Windows Vista Rules.

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
ReadyDrive/Boost isn't really intended for desktops with high performance harddrives, it's more aimed at laptops where flash has reached a point where it can genuinely outperform their drives. Thing is, I'd rather not have a USB stick sticking out of my computer, especially not something I'm relying on for data, and even more so if it's an expensive stick. Laptops with SD card readers or compact flash card readers could use those, but they're even slower than usb sticks, and sometimes the card readers are far from performance demons themselves.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Nothinman
a) Not exactly, it's not scavenging for binaries and saying 'hmm I'll cache this one' rather it's based on what gets loaded into the VMM. So like prefetch, the first time you run say BattleField Earth it's going to load completey from the backing store. But the second time you load it parts if not all (depending on cache size etc) can come from the ready boost cache.

But if it's only caching the executable how is that helpful? BFE's executable has got to be less than 1% of it's total data size.

It doesnt just cache the executable. There is SO MUCH confusion over what readyboost does...I'm going to try to break it down simply and clear for everyone.

In the ideal world, you have unlimited ram. This isnt the ideal world, and never will be, and its silly to disregard readyboost on the idea that "you should just have more ram".



XP:
You have just RAM and a HD.

The ram holds your running programs.

Free ram is a super fast disk cache, usually small in size since its basically leftover.

The ram disk cache is essentially consisting of the last files to be accessed, with no thought as to whether they'll actually be useful.

WinXP does it's best to page *out* things it thinks it won't need to free memory, since you havent used them in a while. Its often wrong, forcing you to load them unnecessarily when you DO need them.

If you run out of RAM, the HD is used as VM, and is dog slow for this purpose.

The only things you can do to alleviate the burden is buy more ram, or put your pagefile on a separate HD - that way the head isnt forced to constantly swing back and forth between loading the offending files and paging out unnecessary memory pages to disk.



Vista:
You have RAM, Readyboost flash and a HD.

The ram holds your running programs.

Free ram is a super fast disk cache, usually small in size since its basically leftover.

The ram disk cache is intelligently populated. Vista keeps track of which programs you use, and when you use them, and tries to always keep the cache full of useful stuff. It also does not bother wasting the RAM cache with every little operation, considering that things like a virus scanner can essentially wipe out the useful data if it did.

The flash is a secondary disk cache, huge in comparison to the ram cache, and fast for random reads/writes - so recently/frequently accessed files can be loaded from the faster flash instead of always hitting the disk for everything.

Vista does it's best to page *out* things it thinks it won't need since you havent used them in a while, forcing you to load them unnecessarily when you DO need them. The difference being that it keeps better track of whats useful, and when it does have to load them, it can often come from the faster flash cache.

If you run out of RAM, the HD and flash are simultaneously used as VM, mirroring each other.

When those pages are again necessary, it will come back from either the flash or disk, whichever is faster (usually flash).

And things to note about RB:
If you pull out the usb stick, nothing happens, since it's all backed up.
It's also not a security risk, since it's encrypted.
The pages are compressed on the flash disk - this lowers the amount of data to be transferred, and raises it's capacity, at the cost of a few cpu cycles.
Disks are faster for sequential reads, so if that is what would be faster, it will load it from disk, bypassing the flash, even if the necessary pages are in the cache.


So in essence, the flash is a new, completely optional second layer of cache, that works for normal files, but will probably find more use as a secondary VM cache. To my knowledge, it's also persistent across boots. So booting, loading up stuff that requires random reads/writes, is a good chunk faster. Vista handles memory better than XP in the first place, but in situations where there just isnt enough RAM to go around, there's a second layer of cache there, trying to prevent having to hit the disk if at all possible. There is only one thing that the disk is good for - sequential reads. Ideally, anything that isnt a large sequential read should come from somewhere else, and thats what vista's trying to do. It's trying to keep it in main memory above all else, but if it can't, it'll settle for flash.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: Fox5
ReadyDrive/Boost isn't really intended for desktops with high performance harddrives, it's more aimed at laptops where flash has reached a point where it can genuinely outperform their drives. Thing is, I'd rather not have a USB stick sticking out of my computer, especially not something I'm relying on for data, and even more so if it's an expensive stick. Laptops with SD card readers or compact flash card readers could use those, but they're even slower than usb sticks, and sometimes the card readers are far from performance demons themselves.

