Professional Web Applications Themes

lock table overflow - Informix

GlacierThe Informix log keeps getting messages about lock table overflows everytime time a checkpoint is done. For example: 17:20:41 Lock table overflow - user id 6, session id 1363 17:22:18 Checkpoint Completed: duration was 0 seconds. 17:22:18 Checkpoint loguniq 1155, logpos 0xd11018 This started right after service pack 3 was applied to Windows 2000. (IDS is still 7.31) There are 20000 locks and I can never find more than a few hundred in use at one time. I guess I need to know if I should increase the number of locks or is it something else. sending to informix-list...

  1. #1

    Default lock table overflow


    GlacierThe Informix log keeps getting messages about lock table overflows
    everytime time a
    checkpoint is done. For example:

    17:20:41 Lock table overflow - user id 6, session id 1363
    17:22:18 Checkpoint Completed: duration was 0 seconds.
    17:22:18 Checkpoint loguniq 1155, logpos 0xd11018

    This started right after service pack 3 was applied to Windows 2000.
    (IDS is still 7.31)

    There are 20000 locks and I can never find more than a few hundred in use
    at one time.

    I guess I need to know if I should increase the number of locks or is it
    something else.

    sending to informix-list
    Bill Hamilton Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: lock table overflow


    Bill,
    what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?

    I can't see why this would suddenly start happening after a Windows Service
    Pack upgrade. But - you never know ...

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bill Hamilton" <bhamfinsco.com>
    To: "informix-list iiug" <informix-listiiug.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:47 PM
    Subject: lock table overflow

    > GlacierThe Informix log keeps getting messages about lock table overflows
    > everytime time a
    > checkpoint is done. For example:
    >
    > 17:20:41 Lock table overflow - user id 6, session id 1363
    > 17:22:18 Checkpoint Completed: duration was 0 seconds.
    > 17:22:18 Checkpoint loguniq 1155, logpos 0xd11018
    >
    > This started right after service pack 3 was applied to Windows 2000.
    > (IDS is still 7.31)
    >
    > There are 20000 locks and I can never find more than a few hundred in use
    > at one time.
    >
    > I guess I need to know if I should increase the number of locks or is it
    > something else.
    >
    > sending to informix-list
    sending to informix-list
    malcolm.iiug Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: lock table overflow

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:04:49 -0500, "Bill Hamilton" <bhamfinsco.com>
    wrote:
    >
    >After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    >ovrlocks = 12
    >ovrbufs = 23
    >bufwaits = 265372
    >lokreqs = 64million+
    >
    >In onconfig:
    >LOCKS = 20,000
    >BUFFS = 200
    >
    >Does this seem reasonable?
    Only 200 BUFFERS seems a bit too few . . .. how much physical memory
    is on your server?

    Any way to see what process is hitting the ovrlock condition??

    >If not, what values would be appropriate?
    >What other parameters should I check?
    >



    >> Bill,
    >> what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >>
    >sending to informix-list
    John Carlson Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: lock table overflow


    The number of locks that you require depend upon the work being performed
    and the number of concurrent users doing work.

    20k worth of locks is very small in most OLTP environments that I have
    worked with. Since you are running out it would be worth increasing. Try
    starting at 100k [still low] and see what happens. I have never seen a
    significant issue from having more than you need available.

    Mark

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bill Hamilton" <bhamfinsco.com>
    To: "malcolm.iiug" <malcolm.iiugbtopenworld.com>; "informix-list iiug"
    <informix-listiiug.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 15:04
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    > After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    > ovrlocks = 12
    > ovrbufs = 23
    > bufwaits = 265372
    > lokreqs = 64million+
    >
    > In onconfig:
    > LOCKS = 20,000
    > BUFFS = 200
    >
    > Does this seem reasonable?
    > If not, what values would be appropriate?
    > What other parameters should I check?
    >
    > > Bill,
    > > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    > >
    > sending to informix-list
    sending to informix-list
    Mark Denham Guest

  5. #5

    Default RE: lock table overflow


    An excerpt from my onconfig:

    LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks
    BUFFERS 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers

    Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really.
    Unless you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least
    50,000 and buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers
    to account for 1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive
    for most applications.

