Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:11:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 [215] 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 ... 830 »
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.9.2  (Read 4823179 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 07:39:14 PM
 #4281

VDDC: 1.084 V, VDDC current: 144 A so the card is using about 150W, got to measure wall power consumption.

Just a heads up.
VDDC isn't all power consumed by card.

There is also VDDCI (which handles things like PCIe interface, memory controller, and ancillary ASICS) and then a separate memory VRM which isn't adjustable/reported.

VDDC of 150W simply means the "cores" are using 150W.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 07:40:49 PM
 #4282

Ok, one unrolled branch then!  Wink

Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
          if (!W[117].x) {
               output[FOUND] = FOUND;
       output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
            if (!W[117].y)
                         output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
          }
          else if (!W[117].y) {
               output[FOUND] = FOUND;
       output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
          }
Heh, you're not a coder are you? That's still two branches unless it's positive on the first branch.

To save ckolivas from more frustration maybe I can help.

vbs:  AMD (and I assume Nvidia) GPU take a horrible hit on branches.  The number of total checks is irrelevant.  What matters is the number of branches on the main path.

Only one in 4.3 billion hashes will be a share thus 99.999999976716935634613037109375% of the time any subsequent share checks are never executed.  Optimizing the path which occurs one in 4.3 billion executions is silly right?

We want to make the one that occurs 4.29999999999 billlion out of 4.3 billion attempts as fast as possible.  Given the massive (and I do mean massive forget what you think you know about C++ compilers on x86 hardware) hit that AMD GPU take when it comes to branches that means making the main path have as few branches as possible. 

Neither of your code snippets do that.

Thanks for this mate. This means that the probability of finding 2 hashes in the same vector is 1/(4.3e9*4.3e9)), which is infinitesimally close to 1/inf ~= 0. This allows for a further optimization of the code. Using a VECTORS2 example,
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
if (!result) {
if (!W[117].x)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
else //if (!W[117].y)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
Since min() takes care of the false positives, the 'else' branch is only true when W[117].y==0. The result in the KernelAnalyzer for a 5870 is:
Code:
phatk 120223 -> cycles: min:67.65, max:68.15, avg:67.82, alu:1363
phatk "new" -> cycles: min:67.65, max:67.90, avg:67.78, alu:1362

 Grin
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2012, 09:29:24 PM
 #4283

Been testing some changes on phatk with the KernelAnalyzer and my own personal testing.

Using a VECTORS2 example,
Code:
bool result = W[117].x & W[117].y;

gives a lot of false positives, changing it to
Code:
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);

is guaranteed to give yummy results!  Grin

(same ALU #ops and fetch, no false positives on the next 'if')  Cool
See now this is dangerous. Do you REALLY  know how fast the "min" function is on all SDKs? Don't expect AMD to do the right thing and to guarantee it's as fast as &.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2012, 09:38:54 PM
 #4284

Thanks for this mate. This means that the probability of finding 2 hashes in the same vector is 1/(4.3e9*4.3e9)), which is infinitesimally close to 1/inf ~= 0. This allows for a further optimization of the code. Using a VECTORS2 example,
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
if (!result) {
if (!W[117].x)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
else //if (!W[117].y)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
Since min() takes care of the false positives, the 'else' branch is only true when W[117].y==0. The result in the KernelAnalyzer for a 5870 is:
Code:
phatk 120223 -> cycles: min:67.65, max:68.15, avg:67.82, alu:1363
phatk "new" -> cycles: min:67.65, max:67.90, avg:67.78, alu:1362

 Grin
This looks okay but it's in the output path so not hit very often so unlikely to make a demonstrable performance change :\

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Dyaheon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 10:58:15 PM
 #4285

Great job on the 2.3.1! I gained some 1% or even a bit more with my 5k series cards on both SDK 2.1 and SDK 2.4 systems, compared to 2.3.0 on phatk kernel.   Smiley
Diapolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 769



View Profile WWW
February 24, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
 #4286

I've got a nice idea for VECTORS2 and the nonce-check ^^ ... so the chance to get 2 positive nonces within a single uint2 work-item is extremely small, right?
Will play around with it tomorrow and perhaps I'll do another commit for diakgcn.

Dia

Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
February 24, 2012, 11:07:35 PM
 #4287

Great job on the 2.3.1! I gained some 1% or even a bit more with my 5k series cards on both SDK 2.1 and SDK 2.4 systems, compared to 2.3.0 on phatk kernel.   Smiley

What kernel is this ? Still phatk one ?

I got 5870s. Can memory still be underclocked to 300 and you get still good performance ?

Thanks !
Dyaheon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 11:15:15 PM
 #4288

Great job on the 2.3.1! I gained some 1% or even a bit more with my 5k series cards on both SDK 2.1 and SDK 2.4 systems, compared to 2.3.0 on phatk kernel.   Smiley

What kernel is this ? Still phatk one ?