This is just as intended for dsktops as laptops For laptops the hybrid drives and readyboost help with battery life (hd doesnt need to spin up as much). Even a fast hardrive (transfer rate) has a MUCH longer seek time. The system is tuned to use the HD for long reads (where the seek time factors out) and readyboost for smaller reads where seek time is a big portion of it.

As for not having a key sticking out of your machine, that will be an issue for some. I thre mine on a usb port in back, its no further out than my cable bundle (but of course, to each their own).

As for relying on it, your not. Thats the nice part, you can at ANYTIME walk up and yank the usb key. The system will just fall back to the original (hardrive) backing store.
 

insomnio

Member
Sep 23, 2006
27
0
0
I know everyone is saying that ReadyBoost is bad for a number of reasons, but what is missing in this discussion are simple numbers. Theres no discussion on how much Vista is actually utilizing the flash drive to begin with. I have 2Gb of ram and I know it accesses the flash drive, but at the sametime, Vista isnt putting that much information on there. I would certainly expect this to change if you have 512 or 1Gb of Ram, but still we dont know how much. People are talking about having to get a 2Gb flash drive, which doesnt seem reasonable anyways. If windows is only going to ever use maybe 200Mb of your flash drive, then there is no reason to get one that size, or even not to just get a small SD card, which Vista will use as well.

So if you use ReadyBoost and Vista is using a huge amount for caching, then yes, one could say that it does show how bad the VMM is. But if your running 1-2Gb of Ram on your computer and utilization of ReadyBoost is low, yet you get noticeable performance gain, why shouldn't we use it and whats so bad about that?
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Nothinman
a) Not exactly, it's not scavenging for binaries and saying 'hmm I'll cache this one' rather it's based on what gets loaded into the VMM. So like prefetch, the first time you run say BattleField Earth it's going to load completey from the backing store. But the second time you load it parts if not all (depending on cache size etc) can come from the ready boost cache.

But if it's only caching the executable how is that helpful? BFE's executable has got to be less than 1% of it's total data size.

It doesnt just cache the executable. There is SO MUCH confusion over what readyboost does...I'm going to try to break it down simply and clear for everyone.

In the ideal world, you have unlimited ram. This isnt the ideal world, and never will be, and its silly to disregard readyboost on the idea that "you should just have more ram".



XP:
You have just RAM and a HD.

The ram holds your running programs.

Free ram is a super fast disk cache, usually small in size since its basically leftover.

The ram disk cache is essentially consisting of the last files to be accessed, with no thought as to whether they'll actually be useful.

WinXP does it's best to page *out* things it thinks it won't need to free memory, since you havent used them in a while. Its often wrong, forcing you to load them unnecessarily when you DO need them.

If you run out of RAM, the HD is used as VM, and is dog slow for this purpose.

The only things you can do to alleviate the burden is buy more ram, or put your pagefile on a separate HD - that way the head isnt forced to constantly swing back and forth between loading the offending files and paging out unnecessary memory pages to disk.



Vista:
You have RAM, Readyboost flash and a HD.

The ram holds your running programs.

Free ram is a super fast disk cache, usually small in size since its basically leftover.

The ram disk cache is intelligently populated. Vista keeps track of which programs you use, and when you use them, and tries to always keep the cache full of useful stuff. It also does not bother wasting the RAM cache with every little operation, considering that things like a virus scanner can essentially wipe out the useful data if it did.

The flash is a secondary disk cache, huge in comparison to the ram cache, and fast for random reads/writes - so recently/frequently accessed files can be loaded from the faster flash instead of always hitting the disk for everything.

