband.org> wrote:
> Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for desktop/laptop
> users
I guess only experience/time will show what is the true size of swap if
any for Your system.
By the way I use a swap file - instead of partition. - I like it
because of its thing size tuning. Do I loose any performance because of
file and not partition? I have no possibility for now to test it on my
system.
I was waiting for that question to arise. The answer, for 2.6 kernels,
is no.
Previously, yest (but I doubt whether most would have noticed).
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
3:21 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:16:51 +0700,
Strong <strong_yethumble(a)pochta.ru> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen" <lowen(a)pari.edu>
wrote:
>> I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
>> 200MB or so /boot
>> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
>> 8-10GB /
>> remainder /home
> Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
> 1. Why separate /boot?
There are restrictions on /boot since it needs to be read before the system
is up and running (i.e. by grub). Currently it can't be encrypted and is
limited to using only raid 1 for software raid (because the layout for
a single raid 1 element can be used ignoring raid when just reading).
Grub doesn't do LVM either, whereas RH/Fedora defaults to using LVM.
Also, some systems' BIOS can't read all the disk. I thought the problem
was long solved, then got bitten and I've not finished being twice shy yet.
Probably it really is long solved, now.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
1:16 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:16:51 +0700,
Strong <strong_yethumble(a)pochta.ru> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:00:59 -0500 "Lamar Owen"
<lowen(a)pari.edu> wrote:
> I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
> 200MB or so /boot
> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
> 8-10GB /
> remainder /home
Could You explain/argument the partitioning, please?
1. Why separate /boot?
There are restrictions on /boot since it needs to be read before the system
is up and running (i.e. by grub). Currently it can't be encrypted and is
limited to using only raid 1 for software raid (because the layout for
a single raid 1 element can be used ignoring raid when just reading).
11:54 a.m.
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 10:39 -0700, Steve Lindemann wrote:
> hhhmmm.... now that you mention it, I do remember way *way* back using
> 2x RAM for swap. But we were lucky to a 1MB of RAM back then, 256K and
> 512K was pretty common in the big servers. Somewhere along the way, as
> RAM size increased, I picked up the 1/2 RAM rule of thumb (probably when
> we passed the 1MB mark) and it's worked ok for me for some while now so
> I pretty much forgot about the 2x rule of thumb. I wish I could blame
> old age, but I've pretty much always had a rotten memory (probably could
> use some swap space of my own 8^)
----
how to locate problematic memory banks...
linux memtest86
Craig
That only works if you have an x86 processor. So I guess we are out
of luck. Besides, I have not figured out how to load it into my
brain. Another problem is that it has to be the only software
running when doing the test. I have the feeling that there would be
problems rebooting the OS after the test. Something about all that
data being stored in memory. The memory test would overwrite it, and
the reboot would probably do the same. (Hay, there are someone
memories I would be glad to lose, by not all of them.)
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
10:36 a.m.
Mark Haney wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Strong wrote:
>> I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
> I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
> 200MB or so /boot
> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
> 8-10GB /
> remainder /home
>
> I've kept essentially the same /home since RHL 6.2 days.
FWIW, my swap file is only half the size of the RAM I have. Even with
compiling things like KDE I've never come close to hit the swap limit.
Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for desktop/laptop
users if they aren't just pushing the devil out of the system?
In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
--
Steve Lindemann __
Network Administrator //\\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Marmot Library Network, Inc. \\// against HTML/RTF email,
url: http://www.marmot.org //\\ vCards & M$ attachments
email: mailto:steve@marmot.org
voice: +1.970.242.3331 ext 16
fax: +1.970.245.7854
10:11 a.m.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Strong wrote:
> I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
200MB or so /boot
swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
8-10GB /
remainder /home
I've kept essentially the same /home since RHL 6.2 days.
FWIW, my swap file is only half the size of the RAM I have. Even with
compiling things like KDE I've never come close to hit the swap limit.
Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for desktop/laptop
users if they aren't just pushing the devil out of the system?
--
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support
11:25 a.m.
Miner, Jonathan W (CSC) (US SSA) wrote:
It used to be that you needed a continuous section of swap
equal to
your RAM, but improvements in the code has reduced that. The exact
space needed depends on the system state when you hibernate.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
How does "hibernation" figure into this equation? I would assume
that the
contents of RAM need to stored somewhere on the disk....