I got 5870s. Can memory still be underclocked to 300 and you get still good performance ?

Thanks !

phatk as I mentioned  Wink

And on 2.1 & 2.4 SDK, yes they can. Not sure about 2.6, never used that with 5870s.

Currently hashing away at 444.4MH/s on a 950/300 5870, SDK 2.1 -g 1 -I 10 -w 256 -v 2, although -g 1 is probably not a good idea, just something I've stuck with . SDK 2.4 gives me the same, perhaps even very slightly faster hashrate Smiley
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
February 24, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
 #4289

Great job on the 2.3.1! I gained some 1% or even a bit more with my 5k series cards on both SDK 2.1 and SDK 2.4 systems, compared to 2.3.0 on phatk kernel.   Smiley

What kernel is this ? Still phatk one ?

I got 5870s. Can memory still be underclocked to 300 and you get still good performance ?

Thanks !

phatk as I mentioned  Wink

And on 2.1 & 2.4 SDK, yes they can. Not sure about 2.6, never used that with 5870s.

Currently hashing away at 444.4MH/s on a 950/300 5870, SDK 2.1 -g 1 -I 10 -w 256 -v 2, although -g 1 is probably not a good idea, just something I've stuck with . SDK 2.4 gives me the same, perhaps even very slightly faster hashrate Smiley


Can you try 950 / 300 on SDK 2.1 and 2.4 and see what the difference is ( make sure to delete the bins etc. ) ?

Maybe also try 960 core / 300 memory ?

What OS btw ?

Thanks !
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 11:32:20 PM
 #4290

Thanks for this mate. This means that the probability of finding 2 hashes in the same vector is 1/(4.3e9*4.3e9)), which is infinitesimally close to 1/inf ~= 0. This allows for a further optimization of the code. Using a VECTORS2 example,
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
if (!result) {
if (!W[117].x)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
else //if (!W[117].y)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
Since min() takes care of the false positives, the 'else' branch is only true when W[117].y==0. The result in the KernelAnalyzer for a 5870 is:
Code:
phatk 120223 -> cycles: min:67.65, max:68.15, avg:67.82, alu:1363
phatk "new" -> cycles: min:67.65, max:67.90, avg:67.78, alu:1362

 Grin
This looks okay but it's in the output path so not hit very often so unlikely to make a demonstrable performance change :\

True, and the better the branching prediction works with "if (!result)" the lesser it will be taken. I'll check how min() gets implemented in low level.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 24, 2012, 11:37:25 PM
 #4291

I've got a nice idea for VECTORS2 and the nonce-check ^^ ... so the chance to get 2 positive nonces within a single uint2 work-item is extremely small, right?
Will play around with it tomorrow and perhaps I'll do another commit for diakgcn.

Dia
The chance of getting a positive nonce is ALWAYS the same for each hash you do, no matter when you do it.

If a single thread is idle it is wasted.

Edit: and aborting all threads when you find a nonce means you on average double the overhead of setting up work.
(i.e. time wasted when the GPU could be mining)

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Dyaheon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121


View Profile
February 25, 2012, 12:06:31 AM
 #4292

Can you try 950 / 300 on SDK 2.1 and 2.4 and see what the difference is ( make sure to delete the bins etc. ) ?

Maybe also try 960 core / 300 memory ?

What OS btw ?

Thanks !

Sorry, can't. Cards are on different computer, and the 5870 on the sdk 2.4 machine is on an extender, which slows down the hashrate somewhat.

What I can do however, is give you the difference between a 5970 @ 810/300 on 2.4 and a 5970 at the same clocks on 2.1.

SDK 2.4:
GPU 1:  51.5C 1569RPM | 375.7/375.7Mh/s | A: 98 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.86/m I:10
GPU 2:  55.0C 1569RPM | 375.7/375.7Mh/s | A: 97 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.81/m I:10

SDK 2.1:
GPU 0:  82.5C 3840RPM | 375.6/375.4Mh/s | A:457 R:2 HW:0 U: 5.27/m I:10
GPU 1:  82.5C 3840RPM | 375.4/375.4Mh/s | A:477 R:0 HW:0 U: 5.50/m I:10

You can multiply that by 960/810 or 950/810 to get a good estimate of a 5870's performance at 960 and 950 clocks, respectively.

So it seems that 2.4 is very slightly better at 300 memclocks and I 10, 1 thread. Haven't had time to test other settings, it could vary. Oh and OS is 64-bit Lubuntu.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
February 25, 2012, 12:54:20 AM
 #4293

SDK 2.4:
GPU 1:  51.5C 1569RPM | 375.7/375.7Mh/s | A: 98 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.86/m I:10
GPU 2:  55.0C 1569RPM | 375.7/375.7Mh/s | A: 97 R:0 HW:0 U:  4.81/m I:10

SDK 2.1:
GPU 0:  82.5C 3840RPM | 375.6/375.4Mh/s | A:457 R:2 HW:0 U: 5.27/m I:10
GPU 1:  82.5C 3840RPM | 375.4/375.4Mh/s | A:477 R:0 HW:0 U: 5.50/m I:10
So it seems that 2.4 is very slightly better at 300 memclocks and I 10, 1 thread.