Vista does it's best to page *out* things it thinks it won't need since you havent used them in a while, forcing you to load them unnecessarily when you DO need them. The difference being that it keeps better track of whats useful, and when it does have to load them, it can often come from the faster flash cache.

If you run out of RAM, the HD and flash are simultaneously used as VM, mirroring each other.

When those pages are again necessary, it will come back from either the flash or disk, whichever is faster (usually flash).

And things to note about RB:
If you pull out the usb stick, nothing happens, since it's all backed up.
It's also not a security risk, since it's encrypted.
The pages are compressed on the flash disk - this lowers the amount of data to be transferred, and raises it's capacity, at the cost of a few cpu cycles.
Disks are faster for sequential reads, so if that is what would be faster, it will load it from disk, bypassing the flash, even if the necessary pages are in the cache.


So in essence, the flash is a new, completely optional second layer of cache, that works for normal files, but will probably find more use as a secondary VM cache. To my knowledge, it's also persistent across boots. So booting, loading up stuff that requires random reads/writes, is a good chunk faster. Vista handles memory better than XP in the first place, but in situations where there just isnt enough RAM to go around, there's a second layer of cache there, trying to prevent having to hit the disk if at all possible. There is only one thing that the disk is good for - sequential reads. Ideally, anything that isnt a large sequential read should come from somewhere else, and thats what vista's trying to do. It's trying to keep it in main memory above all else, but if it can't, it'll settle for flash.

Nice post, I'll only comment on the "Free ram is a super fast disk cache, usually small in size since its basically leftover. " Its often quite larger (50% or more of memory) and one of the problems in XP (IMHO) is that this was given preference over things that could be repaged from binaries. Causing more problems even when there should have been enough memory for both.

That said hopefully your post will clear up some of the confusion.
 

archcommus

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
8,115
0
76
Alright, I sort of understand how the ReadyBoost coupled with a flash drive speeds up even the first time loading something, going from the HDD to the flash drive to main memory, instead of straight into main memory. But I still don't like the fact that doing this is necessary if you want to curb pagefile use, and I still don't like the fact that it's an external stick! Period. If such a thing is really that useful, there should be another slot for it on our motherboards. Maybe I'll use my 512 flash drive with ReadyBoost if it actually helps noticeably, but that doesn't mean I'll like it or think it's not a band-aid or just a bridge to a more permanent solution. And I really can't see myself complaining much about program load times without it anyway. I'm not timing things with a stopwatch here.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
But I still don't like the fact that doing this is necessary if you want to curb pagefile use

All I can say is if you think this is to curb page file use, you still don't understand the feature. Pagefiles are needed when you have more comitted memory than physical. Nothing is going to change that. Was the memory manager in XP striking a good balance, I tend to think not (but not horrible either). Vista itself addreses alot of this, and those changes having nothing to do with ReadyBoost.

and I still don't like the fact that it's an external stick! Period. If such a thing is really that useful, there should be another slot for it on our motherboards

Intel is moving towards exactly that.

Bill

 

archcommus

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
8,115
0
76
Originally posted by: bsobel
But I still don't like the fact that doing this is necessary if you want to curb pagefile use

All I can say is if you think this is to curb page file use, you still don't understand the feature. Pagefiles are needed when you have more comitted memory than physical. Nothing is going to change that. Was the memory manager in XP striking a good balance, I tend to think not (but not horrible either). Vista itself addreses alot of this, and those changes having nothing to do with ReadyBoost.

and I still don't like the fact that it's an external stick! Period. If such a thing is really that useful, there should be another slot for it on our motherboards

Intel is moving towards exactly that.

Bill
I indicated in my post that I do see its other uses, but according to BD2003's post ONE of its uses is still to curb pagefile use.

So, if main memory was faster, this wouldn't be necessary?
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
but according to BD2003's post ONE of its uses is still to curb pagefile use.

Perhaps he could have worded that a bit better, I'd say it's to minimize the IO cost of pagefile use. If you have to page, you have to page. Other Vista changes will making paging less likely. These features just help once your at the point that it's going to happen.

