|
Jim, Larry, Paul - THANKS again
This EJ1D/EJ1M issue is out of my depth :-(
The quote specifies a " 2 x 1.8GB native 7.2GB compressed" but no card
No. - I'll ask for details.
I guess this is indeed the on-board/embedded controller. (and if I
understood correctly it better be a EJ1D rather than EJ1M)
I remember asking if this is a PCIe3 card and was answered it's not, it is
a PCIe2 one
so should I ask for the " dual PCIe3 12 GB Cache Raid Plus SAS Adapter
Quad-port 6 gb x8 EJ14. " Paul mentioned?
Regarding the RAID configuration: would two RAID5 sets of 9 SSDs (8 plus 1
Hot spare) be a good configuration ?
and last but not least, what about the " these (Mainstream) drives are
designed for *workloads with modest write requirements..".
TIA
Gad
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:03 PM, <midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send MIDRANGE-L mailing list submissions to
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
midrange-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of MIDRANGE-L digest..."
*** NOTE: When replying to this digest message, PLEASE remove all text
unrelated to your reply and change the subject line so it is meaningful.
Today's Topics:
1. RE: P7 8205 to P9 S914 or P9 S924 - P20 to P10 license
transfer issue (Steinmetz, Paul)
2. EJ1D/EJ1M Write Cache (Was Is this S914 config a good
replacement for my S814) (DrFranken)
3. RE: EJ1D/EJ1M Write Cache (Was Is this S914 config a good
replacement for my S814) (Steinmetz, Paul)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
message: 1
date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:48:11 +0000
from: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: P7 8205 to P9 S914 or P9 S924 - P20 to P10 license
transfer issue
Jim,
Back in 2005, we went from a 9406-830 (P30 Tier) to P5 9406-550 (P20 Tier).
My enterprise enablement for the P5 9406-550 was 7463 Enterprise Edition
for #0915 $266,000.
Paul .
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jim Oberholtzer
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 8:43 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: P7 8205 to P9 S914 or P9 S924 - P20 to P10 license transfer
issue
If there is any chance, and I mean any chance you might wind up with P20
again, you'll be better off staying. To get from the P10 back to P20
you'll have to re-buy the enterprise entitlements and that's $50k right out
of the chute. Unlimited users at P10 is not too bad in price but it will
leave a mark.
Plus the S924 has more slots and that might avoid an expansion chassis.
Price carefully.
Fighting this whole scenario with a customer right now.
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
On Mar 30, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Steinmetz, Paul <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
machine. It has always been valid to downgrade to a lower P group. For this
From the doc.
The 8205-E6C is in Group1.
The S914 is in Group6.
Group1 to Group6 transfer.
Now I need to get a price on users for the P10.
I should also see what the SWMA savings will be going from P20 to P10.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
DrFranken
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 8:06 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: P7 8205 to P9 S914 or P9 S924 - P20 to P10 license
transfer issue
I disagree despite the document appearing to agree with your statement.
I believe this is covered on page 5 under "To same or lower group."
The 740 (E6C) is a P20 tier machine. The S914 in this case will be a P10
you pay $5,000 US per OS License.
entitlement do not carry that down to the P10 tier machine. Thus you will
There is a gotcha however. P20 and up machines with enterprise
have to acquire users. This is a one time charge though so it may still
make sense to do this move.
that works for you (that is you believe you'll never need to move back to
As was mentioned previously you can lower your SWMA to the P10 tier if
P20) or you can keep SWMA at P20 meaning you could then move back to a P20
machine without the uptick charge.
Guide. This documents which donor and receiving systems are allowed.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/30/2018 7:03 PM, Steve Pavlichek wrote:
Your BP was correct, no OS entitlement transfers from 8205-E6C to S914.
Here's a link which contains the IBM I Processor and User Transfer
moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=nas8N1022087--
From: Diego Kesselman<mailto:diegokesselman@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical
Discussion<mailto:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: P7 8205 to P9 S914 or P9 S924 - P20 to P10 license
transfer issue
No, ypu can transfer your licenses to an equal or lower SW Group. You
can even preserve the P20 SW group for future upgrades.