I would say the difference is below noise levels, so I would say they perform identically on that hardware/software combo.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
February 25, 2012, 01:21:58 AM
 #4294

Been testing some changes on phatk with the KernelAnalyzer and my own personal testing.

Using a VECTORS2 example,
Code:
bool result = W[117].x & W[117].y;

gives a lot of false positives, changing it to
Code:
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);

is guaranteed to give yummy results!  Grin

(same ALU #ops and fetch, no false positives on the next 'if')  Cool
See now this is dangerous. Do you REALLY  know how fast the "min" function is on all SDKs? Don't expect AMD to do the right thing and to guarantee it's as fast as &.

min(x,y) http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.2/docs/man/xhtml/commonMin.html
gets implemented low-level as
Code:
w: MIN_UINT    R0.w,  R0.x,  PV1350.y
, which *should*  (I know, AMD... Roll Eyes) be rather stable. The big problem with the alternative (&) is the huge number of false positives, since it's bitwise, like 01010011 & 10101100 = 00000000, which is bad for the branch predictor. I'm testing now with a conservative approach (just this one change from default),
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
if (!result) {
if (!W[117].x)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
if (!W[117].y)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
and got a slight (3~4MH/s) increase (5850, SDK 2.5 from Cat 11.11).
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
February 25, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
 #4295

min(x,y) http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.2/docs/man/xhtml/commonMin.html
gets implemented low-level as
Code:
w: MIN_UINT    R0.w,  R0.x,  PV1350.y
, which *should*  (I know, AMD... Roll Eyes) be rather stable. The big problem with the alternative (&) is the huge number of false positives, since it's bitwise, like 01010011 & 10101100 = 00000000, which is bad for the branch predictor. I'm testing now with a conservative approach (just this one change from default),
Code:
#elif defined VECTORS2
bool result = min(W[117].x,W[117].y);
if (!result) {
if (!W[117].x)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].x] = W[3].x;
if (!W[117].y)
output[FOUND] = output[NFLAG & W[3].y] = W[3].y;
}
and got a slight (3~4MH/s) increase (5850, SDK 2.5 from Cat 11.11).
You can do the maths on false positives. You're greatly exaggerating the "HUGE NUMBER". It's about 1 share for 1 false positive. More so on 4 vectors (but no one uses them). That is not remotely common...

Increase eh?

Call me sceptical to the core.

EDIT: I will look into it, but I'm so terrified of unintentionally breaking shit like I did last time. It was in this code specifically where the slowdown was, so you can imagine why I'm so resistant.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
February 25, 2012, 02:01:07 AM
 #4296

Hi Ckolivas,

Downloaded the new version, let it run for a while while I was watching some videos on my pc (Windows XP), running the new version with Dynamic Intensity (1 thread automatically disabled). Then I changed the Intensity to 8 (running a 5800) and the following weird message came up:

G[P2U0 01:2 2-8002.-92 /5 2 0810:.530 M:h0/4s] | T Ah:r5e7a9d  R 1: b1e  HiWn:g0
 re  U-:e3n.a7b1l/emd  I
8

The intensity did set to 8, so no problems there, might just be cosmetic, thought I would put it out here anyway

This is a dump of the entire screen:

 cgminer version 2.3.1 - Started: [2012-02-24 23:13:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):282.2 (avg):280.3 Mh/s | Q:1541  A:583  R:1  HW:0  E:38%  U:3.70/m
 TQ: 2  ST: 4  SS: 0  DW: 84  NB: 12  LW: 0  GF: 3  RF: 0
 Connected to http://mine2.btcguild.com:8332 with LP as user
 Block: 00000a7c9a40539601dd382d3a7d13a0...  Started: [01:35:44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  72.0C 2757RPM | 284.0/280.3Mh/s | A:583 R:1 HW:0 U:  3.70/m I: 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8
Intensity on gpu 0 set to 8
G[P2U0 01:2 2-8002.-92 /5 2 0810:.530 M:h0/4s] | T Ah:r5e7a9d  R 1: b1e  HiWn:g0
 re  U-:e3n.a7b1l/emd  I
8
72.0 C  F: 65% (2758 RPM)  E: 900 MHz  M: 800 Mhz  V: 1.163V  A: 98%  P: 0%
Last initialised: [2012-02-24 23:14:03]
Intensity: 8
Thread 0: 282.8 Mh/s Enabled ALIVE
Thread 1: 2.0 Mh/s Enabled ALIVE