So, if main memory was faster, this wouldn't be necessary?

No, if your harddrive was faster this wouldnt be neccesary.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: Bad Dude
Well, I would upgrade to Vista if the drivers are all updated to run correctly.

Most XP drivers run fine. Which devices are you having problems with?
 

Slackware

Banned
Jan 5, 2007
365
0
0
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Bad Dude
Well, I would upgrade to Vista if the drivers are all updated to run correctly.

Most XP drivers run fine. Which devices are you having problems with?

Sound and video seems to be the drivers that are specific to Vista and people have problems with mostly.

Specifically Creative and Nvidia, just from the buzz i hear.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Well Creative has always been known for putting out crap hardware and software so I doubt Vista is any way responsibel for that and nVidia supposedly released Vista RTM drivers recently so their issues might be gone.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: BD2003

Honestly, at this point, I've chosen to ignore the troll. Unless people start actually agreeing with him about the BS and lies he spouts, I'm just going to assume everyone already realizes he has no idea what he's talking about.

Have you even tried any other OS for more than 6 months?
You've been using Windows XP for majority of what you do. You can't tell an improvement from a chalked-on feature found on another OS.

Most people here don't know much about Linux and OS 10. So, they cannot comment. Same goes for you.

 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?

jC

Norton 2007 and Symantec Client Security 10.2 depending on the box.

This is sad. You've gotten so used to viruses, that you unconsciously accept that fact that you NEED an anti-virus.

Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

That says a lot concerning the quality of the vehicle. Enough that you wouldn't buy a car there. So, why have that attitude for your OS?
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: bsobel
but according to BD2003's post ONE of its uses is still to curb pagefile use.

Perhaps he could have worded that a bit better, I'd say it's to minimize the IO cost of pagefile use. If you have to page, you have to page. Other Vista changes will making paging less likely. These features just help once your at the point that it's going to happen.

So, if main memory was faster, this wouldn't be necessary?

No, if your harddrive was faster this wouldnt be neccesary.

Precisely. Having the data you need in main memory is always the ultimate goal. You can do it the slow way, or the not so slow way - your choice. It's not the speed of the memory, its the limited capacity.

Looking at the performance monitor, it writes to the readyboost cache quite often. It reads far less often. So it does it's best to try to fill it up beforehand, to function as a full disk cache, rather than after the fact of page, which would just make it a VM cache.

Hard drives are good for sequential I/O and mass, cheap storage. They are terrible on every other count - size, noise, power usage etc.

Flash, specifically, fast, internal flash, is going to be standard sooner than later. It will be cost prohibitive for quite a long time to come to replace hard disks with solid state drives. So this is the next best thing.

With a good few gb of fast non-volatile memory, you can look forward to many good things:
Super fast boots
The end of long game startup and level loading
Far less "chugging" in low memory situations
lower power consumption on laptops (Hybrid drives)

Internal cache will certainly be faster, more persistent, and they can do away with the encryption and USB overhead, so less of a CPU drag (even though it's already miniscule).

Once it speeds up and gets internalized on PCI express, I'd personally take 2gb of RAM and 8gb of cache vs. 4gb of RAM.

As of right now, even though its quite useful as a general disk cache, the real "performance gains" are seen in low memory situations where it can swap to VM 10+ times faster than a HD.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003

Honestly, at this point, I've chosen to ignore the troll. Unless people start actually agreeing with him about the BS and lies he spouts, I'm just going to assume everyone already realizes he has no idea what he's talking about.

Have you even tried any other OS for more than 6 months?
You've been using Windows XP for majority of what you do. You can't tell an improvement from a chalked-on feature found on another OS.

Most people here don't know much about Linux and OS 10. So, they cannot comment. Same goes for you.

This is a discussion about Vista and Windows, not about other OSes. Why can't you get that through your thick head?