    -EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
    To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    ovrlocks = 12
    ovrbufs = 23
    bufwaits = 265372
    lokreqs = 64million+

    In onconfig:
    LOCKS = 20,000
    BUFFS = 200

    Does this seem reasonable?
    If not, what values would be appropriate?
    What other parameters should I check?
    > Bill,
    > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >
    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list
    Everett Mills Guest

  6. #6

    Default RE: lock table overflow


    I have these onconfig parameters :

    LOCKS 200000
    BUFFERS 50000

    And onstat -p shows :

    ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes
    0 0 0 74218.73 45534.51 2159 4340

    bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    3927560 233 835904429 0 0 5467 201123 331942

    Do I need to increase the parameters?

    thanks

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com]
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:31 p.m.
    Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    An excerpt from my onconfig:

    LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks
    BUFFERS 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers

    Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really. Unless
    you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least 50,000 and
    buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers to account for
    1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive for most
    applications.

    -EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
    To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    ovrlocks = 12 ovrbufs = 23 bufwaits = 265372 lokreqs = 64million+

    In onconfig:
    LOCKS = 20,000
    BUFFS = 200

    Does this seem reasonable?
    If not, what values would be appropriate?
    What other parameters should I check?
    > Bill,
    > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >
    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list
    Francisco Roldan Guest

  7. #7

    Default RE: lock table overflow



    I Forgot to mention that my server has 2 Gigabytes of RAM.

    Thanks in advance

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Francisco Roldan
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:54 p.m.
    Para: 'Everett Mills'; [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    I have these onconfig parameters :

    LOCKS 200000
    BUFFERS 50000

    And onstat -p shows :

    ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes
    0 0 0 74218.73 45534.51 2159 4340

    bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    3927560 233 835904429 0 0 5467 201123 331942

    Do I need to increase the parameters?

    thanks

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com]
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:31 p.m.
    Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    An excerpt from my onconfig:

    LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks
    BUFFERS 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers

    Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really. Unless
    you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least 50,000 and
    buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers to account for
    1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive for most
    applications.

    -EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
    To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    ovrlocks = 12 ovrbufs = 23 bufwaits = 265372 lokreqs = 64million+

    In onconfig:
    LOCKS = 20,000
    BUFFS = 200

    Does this seem reasonable?
    If not, what values would be appropriate?
    What other parameters should I check?
    > Bill,
    > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >
    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list
    Francisco Roldan Guest

  8. #8

    Default RE: lock table overflow


    Francisco-
    Maybe... is your performance degraded? It looks like your counters were last reset (onstat -z) about a week ago. My server has had 23,000 bufwaits in 15 hours, yours has had almost 4,000,000 in 7 days (assuming a 5 minute checkpoint). You could most likely improve your bufwaits some by adding more buffers. Will that buy you a visible improvement? Maybe. The only way to tell is to try.

    --EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Francisco Roldan [mailto:froldan5b.com.gt]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:03 PM
    To: Everett Mills; [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Subject: RE: lock table overflow

    I have these onconfig parameters :

    LOCKS 200000
    BUFFERS 50000

    And onstat -p shows :

    ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes
    0 0 0 74218.73 45534.51 2159 4340

    bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    3927560 233 835904429 0 0 5467 201123 331942

    Do I need to increase the parameters?

    thanks

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com]
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:31 p.m.
    Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    An excerpt from my onconfig:

    LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks
    BUFFERS 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers

    Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really. Unless
    you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least 50,000 and
    buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers to account for
    1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive for most
    applications.

    -EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
    To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    ovrlocks = 12 ovrbufs = 23 bufwaits = 265372 lokreqs = 64million+

    In onconfig:
    LOCKS = 20,000
    BUFFS = 200

    Does this seem reasonable?
    If not, what values would be appropriate?
    What other parameters should I check?
    > Bill,
    > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >
    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list
    Everett Mills Guest

  9. #9

    Default RE: lock table overflow


    Exactly, my last counter reset was about 7 days ago when i
    got informix down for maintenance.

    I will try changing and tunning the parameter.

    thanks


    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com]
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 05:14 p.m.
    Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    Francisco-
    Maybe... is your performance degraded? It looks like your counters
    were last reset (onstat -z) about a week ago. My server has had 23,000
    bufwaits in 15 hours, yours has had almost 4,000,000 in 7 days (assuming a 5
    minute checkpoint). You could most likely improve your bufwaits some by
    adding more buffers. Will that buy you a visible improvement? Maybe. The
    only way to tell is to try.

    --EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Francisco Roldan [mailto:froldan5b.com.gt]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:03 PM
    To: Everett Mills; [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Subject: RE: lock table overflow

    I have these onconfig parameters :

    LOCKS 200000
    BUFFERS 50000

    And onstat -p shows :

    ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes
    0 0 0 74218.73 45534.51 2159 4340

    bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    3927560 233 835904429 0 0 5467 201123 331942

    Do I need to increase the parameters?

    thanks

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com]
    Enviado el: Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:31 p.m.
    Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    Asunto: RE: lock table overflow


    An excerpt from my onconfig:

    LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks
    BUFFERS 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers

    Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really. Unless
    you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least 50,000 and
    buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers to account for
    1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive for most
    applications.