El vie., 30 de mar. de 2018 16:47, Steinmetz, Paul
<PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
escribi?:
Initially I was looking at a P9 S914 to migrate to.
My BP was suggesting a P9 S924.
My current software tier is a P20, unlimited users.
The S914 is a P10, possibly user based.
BP is claiming the license transfers from a P7 8205-E6C P20 to a P9
S914
P10 could not be done.
This was his reasoning for the S924 instead, which is a P20.
Is this correct?
Thank You
_____
Paul Steinmetz
IBM i Systems Administrator
Pencor Services, Inc.
462 Delaware Ave
Palmerton Pa 18071
610-826-9117 work
610-826-9188 fax
610-349-0913 cell
610-377-6012 home
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
questions.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take
a moment to review the archives at
https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
--
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
------------------------------
message: 2
date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:49:23 -0400
from: DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: EJ1D/EJ1M Write Cache (Was Is this S914 config a good
replacement for my S814)
Paul,
Looks like 1.8GB Compressed to 7.2G effective. Note the EJ1M and EJ1D
are comparable but the 1M is set up for 12 drives + RDX while the EJ1D
is 18 drives.
From IBM announce material:
(#EJ1D) - Expanded Function Storage Backplane 18 SFF-3 Bays/Dual
IOA with Write Cache/Opt Ext SAS port
Expanded Function Storage backplane with dual integrated SAS controllers
with write cache and optional external SAS port. High performance
controllers run SFF-3 SAS bays in the system unit. Dual controllers
(also called dual I/O adapters or paired controllers) and their write
cache are placed in integrated slots and do not use PCIe slots. Write
cache augments controller's high performance for workloads with writes,
especially for HDD. 1.8 GB physical write cache is leveraged with
compression to provide up to 7.2 GB cache capacity. The write cache
contents are protected against power loss with flash memory and super
capacitors removing the need for battery maintenance.
Read all about it here:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/
common/ssi/rep_sm/3/760/ENUS9009-_h03/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 2:23 PM, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:
GadeMLC (IBM i) Enterprise, my run times saw a 4x improvement, 1 hour jobs ran
+1
Back in 2012, when I went from 20- 141 15kHDD to 18- 177GB SFF-2 SSD w/
in 15 minutes.
As Larry stated, the DASD controllers are also equally important.of 757 MB and a maximum compressed read cache size of 1 GB to dual 5913
I went from 2780 Ctlr w/Aux Write Cache maximum compressed write cache
PCIe2 1.8GB Cache RAID SAS Adapter Tri-port 6Gb.
SAS controller.
I will be doing this again, but not from HDD.
I'm still waiting confirmation on the amount of cache on the P9 imbedded
As an option, I looking at dual PCIe3 12 GB Cache Raid Plus SAS AdapterQuad-port 6 gb x8 EJ14.
DrFranken
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 2:12 PMwith 18 SSDs will make you a very happy admin! I would split into 2 RAID
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Is this S914 config a good replacement for my S814
I can say with confidence that replacing a total of 25 15K Spinny drives
sets to enable each of the controllers to 'own' one set.
statement:
That thing will be more like a Hellcat next to a slant-six Duster!
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 2:02 PM, Gad Miron wrote:
Jim, Dr.
Thanks for the educative responses
I'll have my BP look into the MPG option.
I'm quite happy to learn that SSD write speed are on par with it's
read speed.
Current 814 machine has 18 59E0 (283Gb 15K) disks in CEC plus 8 19B1
(283Gb 15K) residing in expansion EXP24S5 (in two Raid5 sets) All
disks driven by a dual controller in the CEC (forgot it's type but it
has a 4 Mb cache I think) Memory is 128GB.
(this is no Prius me think)
819 candidate is to have 512 Gb memory and 18 931GB Mainstream SAS 4k
SFF-3 SSD - all in SEC. with dual controller (again I couldn't find
the type but this one has 7 Gb cache)
So
Do 18 SSD "spindles" suffice ?
