Backup strategy for hardware failure?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Fatfreek, Dec 30, 2007.

  1. Fatfreek

    Fatfreek Guest

    I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.

    Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or motherboard
    fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents -- same brand, size,
    specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9 Home edition
    won't properly restore.

    Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things fail.

    What is a good strategy for backup?

    Len
    Fatfreek, Dec 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fatfreek

    philo Guest

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >
    > Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or motherboard
    > fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents -- same brand,

    size,
    > specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9 Home edition
    > won't properly restore.
    >
    > Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things fail.
    >
    > What is a good strategy for backup?
    >
    > Len
    >
    >



    Definately use Acronis...
    Since harddrives are pretty cheap now...I simply backup my entire system to
    another harddrive.

    Now...if your harddrive fails...it's a simple as just replacing it with the
    clone.


    OTOH: if your motherboard fails and you cannot get one just like it (or very
    similar)

    You can still use the existing harddrive...but you will probably have to
    perform a repair installation...
    it's not too big of a deal
    philo, Dec 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fatfreek

    Fatfreek Guest


    > Definately use Acronis...
    > Since harddrives are pretty cheap now...I simply backup my entire system

    to
    > another harddrive.
    >
    > Now...if your harddrive fails...it's a simple as just replacing it with

    the
    > clone.
    >
    >
    > OTOH: if your motherboard fails and you cannot get one just like it (or

    very
    > similar)
    >
    > You can still use the existing harddrive...but you will probably have to
    > perform a repair installation...
    > it's not too big of a deal
    >

    Philo,

    Thanks for getting back to me. So, if I understand you correctly, I'd better
    get a dupe of my current c: hard disk while it may be available. Else, it
    won't be compatible?

    Len
    Fatfreek, Dec 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Fatfreek

    thanatoid Guest

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    >> Definately use Acronis...
    >> Since harddrives are pretty cheap now...I simply backup my
    >> entire system

    > to
    >> another harddrive.
    >>
    >> Now...if your harddrive fails...it's a simple as just
    >> replacing it with

    > the
    >> clone.
    >>
    >>
    >> OTOH: if your motherboard fails and you cannot get one
    >> just like it (or

    > very
    >> similar)
    >>
    >> You can still use the existing harddrive...but you will
    >> probably have to perform a repair installation...
    >> it's not too big of a deal
    >>

    > Philo,
    >
    > Thanks for getting back to me. So, if I understand you
    > correctly, I'd better get a dupe of my current c: hard disk
    > while it may be available. Else, it won't be compatible?
    >
    > Len


    No. See my reply to your OP.



    --
    The only cure for stupidity is death.
    The only cure for brilliance is death.
    The only cure for love is death.
    The only cure for hate is death.
    Indifference needs no cure.
    The only cure for life is death.
    {© 2007 thanatoid}
    thanatoid, Dec 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Fatfreek

    thanatoid Guest

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    news::

    > I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.


    Very nice.

    > Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or
    > motherboard fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new
    > equivalents -- same brand, size, specs -- whatever that all
    > means.


    PLEASE don't tell me you don't understand those 3 words.

    > Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9 Home edition won't
    > properly restore.


    Incorrect. Acronis will restore onto any drive which has a
    partition large enough to "accept" the one you have backed up.
    It does not even matter what OS - if ANY - is installed on the
    HD.

    It just has to be partitioned, I /think/. I never tried to
    restore onto an unformatted/unpartitioned drive but who knows?
    You should ALWAYS partition, especially today's huge-ass drives.
    Look it up.

    You DO realize a partition restore wipes what was there before
    for GOOD - unless you back THAT up first :)

    > Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place?
    > Things fail.


    HD's fail and everything else mechanical fails sooner or later.
    Quality brand CD-R's and DVD-R's burned at a slow speed using a
    good program and making an ISO or UDF file FIRST (look it up)
    and stored properly should outlive you.

    > What is a good strategy for backup?