    -EEM
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
    To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug
    Subject: Re: lock table overflow

    After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    ovrlocks = 12 ovrbufs = 23 bufwaits = 265372 lokreqs = 64million+

    In onconfig:
    LOCKS = 20,000
    BUFFS = 200

    Does this seem reasonable?
    If not, what values would be appropriate?
    What other parameters should I check?
    > Bill,
    > what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >
    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list

    sending to informix-list
    Francisco Roldan Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: lock table overflow


    The customer's server has 1GB of ram.
    Unfortuately, it also is the web server, so IIS is running on it.

    I upped the buffers to 400 and the locks to 40000.
    The service reported:
    08:47:27 Onconfig parameter RA_PAGES modified from 4 to 8.
    08:47:27 Onconfig parameter RA_THRESHOLD modified from 2 to 4.

    I don't know how far I should push it.
    >
    > Only 200 BUFFERS seems a bit too few . . .. how much physical memory
    > is on your server?
    >
    > Any way to see what process is hitting the ovrlock condition??
    >
    sending to informix-list
    Bill Hamilton Guest

  11. #11

    Default RE: lock table overflow

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:53:45 -0400, Francisco Roldan wrote:

    Actually, while adding more buffers can have a positive effect on
    bufwaits, especially if ovbuf is not tiny or if your BTR (Buffer Turnover
    Ratio) is large (s/b about 6/hr or less ideally), adding LRUs can have a
    more dramatic effect on bufwaits. Most bufwaits are caused by LRU waits
    rather than actual buffer waits. Check your BR (Bufwaits Ratio) if it is
    below 7 you are likely OK and are experiencing normal bufwaits levels.
    Values for BR over 7 indicate a slow system that can be tuned better and
    a BR of 10 or more indicates a system that is crawling.

    Art S. Kagel
    > Exactly, my last counter reset was about 7 days ago when i got informix
    > down for maintenance.
    >
    > I will try changing and tunning the parameter.
    >
    > thanks
    >
    >
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com] Enviado el:
    > Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 05:14 p.m. Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    > Asunto: RE: lock table overflow
    >
    >
    > Francisco-
    > Maybe... is your performance degraded? It looks like your counters
    > were last reset (onstat -z) about a week ago. My server has had 23,000
    > bufwaits in 15 hours, yours has had almost 4,000,000 in 7 days (assuming
    > a 5 minute checkpoint). You could most likely improve your bufwaits
    > some by adding more buffers. Will that buy you a visible improvement?
    > Maybe. The only way to tell is to try.
    >
    > --EEM
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Francisco Roldan [mailto:froldan5b.com.gt] Sent: Wednesday,
    > August 20, 2003 6:03 PM To: Everett Mills; [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    > Subject: RE: lock table overflow
    >
    > I have these onconfig parameters :
    >
    > LOCKS 200000
    > BUFFERS 50000
    >
    > And onstat -p shows :
    >
    > ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes 0
    > 0 0 74218.73 45534.51 2159 4340
    >
    > bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    > 3927560 233 835904429 0 0 5467 201123 331942
    >
    > Do I need to increase the parameters?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: Everett Mills [mailto:eemillsnationalbeef.com] Enviado el:
    > Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2003 04:31 p.m. Para: [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    > Asunto: RE: lock table overflow
    >
    >
    > An excerpt from my onconfig:
    >
    > LOCKS 250000 # Maximum number of locks BUFFERS
    > 60000 # Maximum number of shared buffers
    >
    > Note that BUFFERS and LOCKS depend on how much RAM you can dedicate to
    > Informix. I have 2GB, so 60,000 buffers isn't a whole lot, really.
    > Unless you are scrambling for RAM, I'd bump your locks to at least
    > 50,000 and buffers to at least 2,000-3,000. The book says add buffers
    > to account for 1/4 of your physical memory... that would be excessive
    > for most applications.
    >
    > -EEM
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:bhamfinsco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20,
    > 2003 2:05 PM To: malcolm.iiug; informix-list iiug Subject: Re: lock
    > table overflow
    >
    > After bringing the server online for about 2 hours, onstat -p shows"
    > ovrlocks = 12 ovrbufs = 23 bufwaits = 265372 lokreqs = 64million+
    >
    > In onconfig:
    > LOCKS = 20,000
    > BUFFS = 200
    >
    > Does this seem reasonable?
    > If not, what values would be appropriate? What other parameters should I
    > check?
    >
    >> Bill,
    >> what is onstat -p showing for ovlocks?
    >>
    > sending to informix-list
    >
    > sending to informix-list
    >
    > sending to informix-list
    >
    > sending to informix-list
    Art S. Kagel Guest

  12. #12

    Default RE: lock table overflow


    You've got 2 obvious problems here.

