Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

32bit 3.5GB + 2.5GB

ram

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 30 June 2016 - 06:03 AM

I use a 32bit PC with Windows 7.

 

I would like to use ImDisk to make my Computer faster. To make this I would like to use a part of my RAM as swap file.

 

Question 1:

Scenario: I have 2x2 GB RAM (total 4GB): Can I then use 2GB for the normal use in Windows and 2 GB with ImDisk for the swap file?

 

Question 2:

Scenario: I have 1x2GB and 1x4GB RAM (total 6GB): Can I then use 3.5GB for normal use in Windows and 2.5 GB with ImDisk for the swap file? Or can I only use 3.5GB in total (Windows+ImDisk). Or must I divide the RAM in 2GB for normal use in Windows and 4GB with ImDisk for the swap file.

 

Question 3:

Scenario: I have 1x2 GB and 1x8GB RAM (total 10GB): Can I then use 3.5GB for the normal use in Windows and 6.5 GB with ImDisk for the swap file?

 

Would apreciate your Anwers. Thank you.

 

 

 



#2 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 30 June 2016 - 09:33 AM

ImDisk can only use the managed memory, that is, the amount of memory displayed by the task manager. And only some server editions of Windows can manage more than 4GB.

If you want to use the unmanaged memory, you need something else.

And unless you use the unmanaged memory, you will not increase your memory, neither physical nor virtual, by creating a swapfile on the ramdisk.



#3 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 30 June 2016 - 11:22 AM

@Team Reboot

 

Thank you for clarification.

As I do not want to install PAE on my computer, the scenario 1) would be, what I want to implement:
2GB for the normal use in Windows and 2 GB with ImDisk for the swap file.

I hope, that compared with the use of all 4GB for normal RAM in Windows 7, I would have the following advantages:
-Faster computer, as it must not longer use my harddisk for the swap file.
-Also if I would use the whole 4GB for normal RAM use, my computer would only effectively use about 3.2GB. (This would be a loss of 0.8GB)

 

Question:
Can I manualy select the RAM-bar which I want to use for Ramdisk in ImDisk or can I only manualy adjust the amount of RAM which I want to use for ramdisk?
If I can not manualy select the desired RAM-bar, which RAM-bar will ImDisk choose automatically? If I have 2x2GB RAM and I want to use 2GB for ramdisk: Does ImDisk take automatically one part from the first RAM-bar and another part from the second RAM-bar?

 

Would apreciate your Anwers.



#4 Olof Lagerkvist

Olof Lagerkvist

    Gold Member

  • Developer
  • 1331 posts
  • Location:Borås, Sweden
  •  
    Sweden

Posted 30 June 2016 - 12:06 PM

@Team Reboot
 
Thank you for clarification.
As I do not want to install PAE on my computer, the scenario 1) would be, what I want to implement:
2GB for the normal use in Windows and 2 GB with ImDisk for the swap file.

I hope, that compared with the use of all 4GB for normal RAM in Windows 7, I would have the following advantages:
-Faster computer, as it must not longer use my harddisk for the swap file.


There is no point in doing so. You would get even faster computer if you then disabled the page file altogether. Then the OS would not need to go through a filesystem driver and a virtual disk driver to manage page operations.
 

-Also if I would use the whole 4GB for normal RAM use, my computer would only effectively use about 3.2GB. (This would be a loss of 0.8GB)


You would most likely not be able to use that 0.8 GB for a ram disk either. I have seen a few peculiar cases where this memory seem to have been used anyway, but that's unlikely. And even if so, that memory would most probably be used by the OS anyway even without a ram disk.
 

Question:
Can I manualy select the RAM-bar which I want to use for Ramdisk in ImDisk or can I only manualy adjust the amount of RAM which I want to use for ramdisk?
If I can not manualy select the desired RAM-bar, which RAM-bar will ImDisk choose automatically? If I have 2x2GB RAM and I want to use 2GB for ramdisk: Does ImDisk take automatically one part from the first RAM-bar and another part from the second RAM-bar?
 
Would apreciate your Anwers.


For 32 bit systems when you select physical memory for your ram disk, it tries to allocate memory above 8 GB, then above 6 GB, 5 GB, 4 GB and then anywhere. In your case no memory above 4 GB is accessible so it will just allocate physical memory from anywhere where there is enough memory available.

#5 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 30 June 2016 - 01:02 PM

You can try using Gavotte's Ramdisk:
http://reboot.pro/to...ottes-rramdisk/
but you should be aware that the "base assumptions" are "wrong" (IMNSHO).
 