    The previous paragraph. You can get a backup program but CD-R's
    are so cheap and Acronis is so great that it hardly makes sense
    anymore.



    --
    The only cure for stupidity is death.
    The only cure for brilliance is death.
    The only cure for love is death.
    The only cure for hate is death.
    Indifference needs no cure.
    The only cure for life is death.
    {© 2007 thanatoid}
    thanatoid, Dec 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Fatfreek

    chuckcar Guest

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    news::

    > I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >
    > Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or motherboard
    > fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents -- same brand,
    > size, specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9
    > Home edition won't properly restore.
    >
    > Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things fail.
    >
    > What is a good strategy for backup?
    >
    > Len
    >
    >


    You've missed the point. You *don't* back up everything on your hard
    drive, you backup your data files *only* along with keeping install
    disks for everything. You reinstall the programs/drivers including 2000,
    when something fails (read hard drive) and then you don't have to worry
    about hardware changes. Besides, if 2000 is corrupted at all, this will
    fix that as well, whereas a blind copy won't.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Dec 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Fatfreek

    old man Guest

    You should stop listening to 'someone' as they obviously havent a clue

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >
    > Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or motherboard
    > fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents -- same brand,
    > size,
    > specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9 Home edition
    > won't properly restore.
    >
    > Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things fail.
    >
    > What is a good strategy for backup?
    >
    > Len
    >
    >
    old man, Dec 30, 2007
    #7
  8. Fatfreek

    dadiOH Guest

    Fatfreek wrote:
    >> Definately use Acronis...
    >> Since harddrives are pretty cheap now...I simply backup my entire
    >> system to another harddrive.
    >>
    >> Now...if your harddrive fails...it's a simple as just replacing it
    >> with the clone.
    >>
    >>
    >> OTOH: if your motherboard fails and you cannot get one just like
    >> it (or very similar)
    >>
    >> You can still use the existing harddrive...but you will probably
    >> have to perform a repair installation...
    >> it's not too big of a deal
    >>

    > Philo,
    >
    > Thanks for getting back to me. So, if I understand you correctly,
    > I'd better get a dupe of my current c: hard disk while it may be
    > available. Else, it won't be compatible?


    It's not your drive that wouldn't be compatible, it is things *on* the
    drive that are there so specific hardware will work. Think of it this
    way...

    You have a Ford car and duplicate all parts so that if the car has a
    problem you can just put in all the parts. The car fails and you buy
    a Chevy. You could but your back up tires on the Chevy, other things
    too, but you can't put the Ford specific parts into the Chevy.



    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
    dadiOH, Dec 30, 2007
    #8
  9. Fatfreek

    philo Guest

    "Fatfreek" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > > Definately use Acronis...
    > > Since harddrives are pretty cheap now...I simply backup my entire system

    > to
    > > another harddrive.
    > >
    > > Now...if your harddrive fails...it's a simple as just replacing it with

    > the
    > > clone.
    > >
    > >
    > > OTOH: if your motherboard fails and you cannot get one just like it (or

    > very
    > > similar)
    > >
    > > You can still use the existing harddrive...but you will probably have to
    > > perform a repair installation...
    > > it's not too big of a deal
    > >

    > Philo,
    >
    > Thanks for getting back to me. So, if I understand you correctly, I'd

    better
    > get a dupe of my current c: hard disk while it may be available. Else, it
    > won't be compatible?
    >
    > Len
    >
    >



    If you clone your HD to a 2nd one...
    If the original drive fails...all you have to do is put the 2nd drive in the
    machine...and it will work perfectly.
    (assuming the clone worked)

    OTOH: If your motherboard is replaced...unless you can find one the same or
    at least very similar...
    you may need to perform a repair installation
    philo, Dec 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Fatfreek

    philo Guest

    <snip>

    > It just has to be partitioned, I /think/. I never tried to
    > restore onto an unformatted/unpartitioned drive but who knows?
    > You should ALWAYS partition, especially today's huge-ass drives.
    > Look it up.
    >