And for the record, I don't even run a real time virus scanner - I just don't expose myself to viruses. I scan nightly while I sleep. I don't know why I bother though, I havent got a virus in years. It's not the OS - it's the user.
 

Tegeril

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2003
2,906
5
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?

jC

Norton 2007 and Symantec Client Security 10.2 depending on the box.

This is sad. You've gotten so used to viruses, that you unconsciously accept that fact that you NEED an anti-virus.

Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

That says a lot concerning the quality of the vehicle. Enough that you wouldn't buy a car there. So, why have that attitude for your OS?

Seriously, why do you keep trying?
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: Tegeril
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?

jC

Norton 2007 and Symantec Client Security 10.2 depending on the box.

This is sad. You've gotten so used to viruses, that you unconsciously accept that fact that you NEED an anti-virus.

Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

That says a lot concerning the quality of the vehicle. Enough that you wouldn't buy a car there. So, why have that attitude for your OS?

Seriously, why do you keep trying?

Can you answer the question?

 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Well Creative has always been known for putting out crap hardware and software so I doubt Vista is any way responsibel for that and nVidia supposedly released Vista RTM drivers recently so their issues might be gone.

Creatives beta drivers (at least for some of the Audigies) expire on the 12th, so hopefully the RTM drivers will be posted around that time.

 

JonnyBlaze

Diamond Member
May 24, 2001
3,114
1
0
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Tegeril
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?

jC

Norton 2007 and Symantec Client Security 10.2 depending on the box.

This is sad. You've gotten so used to viruses, that you unconsciously accept that fact that you NEED an anti-virus.

Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

That says a lot concerning the quality of the vehicle. Enough that you wouldn't buy a car there. So, why have that attitude for your OS?

Seriously, why do you keep trying?

Can you answer the question?

is it impossible to make a os that is as widely used as windows virus proof.

 

Slackware

Banned
Jan 5, 2007
365
0
0
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: BD2003

Honestly, at this point, I've chosen to ignore the troll. Unless people start actually agreeing with him about the BS and lies he spouts, I'm just going to assume everyone already realizes he has no idea what he's talking about.

Have you even tried any other OS for more than 6 months?
You've been using Windows XP for majority of what you do. You can't tell an improvement from a chalked-on feature found on another OS.

Most people here don't know much about Linux and OS 10. So, they cannot comment. Same goes for you.


Take a look at my name and guess.

Not really used XP all that much but i'm probably more knowledgable about it's inner workings than most though.

I know more about Linux than you will ever learn, i don't know what OS 10 is though.

Most people here are very knowledgable about ALL current OS's and you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, you have lost every argument you ever attempted to make and you have pretty much made sure that everyone knows about your ignorance with your constant bickering.

If i were you i'd go for the full triple and post nude pics of myself in a thong.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Tegeril
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?

jC

Norton 2007 and Symantec Client Security 10.2 depending on the box.

This is sad. You've gotten so used to viruses, that you unconsciously accept that fact that you NEED an anti-virus.

Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

That says a lot concerning the quality of the vehicle. Enough that you wouldn't buy a car there. So, why have that attitude for your OS?

Seriously, why do you keep trying?

Can you answer the question?

Alright genius, can you please explain to us how one WOULD create an OS that is *virus and malware free*, rather than just referring to other minor OSes? You seem to know so much about this, please explain how it can be done.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

is it impossible to make a os that is as widely used as windows virus proof.


No, it is NOT impossible. Microsoft doesn't yield to the security experts when they are told not to program something a certain way. The end result leads to security exploits and more viruses that utilize those exploits.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Instead of Microsoft making their OS virus-proof. They simply release an anti-malware suite to remedy the problem. That's just as bad as a car dealer selling you a car and then saying, "Oh, and since our car is known to have X issue, you'll need to buy these X items here to repair them."

Any sufficently open operating system will have the issue of people writing malicious code for it and exploiting that openness. By your horrible car example, it's if you say since you can run your car into a tree and destroy it, you must not sell cars.

And again, what is your security qualifications to be making such a comment?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |