X-25M 160GB noticeably slower

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Hey Erdemali....

How about throwing me an Intel crystal score 15% full (new install) and then completely full. I would like to see the theory at work and proven.

Can I get back to you in a week or so, as I will be so busy this week.
But I will definitely get back to you with some test results.
In fact, I just don't wanna use my SSD as test device since it is very dear for me already. But I will try to do that for you.
 

sub.mesa

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
611
0
0
Let me rectify one thing: you do not need to Secure Erase a brand new SSD you just bought; those are shipped in a condition where the "HPA mapping table" is completely empty. The HPA mapping table is where the locations the Operating System has written to is being stored. With it being completely empty, that means that 100% of the visible space is used as spare area.

So what will actually do you need to do when you buy a new (Intel) SSD? Quite simple:

Step 1. Connect the SSD and setup the System BIOS to use AHCI and not "IDE emulation" as this would disable NCQ and basically lower the performance of the SSD. Modern SSDs like to be in AHCI mode. Note that AHCI is not required for TRIM; if you somehow can't use AHCI then TRIM would still work in IDE mode.

Step 2. Insert Windows 7 DVD and start setup. Once at the partition phase "Where to install Windows", click the advanced button to uncover more options and click the New button to create a new partition. When asked for the size of the new partition, create it smaller than the full capacity; leaving for example 20% unused.

Step 3. Now continue installing and nothing you need to do! Never write or format the unused space on your SSD; just never touch it.



So what will actually happen when you follow this advice?

1. You install Windows; the SSD gets to write at the beginning of the drive as Windows sees it; the SSD will see both sequential and random writes (smaller than 128KiB). The sequential writes will be written to where Windows thinks they are written. The smaller writes either write at the location where Windows thinks; or it may choose to 'remap' these to another location without knowledge of Windows. This is called write remapping, and all these 'redirections' are stored in the HPA mapping table in every modern SSD controller.

The point is, if Windows writes 4KiB to a block on the SSD which already partly contains data, then the SSD has to do a lot of work to write that 4KiB:
- read the current contents
- erase the 128KiB block
- write 128KiB containing both old (untouched) and new data

So just because where Windows wrote was close to a location where data was already stored, the SSD has to do alot more work and also alot more write cycles. So this is the reason modern SSDs like Intel remap small writes to different locations than where Windows thinks they are being stored; and remembers this in the HPA or Host Protected Area mapping table.

So both data is static and dynamic from the SSD point of view. As you've just installed Windows, you can do a simple HDTune benchmark and you would see a lower performance at the spots where you've written to (particularly, where small writes or modifications have happened, causing that location to become dynamic or remapped). This would show as the following graph:




This kind of performance degradation is not avoidable and minor in comparison. Since SSDs are so fast, a mere 10 or 20 percent slower would not be noticeable. Large files written would show the maximum speeds, but at places where small writes have happened there would be some degraded performance.

So we just accept this minor performance degradation and continue using our SSD.

2. Now we are a month later. Due to all installs/uninstalls and reinstalls and general use over time, the Operating System has at least once written to all sectors of the partition, but not to the unpartitioned area we left unused earlier when installing Windows 7.

So now, the SSD only has its internal spare (6.8%) - the space we left unpartitioned (~20%?) - plus anything we can use with TRIM.

3. Now assume the filesystem has been very full and seen a large number of random writes due to heavy usage over time, say half a year. The filesystem was frequently more than 70% full and sometimes very full (90%+). This caused a lot of fragmentation both on the filesystem level and on the SSD level.

So now there is very little "static" data but a lot of "dynamic" data. We can see degradation became a little bit stronger, but still not degraded rapidly, as it would have been if you didn't reserve that ~20% extra spare space.

This is because with the extra 20% spare space, the SSD has a huge quantity of completely empty cells that are not written to by the Operating System at all so they are 100% dedicated to the SSD. This is much more "quality space" than with TRIM, where only snippets of data are available to the SSD and only few 100% empty erase blocks which are 128KiB in size for Intel SSDs and 512K+ on others.

So if you didn't reserve the space but relied totally on TRIM, you would still see much lower random I/O performance due to shortage of empty empty blocks; there is free space available to the SSD but it is all scattered across the logical LBA (what Windows sees). Thus; lower performance and higher write amplification (= more write cycles = lower lifespan).

So you don't need to Secure Erase a brand new SSD, but you need to it if it has previously been used 'improperly' and you want to do it right and start over fresh. The Secure Erase would erase all knowledge of where the Operating System stored data; it does NOT write to the flash cells themselves. Your data is still there, but completely corrupted due to the SSD having lost all data of how it was stored with relation to how Windows thinks it is being stored. All space would be spare space again; dedicated to the SSD until at least one write happens to that location and is 'claimed' by the Operating System.

So to summarize:

1. brand new SSD? continue; used SSD? Secure Erase.
2. Set to AHCI mode
3. Boot Windows 7 setup
4. Create partition 20% smaller than full capacity.
5. Prevent filling up the drive beyond 80%.


But why do i have to sacrifice so much storage space to keep my SSD fast?
Well, this method would give you more usable space while still preventing heavy performance degradation. You can go ahead and create a 100% sized partition and just rely on TRIM to do its work, you would need to prevent your SSD from filling up more than 50/60% to trigger erase block fragmentation. So in essence, space given to the SSD using TRIM is of less quality than space 100% dedicated (or technically said: space that is contiguous) to the SSD.

So it's either:
100% partition and 50% filesystem used capacity
80% partition and 80% filesystem used capacity

When looking at this way, you actually don't lose anything and can actually use more space on your filesystem.

Some other notes:

  • Never write to filesystems more than 90% full, it triggers bad filesystem fragmentation including system files if you do an update, etc.

  • Never defragment your SSD!!! This will only makes things MUCH worse! You would be doing the exact opposite: cause extreme fragmentation and 100% dynamic data on the SSD.

  • Testing this theory by writing large sequential files will not help. Sequential files are written as static data without degradation; it is the smaller random writes that hurt. That also means that performing AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark benchmarks a lot will actually be quite bad if you do not have TRIM. If you do have TRIM, all those random writes would simply disappear again and given back to the SSD; phew!
So to test this theory, actual heavy use after time especially with a nearly full filesystem would surely trigger heavy erase block fragmentation and yield very poor benchmarks results (and actual performance as well).
 
Last edited:

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Thanks again Sub.mesa really appreciated. Reading this was like a poem to me.
I am just gonna print this now read over and over. Invaluable info.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,205
475
126
NIce i was actually tempted to partition the ssds i use to have 20% less space but figured id just not use much space.. so far i only use about 20gb out of 80gb. (
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
Thank you sub.mesa for expanding on the subject.

My reasoning for not wanting to assume I can skip a secure erase as step 1 is that we aren't always guaranteed a brand new drive is really a brand new drive. Ipod's ship with malware sometimes, open-box items get returned and "resealed" to be sold again as "new". The list of ways gray market items get recycled into the "factory new/sealed" market is too numerous to bother getting into.

But if there is no harm done by just treating every drive as if it were a potentially used drive then why not just recommend everyone do just that? Not trying to be argumentative in the slightest, just say risk vs. reward...there is no risk associated with secure erasing your drive but there is non-zero risk of getting a previously owned SSD as if it were new.

It shouldn't be an issue, it shouldn't be a possibility, but how many posts have we seen from people who get brand new hard drives from Newegg that contain somebody else's data?
 

sub.mesa

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
611
0
0
It certainly would not hurt to start with a Secure Erase. That way you are 100% certain that it is a brand new drive for all intents and purposes.

I also may missed a step: upgrade the firmware. If there is newer firmware available, you better apply this immediately before installing windows or doing anything with the drive.

So the correct procedure would be:
1. Upgrade firmware
2. Set BIOS to AHCI mode
3. Install Windows 7 with creating a partition 80% of the maximum capacity, leaving the rest unused.
 

LokutusofBorg

Golden Member
Mar 20, 2001
1,065
0
76
Is this manual over-provisioning only recommended for Intel drives? I've just read through Anand's article about the Agility 2 drives with special firmware that cuts the SF spare area down to 13% or whatever from the standard SF 28% and he finds negligible performance difference. Did he just not test the right scenario?

He also explains that the SF and Intel controllers are dynamic (they use any spare area on the drive) but the Indilinx controller(s) isn't, so I would think this (manual over-provisioning that you're recommending) would not apply to Indilinx drives.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Is this manual over-provisioning only recommended for Intel drives? I've just read through Anand's article about the Agility 2 drives with special firmware that cuts the SF spare area down to 13% or whatever from the standard SF 28% and he finds negligible performance difference. Did he just not test the right scenario?

He also explains that the SF and Intel controllers are dynamic (they use any spare area on the drive) but the Indilinx controller(s) isn't, so I would think this (manual over-provisioning that you're recommending) would not apply to Indilinx drives.

It depends on the controller and the garbage collection and wear leveling that the controller uses. The graph with the different colors was a simulation of "greedy garbage collection" which basically waits until the drive is full to run garbage collection(for maximum write cycles). Less greedy garbage collection should shift the graph to the left.

Sand force reduces write amplification by compressing the files so without information on how sandforce does this, we can't say that the graph is representative of sandforce drives.

I got a better understanding of SSDs in general by reading papers written by

Xiao Yu Hu. His writings are very easy to follow.

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~xhu/
 
Last edited:

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
Sub.mesa

Thanks for the great explanation!

So what's happening is with TRIM, it just resets whatever cells are set as deleted by the OS, meaning it does create free erase blocks but scattered everywhere.

That kinda sucks. So its still not full speed since it acts like "random free space".



Are you sure about the block sizes on the Intel drives? It should be 128KB for the SLC and 512KB for the MLC.
 

Old Hippie

Diamond Member
Oct 8, 2005
6,361
1
0
I just wanted to add I've been using Sub's 20% free space recommendation for the last month on my new RAID0 install (two 80GB G2s) and performance hasn't dropped one iota.

Here's a link for a bootable ISO of HDDErase 3.3.

I just wanted to add....if you do use HDDErase the "final step" before the erase gives you three erase "options". I use the first option and don't know if the other options would actually write zeros over the entire drive and not just the mapping table.
 
Last edited:

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
There would be no reason for the drives to drop at all, but rather, I would think it beneficial to do tests that would prove that it actually does something other than taking away valuable free SSD space.

The only way I can see this done is by somebody filling their drive to capacity and testing it with Crystal to determine if there is any performance loss once again. The whole purpose is to establish something that will reduce or eliminate the effects of performance degradation as the SSD fills.

I am very surprised that nobody has tried to prove this entire theory yet short of saying that it may work. It may be something that is a great find but then again, it may be a dud that simply takes up valuable SSD space.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
There would be no reason for the drives to drop at all, but rather, I would think it beneficial to do tests that would prove that it actually does something other than taking away valuable free SSD space.

The only way I can see this done is by somebody filling their drive to capacity and testing it with Crystal to determine if there is any performance loss once again. The whole purpose is to establish something that will reduce or eliminate the effects of performance degradation as the SSD fills.

I am very surprised that nobody has tried to prove this entire theory yet short of saying that it may work. It may be something that is a great find but then again, it may be a dud that simply takes up valuable SSD space.

Is there any reason you don't do exactly whatever it is that you keep hoping other people will do?

If you do it yourself then you'll have less reason to be concerned with the manner in which the results were generated.
 

sub.mesa

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
611
0
0
I am very surprised that nobody has tried to prove this entire theory yet short of saying that it may work. It may be something that is a great find but then again, it may be a dud that simply takes up valuable SSD space.
What exactly do you doubt? That SSDs actually use spare space? If SSDs didn't need spare space, then why would there be TRIM? Why would SSDs have spare space by default?

If you doubt if any unpartitioned space would be used by Intel SSDs as spare space, why don't you write to Intel? I'm sure they can confirm this to you.

If you doubt if the extra spare area would actually make a difference that would warrant the lesser storage space, well that's the most tricky part i guess. It is not easy to simulate 6 or 12 months of real usage over time, and the effects in terms of erase block fragmentation, which is what we're talking about here.

The problem here, is that, in order to test this this theory you would have to do a lot of random writes in full filesystem conditions, carefully replacing large files with tiny files and with a full filesystem you would force fragmentation; but it still would not achieve the same effect as real usage over time.

In addition, testing this way would spent alot of write cycles and degrade the performance of the SSD. The last can be remedied by a secure erase, the former can not. I didn't want to do a lot of random write testing on my SSDs for just this reason.

For those interested, i use SSDs in a somewhat unique way. I have a RAID0 of 4 Intel X25-V 40GB SSDs, located in a FreeBSD server running ZFS, iSCSI-target and NFS daemon. I have five Ubuntu Linux workstations which have no local disks at all; they boot from the network and get their system disk through the network, located on the SSDs. So with one SSD array i power my five Ubuntu workstations, over Gigabit network. That of course get me capped at ~100MB/s, but i would have the benefits of low access times; in essence the SSD experience on all 5 workstations.

Another benefit of this setup is that i can do snapshots on the system disk images stored on the SSD in the FreeBSD server. For example, before i do i major upgrade i snapshot my system disk. If anything goes wrong, i can rollback and boot exactly as it was before the update. This way i prevented some beta-release upgrade bugs from crippling my system, and also gives me the idea i can try out things without too much risk.

The local random I/O performance of a 5x RAID0 array of Intel X25-V turned out to yield ~1234MB/s of random read performance under multiqueue conditions; which is short of amazing given the low price point of these SSDs. But since gigabit spoils the big numbers, only the access times play a major role in performance. You can see a benchmark done on one of the Ubuntu workstations, here:
http://submesa.com/images/iSCSI-on-ZFS-SSD.png

I setup the SSDs as follows:
- partition1: use for ZFS including workstation iSCSI system disk images
- partition2: use for L2ARC ZFS cache device for my bigger storage array
- partition3: 25% reserved partition (never written to)

So i totally reserved 25% + 6.8% default spare area = 31.8%. That said, i would lack TRIM as ZFS' Copy-on-Write (COW) model makes TRIM rather complicated, and currently unsupported.

Still, if i were using an SSD on Windows with TRIM capability, i would still reserve at least something. The advantage of reserving space starts high and drops as you add more spare space. If you don't want to reserve 20% or 25%, consider at least 10%. You bought the SSD to be fast, and you want it to stay fast. So you increase the default spare area and make sure you always keep some free space on you filesystem; at least 15-20%.
 

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Unlike you, my posts are "THANK YOU" posts. Every posts of yours I learn something. Just that I have no clue for the last part of your post (bit of exaggeration I guess but mainly true). I am not into RAIDING business at the moment. Actually I wanna learn that too but not into it right now. I only have a laptop and if it gets blown I am dead too.
Regards,
 

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
Idontcare and Sub.Mesa....

Are you serious? Really? I didn't put forth the theory therefore I wouldn't have to prove it. If anything, it suddenly looks like there is something maybe you don't want others to see and it would concern me as others are jumping at your ideal for the overpartitioning.

Its a normal course of any idea....any idea.... to put it forward and then prove the idea. You just dont throw it up for others to jump at without proving the theory.

You can set up all the over partitioning you want but until you can justify it with proof, its nothing more than wasted SSD space.

The most concerning part is that it is a easy thing for you to do which is fill the SSD and run Crystal.

Oh...sorry...why dont I do it? Well really....would I be an idiot to jump on someones idea only to find somehow it interferes with the over-provisioning of the disk or, well maybe, I thought you believed in your idea enough to test it before you throw it into the crowd for the inexperienced to grab a hold of.

I run an OWC with 28% OP. My Intel is my main system disk which doesnt get changed but heck, if you can suck anyone in without proving your theory, who am I to throw up a flag for others SSD safety sake right?

Apologies for getting my back up but well, everyone knows that I will give it right back when called for. I simply asked for a simple test which you could do and now am left wondering why you wouldn't do it. Simple test...very. Fill the disk and run a Crystal. If the overprovisioning works, there will be no drop in performance.
 
Last edited:

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Idontcare and Sub.Mesa....

Are you serious? Really? I didn't put forth the theory therefore I wouldn't have to prove it. If anything, it suddenly looks like there is something maybe you don't want others to see and it would concern me as others are jumping at your ideal for the overpartitioning.

Its a normal course of any idea....any idea.... to put it forward and then prove the idea. You just dont throw it up for others to jump at without proving the theory.

You can set up all the over partitioning you want but until you can justify it with proof, its nothing more than wasted SSD space.

The most concerning part is that it is a easy thing for you to do which is fill the SSD and run Crystal.

Oh...sorry...why dont I do it? Well really....would I be an idiot to jump on someones idea only to find somehow it interferes with the over-provisioning of the disk or, well maybe, I thought you believed in your idea enough to test it before you throw it into the crowd for the inexperienced to grab a hold of.

I run an OWC with 28% OP. My Intel is my main system disk which doesnt get changed but heck, if you can suck anyone in without proving your theory, who am I to throw up a flag for others SSD safety sake right?

Apologies for getting my back up but well, everyone knows that I will give it right back when called for. I simply asked for a simple test which you could do and now am left wondering why you wouldn't do it. Simple test...very. Fill the disk and run a Crystal. If the overprovisioning works, there will be no drop in performance.

I mean controllers run algorithms to manage ssds. If you know the algorithms, then you can run software simulations using the algorithms to test your shit out. Thats exactly what the IBM researchers did here. These guys have PHDs in Computer science and work for a giant research company, I'm sure they know more about SSDs than you do.
 

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Oh...sorry...why dont I do it? Well really....would I be an idiot to jump on someones idea only to find somehow it interferes with the over-provisioning of the disk or, well maybe, I thought you believed in your idea enough to test it before you throw it into the crowd for the inexperienced to grab a hold of.

I am sorry to get into this but I took the highlighted part very personal.
First off, I'd like to tell you who I am and what I do so you can have a better idea about me. Mostly I am a very modest person till someone tries to put me down.

I am a very well experienced Mechanical Engineer with a very well proven track record. Perhaps, I am one of the top engineers you could find out there.

As an engineer, I don't take anything/any theory as granted. In fact I study, learn and understand the problem before I do anything. I question every bit of it till I get a solid proof before I apply it as any other well experienced engineers do.

As I always do my search for info, learn and understand then do my calculations lastly verify it before going ahead with an idea.

I hate to say this but although I got into this SSD tech several weeks ago I know much more than you do and I am certain I would have known much more than anyone in this or other forums if I had an SSD since 2007 as you do.
I can assure you on that.

You can't even imagine who you are dealing with right now.

As I said in one of my earlier posts referring it to you:
"little fish swimming in a creek thinks it swims in an ocean"

I hate acting this way but I think this is the right way to deal with little fishes.
 
Last edited:

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
Having a PHD does not a genius make. There have been some things that I thought were great....absolutely great info but regardless of who you are, you can't present a theory without proof and then jump on the guy asking for proof.

Quite frankly, I thing it may be very plausible and though mesa would jump back with a quick CDM, but rather, the walls are thrown up and the heels dug in. If we can't stand by a belief with reason and proof, we shouldn't be selling the idea to those that dont have PHDs.

Its much the same with the whole alignment ideal and I have seen the confusion raised at least twice. There is absolutely no reason to worry about alignment when doing a basic Win7 install on a new SSD yet we have seen it....new guys reading here and then terrified to make a move with their ssd. This happened less than 3 days ago when I jumped in with a post to clarify.

I understand the site... I see the time in most have compared to my few posts... It unfortunate that so many have attitude and when someone challenges them, they turn to insult rather than logic and reasoning in the response.

I can take the lumps....They actually don't compare to the fight I had over my being pro 64 bit years ago...and look where we r now.
 

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
I am sorry to get into this but I took the highlighted part very personal.
First off, I'd like to tell you who I am and what I do so you can have a better idea about me. Mostly I am a very modest person till someone tries to put me down.

I am a very well experienced Mechanical Engineer with a very well proven track record. Perhaps, I am one of the top engineers you could find out there.

As an engineer, I don't take anything/any theory as granted. In fact I study, learn and understand the problem before I do anything. I question every bit of it till I get a solid proof before I apply it as any other well experienced engineers do.

As I always do my search for info, learn and understand then do my calculations lastly verify it before going ahead with an idea.

I hate to say this but although I got into this SSD tech several weeks ago I know much more than you do and I am certain I would have known much more than anyone in this or other forums if I had an SSD since 2007 as you do.
I can assure you on that.

You can't even imagine who you are dealing with right now.

As I said in one of my earlier posts referring it to you:
"little fish swimming in a creek thinks it swims in an ocean"

I hate acting this way but I think this is the right way to deal with little fishes.

Seriously, there is nothing worse than a person who tries to stand up for themselves but can't stand by their good name.

You also say you are a modest person right? Check out your first 3 posts and you wonder why I hit back? Maybe your issue is one of comprehension of normal communication.

You have written in countless threads that you know more about SSDs than I. Well really who gives a crap? Stop insulting people who try and help the community and contribute a bit.
 

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Flamenko, I am sure you are a very nice guy and would make a very good friend.
I can see that from you trying to give a hand to anyone. But you are so persistent.
You should learn more and more if you wanna act as an expert.

One more lesson for you in this short life: never say to yourself I am an expert on anything. Once you think you are an expert you will stop learning and start falling down.
 

erdemali

Member
May 23, 2010
102
0
0
Seriously, there is nothing worse than a person who tries to stand up for themselves but can't stand by their good name.

You also say you are a modest person right? Check out your first 3 posts and you wonder why I hit back? Maybe your issue is one of comprehension of normal communication.

You have written in countless threads that you know more about SSDs than I. Well really who gives a crap? Stop insulting people who try and help the community and contribute a bit.

This is going no where so I erase my case...
 

BoT

Senior member
May 18, 2010
365
0
86
www.codisha.com
the fill and wipe method should only be used on G1's or SSD's that do not support TRIM properly.
it's explained in Anand's Anthology.
it basically zero's out the drive. this should also not be used on drives that do not support TRIM at all. like SDD's with the older JMicron controller.

it really isn't a good method altogether because you are inducing hugh amounts of read/erase/write operations.

indexing as well and anything caching data should be disabled if possible and feasible because it also creates more read/erase/write operations, which in turn shorten the livetime of the SSD.

i also would try benchmarking in save mode to make sure there is nothing else hammering your SSD while you test it.
i would also give ATTO a try
 

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
I am a very well experienced Mechanical Engineer with a very well proven track record. Perhaps, I am one of the top engineers you could find out there.

You can't even imagine who you are dealing with right now.

You really are joking right? I don't think I have EVER stated I was an expert and, as a matter of fact I would not even consider such unlike.... well read your own comment.

A thought though... Never present something you cannot stand by. I really don't care who you are because it means nothing if you will praise a theory that isn't yet proven successful such as you have already praised.
 
Last edited:
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/    |