What raid configuration is best, two sets of 9 SSDs? one set of 18?
what about hot spare?
looking at the link you referred me to I'v noticed the following
Storage
With their large capacity and lower cost per gigabyte, the drives can
provide a very cost-effective and footprint-effective solution for
many mainstream (*previously known as read-intensive*) configurations.
Note these drives are designed for *workloads with modest write
requirements....*
What say you?
TIA
Gad
message: 4
date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:45:02 -0400
from: DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Is this S914 config a good replacement for my S814 Re: (was:
What is the difference between Flash storage and a Flash
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,--system like the V9000/V7000)
Gad,
Good idea to change the Subject if you want to catch the eye
of those who can help!
Jim already made several good points but overall I would
amplify his suggestion that we don't know enough. You might have only
7 drives that provide that 6TB of space. If you do they are 1.1TB and
10K RPM so the proposed SSD configuration would look like a Top Fuel
dragster against my Prius. Or you might have multiple drawers of
139GB 15K RPM drives on several large cache controllers in a mirrored
environment. MASSIVE difference between those two options!
In either case it's likely the new SSDs will win big but
we're guessing.
One more thing, Where are you getting the 'SSD writes are
only slightly faster than HDD writes' statement? Waaaaay back the
original 70GB SSDs that IBM sold for a kings ransom had write speeds
of about 120MB/s which is rather comparable to a 15K spinning drive
on streaming writes. But the SSD generations released in 2016 were
well over 400MB/s (as high as
470MB/s)
And in IBM's latest SSD announcement they state: Write
performance is "more than 25 times that of a standard 15K HDD" and
"the number of drives is still a factor in achieving satisfactory
performance, especially for IBM i."
Read all about em here:
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS117-086
So I think you have some outdated information there. Even PC
SSDs today are pretty close to parity for read and write performance
with writes only a tick slower than reads any more.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 6:45 AM, Gad Miron wrote:
Calling all sages
We're going to replace our S814 (3 cores activated) 6 TB internal
HDDs machine with a S914 (3 cores activated) 18 931GB Mainstream SAS
4k SFF-3 SSD machine.
Is this a viable DASD configuration for a write intensive environment?
(it is common knowledge that SSD writes are only slightly faster
then HDD writes right?)
TIA
Gad
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-lmoment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
questions.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
------------------------------
message: 3
date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:03:05 +0000
from: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: EJ1D/EJ1M Write Cache (Was Is this S914 config a good
replacement for my S814)
Thanks Larry,
I just couldn't find those specs.
1) Would you say the #EJ1D with integrated controllers is very similar to
a 5913 PCIe2 1.8GB Cache RAID SAS Adapter.
Might even be the same card.
2) I read where the 5913 can be used in a P9 S914 or P9 S924, it is one of
the few features NOT being withdrawn on the P7 withdraw list.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
DrFranken
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 2:49 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: EJ1D/EJ1M Write Cache (Was Is this S914 config a good replacement
for my S814)
Paul,
Looks like 1.8GB Compressed to 7.2G effective. Note the EJ1M and EJ1D are
comparable but the 1M is set up for 12 drives + RDX while the EJ1D is 18
drives.
From IBM announce material:
(#EJ1D) - Expanded Function Storage Backplane 18 SFF-3 Bays/Dual IOA with
Write Cache/Opt Ext SAS port Expanded Function Storage backplane with dual
integrated SAS controllers with write cache and optional external SAS port.
High performance controllers run SFF-3 SAS bays in the system unit. Dual
controllers (also called dual I/O adapters or paired controllers) and their
write cache are placed in integrated slots and do not use PCIe slots. Write
cache augments controller's high performance for workloads with writes,
especially for HDD. 1.8 GB physical write cache is leveraged with
compression to provide up to 7.2 GB cache capacity. The write cache
contents are protected against power loss with flash memory and super
capacitors removing the need for battery maintenance.
Read all about it here:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/
common/ssi/rep_sm/3/760/ENUS9009-_h03/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 2:23 PM, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:
GadeMLC (IBM i) Enterprise, my run times saw a 4x improvement, 1 hour jobs ran
+1
Back in 2012, when I went from 20- 141 15kHDD to 18- 177GB SFF-2 SSD w/
in 15 minutes.