    When using Acronis...the 2nd drive can be totally "blank"
    philo, Dec 30, 2007
    #10
  11. Fatfreek

    Barb Guest

    "old man" <> wrote in message
    news:_vKdj.18636$...
    > You should stop listening to 'someone' as they obviously havent a clue
    >
    > "Fatfreek" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >>


    >>
    >> What is a good strategy for backup?
    >>
    >> Len
    >>


    I don't backup all my system & stuff - just data. I regularly copy (to
    DVD-Rs, although any external media would do) My Documents, and any other
    directories or files I really don't want to lose - including, for example, a
    directory where I keep any software I have downloaded together with ID's and
    codes. etc. I back up my Outlook Express and anything similar into My
    Documents, so it all gets covered.

    Having gone through a couple of machines with this method, all I need to do
    is restore my own stuff to a clean, new system, and I've never had any
    problems with this. Also, the advantage to this method is that I have
    copies of everything in a universal format that I can use anywhere.

    The backups are smaller, quicker and easier - and therefore more likely to
    get done more often. I don't see much point in backing up all the Windows
    background stuff and garbage, as it would be better to do a clean install
    onto a new system/drive.

    For what it's worth ....

    Barb UK
    Barb, Dec 30, 2007
    #11
  12. Fatfreek

    olfart Guest


    > It's not your drive that wouldn't be compatible, it is things *on* the
    > drive that are there so specific hardware will work. Think of it this
    > way...
    >
    > You have a Ford car and duplicate all parts so that if the car has a
    > problem you can just put in all the parts. The car fails and you buy
    > a Chevy. You could but your back up tires on the Chevy, other things
    > too, but you can't put the Ford specific parts into the Chevy.


    We got one on blocks out in the front yard of our singlewide that has Chevy,
    Ford, Dodge and a few VW parts in it. Nice car, but the damn chickens won't
    let us get in it.
    olfart, Dec 30, 2007
    #12
  13. Fatfreek

    Spuds Guest

    On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:42:15 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <> wrote:

    >"Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >>
    >> Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or motherboard
    >> fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents -- same brand,
    >> size, specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my Acronis ver. 9
    >> Home edition won't properly restore.
    >>
    >> Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things fail.
    >>
    >> What is a good strategy for backup?
    >>
    >> Len
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You've missed the point. You *don't* back up everything on your hard
    >drive, you backup your data files *only* along with keeping install
    >disks for everything. You reinstall the programs/drivers including 2000,
    >when something fails (read hard drive) and then you don't have to worry
    >about hardware changes. Besides, if 2000 is corrupted at all, this will
    >fix that as well, whereas a blind copy won't.


    Don't assume just because you don't back up an OS partition, that no one else
    does.

    It makes infinitely more sense to install your OS and must-have applications,
    then burn a backup image, than to have to go back to square one after a HD
    failure, or newly-installed misbehaving app or patch, which System Restore
    doesn't always gracefully handle.

    Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications, compilers and
    tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter simplicity of a 10 minute
    restore from an image.
    Spuds, Dec 30, 2007
    #13
  14. Fatfreek

    chuckcar Guest

    Spuds <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:42:15 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >>>
    >>> Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or
    >>> motherboard fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents
    >>> -- same brand, size, specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my
    >>> Acronis ver. 9 Home edition won't properly restore.
    >>>
    >>> Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things
    >>> fail.
    >>>
    >>> What is a good strategy for backup?
    >>>
    >>> Len
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>You've missed the point. You *don't* back up everything on your hard
    >>drive, you backup your data files *only* along with keeping install
    >>disks for everything. You reinstall the programs/drivers including
    >>2000, when something fails (read hard drive) and then you don't have
    >>to worry about hardware changes. Besides, if 2000 is corrupted at all,
    >>this will fix that as well, whereas a blind copy won't.

    >
    > Don't assume just because you don't back up an OS partition, that no
    > one else does.
    >

    And you know the registry is not corrupted how?

    > It makes infinitely more sense to install your OS and must-have
    > applications, then burn a backup image, than to have to go back to
    > square one after a HD failure, or newly-installed misbehaving app or
    > patch, which System Restore doesn't always gracefully handle.
    >

    Right. *Install* the OS. *Not* copy an image of it. And install the
    applications for the same reason.

    > Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    > compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    > simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.
    >

    And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Dec 31, 2007
    #14
  15. Fatfreek

    Spuds Guest

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:35:55 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <> wrote:

    >Spuds <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:42:15 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>> I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >>>>
    >>>> Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or
    >>>> motherboard fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents
    >>>> -- same brand, size, specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise my
    >>>> Acronis ver. 9 Home edition won't properly restore.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things
    >>>> fail.
    >>>>
    >>>> What is a good strategy for backup?
    >>>>
    >>>> Len
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>You've missed the point. You *don't* back up everything on your hard
    >>>drive, you backup your data files *only* along with keeping install
    >>>disks for everything. You reinstall the programs/drivers including
    >>>2000, when something fails (read hard drive) and then you don't have
    >>>to worry about hardware changes. Besides, if 2000 is corrupted at all,
    >>>this will fix that as well, whereas a blind copy won't.

    >>
    >> Don't assume just because you don't back up an OS partition, that no
    >> one else does.
    >>

    >And you know the registry is not corrupted how?


    Immaterial. When I reimage, I get my old registry back, which is known good.

    >> It makes infinitely more sense to install your OS and must-have
    >> applications, then burn a backup image, than to have to go back to
    >> square one after a HD failure, or newly-installed misbehaving app or
    >> patch, which System Restore doesn't always gracefully handle.
    >>

    >Right. *Install* the OS. *Not* copy an image of it. And install the
    >applications for the same reason.
    >
    >> Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    >> compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    >> simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.
    >>

    >And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.


    Goddamn, that's the dumbest statement I've seen this year. OTOH, it's pretty
    early in the year.

    Go ahead and explain how completely replacing the OS and applications quickly
    and cleanly, with a known good install, is the "wrong thing to do."
    Spuds, Jan 1, 2008
    #15
  16. Fatfreek

    Guest

    Spuds <> wrote:

    >>> Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    >>> compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    >>> simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.


    >>And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.


    >Goddamn, that's the dumbest statement I've seen this year. OTOH, it's pretty
    >early in the year.


    :) I don't think chuckcar has installed XP.

    I used to format, reinstall Win200, tweaked and have all third party
    applications in place in and hour and a half, did it a few times.

    Now XP takes that long just to install itself to the HD.
    --

    You Did It!
    http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2674
    , Jan 1, 2008
    #16
  17. Fatfreek

    Spuds Guest

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:48:56 -0800, wrote:

    > Spuds <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    >>>> compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    >>>> simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.

    >
    >>>And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.

    >
    >>Goddamn, that's the dumbest statement I've seen this year. OTOH, it's pretty
    >>early in the year.

    >
    >:) I don't think chuckcar has installed XP.
    >
    >I used to format, reinstall Win200, tweaked and have all third party
    >applications in place in and hour and a half, did it a few times.


    >Now XP takes that long just to install itself to the HD.


    It takes me probably 2 hours just to install my legacy version of Borland
    Delphi, with all the libs I have to use and configure. With disk imaging, I'm
    up and rocking in 12 minutes max.
    Spuds, Jan 1, 2008
    #17
  18. Fatfreek

    Fred Kasner Guest

    wrote:
    > Spuds <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    >>>> compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    >>>> simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.

    >
    >>> And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.

    >
    >> Goddamn, that's the dumbest statement I've seen this year. OTOH, it's pretty
    >> early in the year.

    >
    > :) I don't think chuckcar has installed XP.
    >
    > I used to format, reinstall Win200, tweaked and have all third party
    > applications in place in and hour and a half, did it a few times.
    >
    > Now XP takes that long just to install itself to the HD.