[E]nable [D]isable ntensity [R]estart GPU [C]hange settings

Brat
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
February 25, 2012, 02:02:38 AM
 #4297

Hi Ckolivas,

Downloaded the new version, let it run for a while while I was watching some videos on my pc (Windows XP), running the new version with Dynamic Intensity (1 thread automatically disabled). Then I changed the Intensity to 8 (running a 5800) and the following weird message came up:

G[P2U0 01:2 2-8002.-92 /5 2 0810:.530 M:h0/4s] | T Ah:r5e7a9d  R 1: b1e  HiWn:g0
 re  U-:e3n.a7b1l/emd  I
8
Yeah the curses interface just scrambles output occasionally. Harmless.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
omo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148


View Profile
February 25, 2012, 02:43:42 AM
 #4298

sometimes cgminer display chaios info(for ex. the GPU1 line below)
also the info "^[^B, sleeping for 30s" :

Code:
cgminer version 2.3.1 - Started: [2012-02-24 23:38:00]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):336.42(avg):472.4 Mh/s | Q:77450 A:43434 R:39  HW:0  E:56%  U:6.59/m
 TQ: 33 STT 44  S: 30  DW: 1911  NB: 80  LW: 69  GF: 27  RF: 11
 Connected to http://mmrpc.bitparking.com:80/ with LP as user ****
 Block: 0000040d77cbcf9fb906c8b45953feef...  Started: [10:32:52]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  60.05  578    | 105.45105.0Mh/s | A: 9878R: 7 HW:0 U:1.50/m I: 3
 GPU 1:  7765C 29469PM | 372.65367.44h/s | A:33556R:32 HW:0 U:5.09/m I: 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [2012-02-25 10:35:46] Accepted 00000000.b7ef9df9.0dcb577c GPU 1 thread 3 pool 0
 ^[^B, sleeping for 30s
 [2012-02-25 10:36:06] Accepted 00000000.0428b7b0.81fe4c1c GPU 1 thread 2 pool 0
 [2012-02-25 10:36:08] Accepted 00000000.ea1491ca.ebef84ea GPU 1 thread 3 pool 0
 [2012-02-25 10:36:13] Accepted 00000000.8f4412eb.39157414 GPU 1 thread 2 pool 0
 [2012-02-25 10:36:18] Accepted 00000000.f0ae9070.23e80435 GPU 1 thread 3 pool 0
 ^[^B, sleeping for 30s
 [2012-02-25 10:36:37] Accepted 00000000.e112fd60.55ec2a41 GPU 0 thread 0 pool 0
 [2012-02-25 10:36:50] Accepted 00000000.cd40f348.5ed1d95e GPU 1 thread 3 pool 0
 ^[^B, sleeping for 30s
 [2012-02-25 10:37:02] Accepted 00000000.0915ea82.c0bdaab4 GPU 1 thread 2 pool 0

BTC:1Fu4TNpVPToxxhSXBNSvE9fz6X3dbYgB8q
Ed
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 69


View Profile
February 25, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
 #4299

New release: Version 2.2.7 - February 20, 2012
......
reject ratio higher for me, about 3% instead 0,5% at 2.1.2

my conf.
p2pool 462b252 multi merged mining
bitcoind 0.6
atiumdag 8.920.0.0 (Catalyst 11.12) / Win7 64
OpenCL 1.1 AMD-APP-SDK-v2.5 (793.1)

Quote
Version 2.3.1 - February 24, 2012
2.3.1-2
reject ratio still about 3% for me...
Andrew Vorobyov
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 565



View Profile
February 25, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
 #4300

   
[SOLVED] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22554.0



Don't see temperature etc...

AMD 2.4 SDK, ubuntu 11.04

Code:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cgminer 2.3.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Configuration Options Summary:

  OpenCL...............: FOUND. GPU mining support enabled
  ADL..................: SDK found, GPU monitoring support enabled

  BitForce.FPGAs.......: Disabled
  Icarus.FPGAs.........: Disabled

  CPU Mining...........: Disabled

Compilation............: make (or gmake)
  CPPFLAGS.............:
  CFLAGS...............: -O2 -Wall -march=native
  LDFLAGS..............:  -lpthread
  LDADD................: -ldl -lcurl   compat/jansson/libjansson.a -lpthread -lOpenCL -lncurses   -lm

Installation...........: make install (as root if needed, with 'su' or 'sudo')
  prefix...............: /usr/local


In miner when I see only

Code:
GPU 0: 169.2 / 181.7 Mh/s | A:2  R:0  HW:0  U:10.48/m  I:10
Last initialised: [2012-02-25 13:39:33]
Intensity: 10
Thread 0: 170.6 Mh/s Enabled ALIVE


Pages: « 1 ... 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 [215] 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 ... 830 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!