As Larry stated, the DASD controllers are also equally important.of 757 MB and a maximum compressed read cache size of 1 GB to dual 5913
I went from 2780 Ctlr w/Aux Write Cache maximum compressed write cache
PCIe2 1.8GB Cache RAID SAS Adapter Tri-port 6Gb.
SAS controller.
I will be doing this again, but not from HDD.
I'm still waiting confirmation on the amount of cache on the P9 imbedded
As an option, I looking at dual PCIe3 12 GB Cache Raid Plus SAS AdapterQuad-port 6 gb x8 EJ14.
with 18 SSDs will make you a very happy admin! I would split into 2 RAID
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
DrFranken
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Is this S914 config a good replacement for my S814
I can say with confidence that replacing a total of 25 15K Spinny drives
sets to enable each of the controllers to 'own' one set.
statement:
That thing will be more like a Hellcat next to a slant-six Duster!
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 2:02 PM, Gad Miron wrote:
Jim, Dr.
Thanks for the educative responses
I'll have my BP look into the MPG option.
I'm quite happy to learn that SSD write speed are on par with it's
read speed.
Current 814 machine has 18 59E0 (283Gb 15K) disks in CEC plus 8 19B1
(283Gb 15K) residing in expansion EXP24S5 (in two Raid5 sets) All
disks driven by a dual controller in the CEC (forgot it's type but it
has a 4 Mb cache I think) Memory is 128GB.
(this is no Prius me think)
819 candidate is to have 512 Gb memory and 18 931GB Mainstream SAS
4k
SFF-3 SSD - all in SEC. with dual controller (again I couldn't find
the type but this one has 7 Gb cache)
So
Do 18 SSD "spindles" suffice ?
What raid configuration is best, two sets of 9 SSDs? one set of 18?
what about hot spare?
looking at the link you referred me to I'v noticed the following
Storage
With their large capacity and lower cost per gigabyte, the drives can
provide a very cost-effective and footprint-effective solution for
many mainstream (*previously known as read-intensive*) configurations.
Note these drives are designed for *workloads with modest write
requirements....*
What say you?
TIA
Gad
message: 4
date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:45:02 -0400
from: DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Is this S914 config a good replacement for my S814 Re: (was:
What is the difference between Flash storage and a Flash
moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.--system like the V9000/V7000)
Gad,
Good idea to change the Subject if you want to catch the
eye of those who can help!
Jim already made several good points but overall I would
amplify his suggestion that we don't know enough. You might have
only
7 drives that provide that 6TB of space. If you do they are 1.1TB
and 10K RPM so the proposed SSD configuration would look like a Top
Fuel dragster against my Prius. Or you might have multiple drawers
of 139GB 15K RPM drives on several large cache controllers in a
mirrored environment. MASSIVE difference between those two options!
In either case it's likely the new SSDs will win big but
we're guessing.
One more thing, Where are you getting the 'SSD writes are
only slightly faster than HDD writes' statement? Waaaaay back the
original 70GB SSDs that IBM sold for a kings ransom had write speeds
of about 120MB/s which is rather comparable to a 15K spinning drive
on streaming writes. But the SSD generations released in 2016 were
well over 400MB/s (as high as
470MB/s)
And in IBM's latest SSD announcement they state: Write
performance is "more than 25 times that of a standard 15K HDD" and
"the number of drives is still a factor in achieving satisfactory
performance, especially for IBM i."
Read all about em here:
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS117-086
So I think you have some outdated information there. Even
PC SSDs today are pretty close to parity for read and write
performance with writes only a tick slower than reads any more.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 6:45 AM, Gad Miron wrote:
Calling all sages
We're going to replace our S814 (3 cores activated) 6 TB internal
HDDs machine with a S914 (3 cores activated) 18 931GB Mainstream
SAS 4k SFF-3 SSD machine.
Is this a viable DASD configuration for a write intensive environment?
(it is common knowledge that SSD writes are only slightly faster
then HDD writes right?)
TIA
Gad
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
questions.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
--
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) digest list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
------------------------------
End of MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 17, Issue 673
*******************************************
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