    I recently had a serious problem with a failure to boot of my Win XP Pro
    machine. Couldn't get the image to backup from the external HD either.
    Software says it was corrupted. So I tried reinstalling XP Pro. That
    failed. Tried installing XP Home. That seemed to work. Then tried to
    install the image (a month old copy) using the software that made the
    image. That worked but it took over 12 hours. Finally had what was a
    month old installed version of my puter that ran normally and only
    lacked some stuff that had changed in the interim month. I really wonder
    that the hell happened but I seem to, a great cost in time, have
    returned unscathed save for the emotional bath of trying and failing to
    backup up the image (oh, yes I forgot, I even tried to install a copy of
    Vista and it wouldn't boot either.)
    FK
    Fred Kasner, Jan 1, 2008
    #18
  19. Fatfreek

    chuckcar Guest

    Spuds <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:35:55 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Spuds <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:42:15 +0100 (CET), chuckcar <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Fatfreek" <> wrote in
    >>>>news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been diligently backing up my system, Win2k Pro.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Someone told me, however, that if my hard disk crashes, or
    >>>>> motherboard fails, I'd have to duplicate them with new equivalents
    >>>>> -- same brand, size, specs -- whatever that all means. Otherwise
    >>>>> my Acronis ver. 9 Home edition won't properly restore.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hey, isn't that the reason for backup in the first place? Things
    >>>>> fail.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What is a good strategy for backup?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Len
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>You've missed the point. You *don't* back up everything on your hard
    >>>>drive, you backup your data files *only* along with keeping install
    >>>>disks for everything. You reinstall the programs/drivers including
    >>>>2000, when something fails (read hard drive) and then you don't have
    >>>>to worry about hardware changes. Besides, if 2000 is corrupted at
    >>>>all, this will fix that as well, whereas a blind copy won't.
    >>>
    >>> Don't assume just because you don't back up an OS partition, that no
    >>> one else does.
    >>>

    >>And you know the registry is not corrupted how?

    >
    > Immaterial. When I reimage, I get my old registry back, which is
    > known good.
    >
    >>> It makes infinitely more sense to install your OS and must-have
    >>> applications, then burn a backup image, than to have to go back to
    >>> square one after a HD failure, or newly-installed misbehaving app or
    >>> patch, which System Restore doesn't always gracefully handle.
    >>>

    >>Right. *Install* the OS. *Not* copy an image of it. And install the
    >>applications for the same reason.
    >>
    >>> Anyone who has spent hours reinstalling various applications,
    >>> compilers and tons of add-on libraries, appreciates the utter
    >>> simplicity of a 10 minute restore from an image.
    >>>

    >>And has absolutely no idea of why that is the wrong thing to do.

    >
    > Goddamn, that's the dumbest statement I've seen this year. OTOH, it's
    > pretty early in the year.
    >
    > Go ahead and explain how completely replacing the OS and applications
    > quickly and cleanly, with a known good install, is the "wrong thing to
    > do."


    So, your more worried about the time it takes than doing it right.
    That's your perspective, but hardly makes me wrong.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 1, 2008
    #19
  20. Fatfreek

    Bri. Guest

    On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:32:47 +0100 (CET), chuckcar wrote:
    > Spuds <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Go ahead and explain how completely replacing the OS and applications
    >> quickly and cleanly, with a known good install, is the "wrong thing to
    >> do."

    >
    > So, your more worried about the time it takes than doing it right.
    > That's your perspective, but hardly makes me wrong.


    I don't think he's worried - and I too would appreciate a reply to his
    request.
    --
    Bri.
    Bri., Jan 1, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dave Watson

    Hardware Failure?

    Dave Watson, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    741
    Dave Watson
    Aug 16, 2003
  2. Fatfreek

    My backup strategy blunder

    Fatfreek, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    389
  3. Rob Keel

    Backup strategy advice required please ...

    Rob Keel, Sep 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    670
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    832
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. TimParker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,004
    TimParker
    Jan 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page