9:49 a.m.
Strong wrote:
I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
I have a laptop with 74Gb hdd. At the first I thought to partition it
having single partition on it - it is very useful - no need to look for
the free space of a partition - if whole disk is full then it is full -
unlike with several partitions on it - when it is necessary to move
data from one to another just to have the necessary sum of free space.
What is the list opinions and arguments on this matter regarding what
have been said? Big thanks.
My laptop has a 60GB HDD. It has seen FCs 5, 6 & 7. A small boot
parition, 15GB for root and the rest is a partition mounted on /data.
Across versions, I do a full install where I leave the data partition
intact. This has made upgrading almost painless and without any major
backups.
--
Regards,
विवेक ज. पाटणकर (Vivek J. Patankar)
Registered Linux User #374218
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine)
Linux 2.6.22.4-65.fc7 x86_64
9:47 a.m.
What is the list opinions and arguments on this matter
regarding what have been said?
The way I've been partitioning disks has a long legacy, back before laptops were
common, and most UNIX devices were servers. Here's how we partition a
"standard" Linux desktop or laptop:
/ (root) 16GB
/boot 100MB
/var 3GB
the rest of the disk goes into "/disk0", a hold over from pre-volume management
days when server disks were /disk1, /disk2, ... /diskN. We create a /disk0/scratch area
(drwxrwxrwt) for users to write into, most users don't have root privs. On laptops,
users $HOME directories are underneath /disk0/home.
The goal is to keep the OS partitions small, giving the most free space to the user, and
prevent them from filling the disk and impacting system performance. For the most part
this works, but we occasionally run into problems with upgrades if the new version does
not fit in the footprint of the prior version. In this case, we backup /disk0,
re-partition and re-install, then restore the contents of /disk0
To summarize... separtate user data from system data, and separate dynamic data from
static data.
10 a.m.
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Strong wrote:
I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
200MB or so /boot
swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
8-10GB /
remainder /home
I've kept essentially the same /home since RHL 6.2 days.
--
Lamar Owen
Chief Information Officer
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
3:14 p.m.
Steve Lindemann wrote:
Mark Haney wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Strong wrote:
>>> I want to get the list's advice on disk partitioning.
>> I have typically partitioned with four partitions:
>> 200MB or so /boot
>> swap equal to RAM size on late 2.6 kernels
>> 8-10GB /
>> remainder /home
>>
>> I've kept essentially the same /home since RHL 6.2 days.
>
>
> FWIW, my swap file is only half the size of the RAM I have. Even with
> compiling things like KDE I've never come close to hit the swap limit.
> Is the 'same size as RAM' option still really valid for desktop/laptop
> users if they aren't just pushing the devil out of the system?
>
>
In days gone by the rule of thumb for *nix was swap should be 1/2 the
size of RAM. Hadn't heard about that rule changing, but then I'm not on
the bleeding edge these days.... though on my servers with 16GB of RAM
it felt like a bit much setting swap to 8GB (but I did it anyway 8^)
Inversely wrong:-)
For as long as I've been using Linux (Slak 2.6 and RHL 3.0.3) the ROT
has been twice RAM.
And a swap partition.
I reckon the ROT's a load of rot. If you have abundant RAM I see no
reason at all for 2*abundant RAM.
A swap partition is inflexible. I prefer, if I need swap, to have a swap
file. It's easier to remove or resize swap files. A swap partition's
like a pawn move in chess: one can't (easily) undo it.
Until Strong knows better, he should use the partitioning defaults
(except maybe for the swap partition). The defaults work well for most
people, and one he's made the grade as a geek he might know better.
Until then, he risks taking advice that doesn't suit his circumstances
and not knowing it.
Heck, I reckon I'm geek class, but I still generally take a simple
choice (moderated perhaps by the desire to mulitboot):
/boot Vendor's recommendation
/ The rest.
Oh, and ext3, but all the distros I'm likely to use do that now.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
6037
days inactive
6038
days old
25 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Benjamin Lewis -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris G -
Craig White -
John Summerfield -
Lamar Owen -
Mark Haney -
Mikkel -
Miner, Jonathan W (US SSA) -
Robert P. J. Day -
Steve Lindemann -
Strong -
Vivek J. Patankar