    1) From your original post you are getting lock overflows. You said these
    overflows were associated with checkpoints. Not so, the online log you sent
    show the lock overflow occurring 2 minutes before the checkpoint. And it
    wouldn't make any sense for the 2 to be associated anyway.
    17:20:41 Lock table overflow - user id 6, session id 1363
    17:22:18 Checkpoint Completed: duration was 0 seconds.
    17:22:18 Checkpoint loguniq 1155, logpos 0xd11018

    A lock table over flow is caused when some user attempts to execute some SQL
    in a single transaction and that SQL requires more locks than are
    configured. Not to hard to do since you only have 20000 locks. Example: a
    user excutes a delete on a table which will delete 10,000 rows. The table
    has 4 indexes on. A lock on each data row and each index item is 50,000
    locks (row level locking assumed). You/ve exceeded your lock table config.
    Up the number of locks. The overhead for increasing locks is minimal, only
    the space they use in virtual shared memory which is several bytes per lock.
    So configure lots of locks.

    2) You have no where near enough BUFFERS allocated. Up your number of
    BUFFERS to some reasonable number. I saw suggestions in this thread ranging
    from 50,00 to 250,000. Pick a number somewhere in the middle and then keep
    an eye on the %cached read and write in onstat -p. Recommendations are for
    read to be over 95% and write over 85%. Tune buffers till you hit those
    percentages.

    Be carefull of one thing when you increase buffers. It can make your
    checkpoints a lot longer and that really makes for angry users. So watch
    your checkpoints. If they increase significantly you'll need to tune your
    LRU parameters.

    Regards,
    Bill Dare




    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Hamilton [SMTP:bhamfinsco.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:58 AM
    > To: John Carlson; [email]informix-listiiug.org[/email]
    > Subject: Re: lock table overflow
    >
    > The customer's server has 1GB of ram.
    > Unfortuately, it also is the web server, so IIS is running on it.
    >
    > I upped the buffers to 400 and the locks to 40000.
    > The service reported:
    > 08:47:27 Onconfig parameter RA_PAGES modified from 4 to 8.
    > 08:47:27 Onconfig parameter RA_THRESHOLD modified from 2 to 4.
    >
    > I don't know how far I should push it.
    > >
    > > Only 200 BUFFERS seems a bit too few . . .. how much physical memory
    > > is on your server?
    > >
    > > Any way to see what process is hitting the ovrlock condition??
    > >
    >
    > sending to informix-list
    sending to informix-list
    Bill Dare Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: lock table overflow


    How do I get BR and BTR?
    This is the onstat -p output:


    Informix Dynamic Server Version 7.31.TD2 -- On-Line -- Up 06:56:56 --
    37120 Kbytes

    Profile
    dskreads pagreads bufreads %cached dskwrits pagwrits bufwrits %cached
    5787892 7443911 69016835 91.61 35540 52447 368971 90.37

    isamtot open start read write rewrite delete commit
    rollbk
    19552342 561605 2665827 11353618 79866 58637 2207 16541 0

    gp_read gp_write gp_rewrt gp_del gp_alloc gp_free gp_curs
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    ovlock ovuserthread ovbuff usercpu syscpu numckpts flushes
    0 0 28 4155.83 1772.55 78 158

    bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans
    735373 36 217446454 0 0 17 1055 36247

    ixda-RA idx-RA da-RA RA-pgsused lchwaits
    741504 1437 4454388 5156644 1387


    sending to informix-list
    Bill Hamilton Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Which (table) lock mode to use
    By Ben in forum PostgreSQL / PGSQL
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 15th, 05:49 AM
  2. Access + Asp + multiuser + table lock
    By Patrick in forum ASP Database
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 17th, 05:16 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 12th, 07:55 AM
  4. Transactions and Table Lock
    By Andreas Bretl in forum Microsoft SQL / MS SQL Server
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 4th, 01:02 PM
  5. Lock a table
    By Panos Stavroulis in forum Microsoft SQL / MS SQL Server
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 1st, 01:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139