There is this forever going on debate over this pagefile issue that:
1) is a non-issue
2) if it is an issue (and it is not) there are no "magic workarounds" to solve it.
 
3.5 Gb (or whatever your PC and 32 bit OS can address) are MORE THAN ENOUGH for *any* practical use of the device as workstation.
 
If you hit the pagefile on your machine it means that the machine (or OS or both) is not suited to the activities you do on it.
Answers:

Question 1:
Scenario: I have 2x2 GB RAM (total 4GB): Can I then use 2GB for the normal use in Windows and 2 GB with ImDisk  a virtual disk for the swap file?

No. It would be silly to limit the amount of RAM directly available to the system, it would actually degrade performance of the system.
 

Question 2:

Scenario: I have 1x2GB and 1x4GB RAM (total 6GB): Can I then use 3.5GB for normal use in Windows and 2.5 GB with ImDisk  a virtual disk for the swap file? Or can I only use 3.5GB in total (Windows+ImDisk  a virtual disk). Or must I divide the RAM in 2GB for normal use in Windows and 4GB with ImDisk  a virtual disk for the swap file.

You can try doing the 3.5+2.5, you won't have any real benefit/advantage in real life, but it will not degrade the performance as the 2+4 one which remains as silly as #1
 
 

Question 3:

Scenario: I have 1x2 GB and 1x8GB RAM (total 10GB): Can I then use 3.5GB for the normal use in Windows and 6.5 GB with ImDisk  a virtual disk for the swap file?

Yes, but it won't give you any real benefit/advantage in real life, like #2 above.
If you have 10 Gb and you actually *need* 10 Gb, use a 64 bit OS.
 
JFYI:
http://www.msfn.org/...comment=1101471
http://www.overclock...e-on-a-ram-disk
 
Which allows me to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill :w00t::

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

 
I contend that reducing available RAM to use the rest for a ramdisk to store a pagefile is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

:duff:
Wonko
  • Olof Lagerkvist likes this

#6 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 01 July 2016 - 06:00 AM

@Olof and @Wonko. Thank you for your precise answers.

 

I use my computer mainly for surfing in the internet with firefox and I like it, to have a lot of tabs open. In addition I often have several smaller programs open at the same time.

For all the following expositions I assume the following system:
32bit system with 4GB RAM and Windows 7. I do not want to buy an additional component because I have not the money.
The goal is to use the RAM in a way that I get the most fastest system.


I found 6 statements in the Internet which confuse me.
1) One process can not use more than 2GB in a 32bit System.
2) There are several programms which do not work properly if the swap file is deactivated.
3) Several programms claim the swap file although there is still RAM free.
4) The swap file needs at least about 1x the value of the RAM. If I have 1GB RAM, the swap file should become at least 1GB.
5) 2GB in a 32bit system is like 4GB in a 64bit System, as 64bit needs more resources.
6) There are several drivers of old devices (for example printers) which do not work in a 64bit system.

 

 

My reflections are:

So if 2) is right, it is no option to use

4GB normal RAM in Windows 7 with a deactivated swap file compared with

2GB for normal RAM in Windows 7 and 2GB with a virtual disk for the swap file. Or am I missing anything?

Yes, I could use

4GB normal RAM in Windows 7 with an activated swap file on the hard disc instead of

2GB for normal RAM in Windows 7 and 2GB with a virtual disk for the swap file.
But if 3) is true, it would make my system less fast, although there is free RAM left. As the harddisc is much more slow than the virtual disk, my system will be less fast. So this is also no option. Or am I missing anything? Or am I missing anything?

If 1) is true, then a single process has no advantage to have 4GB normal RAM in Windows 7. If for example firefox needs more than 2GB RAM, it nevertheless must use the swap file. So if the swap file is a virtual disk, it is faster although the OS must to go through a filesystem driver and a virtual disk driver to manage page operations. Or am I missing anything?

Because of 2) and 3) I must anyway have an activated swap file. And as I have illustrated above, the swap file should not be on a harddisc because this will make the system slow.
So maybe I could give only a little part of my RAM for a virtual disk for the swap file.
For example 3.5GB normal RAM in Windows 7 and 0.5GB with a virtual disk for the swap file.
But if 4) is true maybe the system would be cut up if it can not access a swap file of 3.5GB. So this is no option. Or am I missing anything?

Because of 5) and 6) it is also no option to replace my 32bit Windows 7 through a 64bit Windows 7.

So is the fastest variant the 2GB for normal RAM in Windows 7 and 2GB with a virtual disk for the swap file?

 

 

Would appreciate your competent answers.


Edited by Imram, 01 July 2016 - 06:01 AM.


#7 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 01 July 2016 - 08:58 AM

#1 True but not really an issue, the 2 Gb limit is reached by only a few - usually graphically oriented or database - programs. And - in case for particular cases - there is 4GT tuning:
https://msdn.microso...2(v=vs.85).aspx
https://msdn.microso...3(v=vs.85).aspx
#2 False. Only a few programs actually *need* a Pagefile (and they need it only because they are programmed that way), a typical example is Photoshop.
#3 Maybe, but it is not typical, more than the actual programs it is the OS that may decide to swap pages to pagefile.
#4 Totally false. (see explanation below)
#5 Not true. Ram will be occupied by data (which of course takes exactly the same amount of space when read or written by a 32 or 64 bit OS) what it is true is that 64 bit opcodes (i.e. the assembly language instructions) tend to be double the size of the corresponding 32 bit ones, i.e. 64 bit programs are larger than 32 bit ones.But they are only a small part of a program and programs instructions occupy only a little amount of all the used RAM.
#6 It depends. It is clear that for a given printer there may be not the specific 64 bit OS drivers, but - usually - the issue is not with actually printing (as most printers do use a printing language, such as HPGL or PostScript) but rather in all the "side" or "advanced" functions (like it is often the case with all-in-ones, printer/scanner/fax and similar), it depends on the specific device and OS.

Let's talk of the page file from an historical point of view.
Once upon a time a "normal" NT (NT 4.00) system had 64 Mb of Ram. (rule of the thumb is, take the minimum needed that MS states - 16 Mb in this case - and multiply it by 4 or take the recommended - 32 Mb in this case - and double it to have a "working" system).
At the time the OS and programs often needed more than that, and the swap file was really needed, the "magic number" used to multiply the amount of real RAM to obtain the size of the pagefile was at the most 3.
With 64 Mb the machine worked fine unless you had some specific program eating lots of Ram (at the time "lots" had a different meaning)
With 128 Mb situation was better.
With 256 Mb everything was cool.
With 512 Mb the pagefile was in practice never hit.
With 1 Gb, really never.
With a machine with 32 Mb (recommended by MS) you used 3 as the multiplier for the pagefile, so the TOTAL amountof memory available would have been 32+32*3=128 Mb
As well for a 64 Mb machine you would have used 3, thus 64+3*64=256
Now think about it, you had 64 Mb Ram and a swap file 3 times that, 192 Mb.
The TOTAL amount of available memory was 64+192=256 Mb.
With a machine with 128 Mb you would have used a 2.5 factor, 128*2.5=320 Mb, TOTAL 128+320=448 Mb
With a machine with 256 Mb you would have used a 2 factor, 256*2=512 Mb, TOTAL 256+512=784 Mb
With a machine with 512 Mb you would have used a 1.5 factor, 512*1.5=784 Mb, TOTAL 512+784=1296 Mb

It is clear that once you had 256 Mb of real Ram you had the same amount as the machine with only 64 Mb of Ram and a 192 Mb swap file, if you used the "magic" number of 2x and had a 512 Mb of swap file you had 784 Mb TOTAL.
A machine with 784 Mb of RAM and no swap file would have the SAME TOTAL amount of Ram.
A 1 Gb machine with no swap file would have 30% more TOTAL memory than the maximum a rather powerful machine. (powerful at the time, with 256 Mb of RAM, i.e. 8 times what MS recommended + 512 Mb pagefile).

The pagefile starts to make no sense whatever. :w00t: :ph34r:

Since initially the pagefile was actually needed, and it was usually much larger than RAM, the good MS guys thought that using it as a container for crashdumps was a good idea.

Since a full crush dump is a 1:1 copy of the RAM, byte by byte, the pagefile must be at least 1x the RAM (if you actually want a crashdump)+ some space for "secondary dump data" (i.e. if you want a crashdump you cannot use 1x as "magic number" but you need a little bit more than 1, 1.2 is often used for simplicity, currently the "right" number is 1x+256 Mb, see given links).

A crashdump is a totally useless feature as I can count the people capable of analyzing one on my fingers (without needing to take my shoes off ;)), a crash in itself is rare and usually it is (hopefully) reproducible, so you can setup a pagefile only when you want to get a full dump (though what may actually be used/useful is a minidump).

Anyway more modern Windows NT OS's have setting in the Registry to have the crash dump go to a separate file:
https://blogs.msdn.m...em-memory-dump/
which is created on-the-fly only in case of a crash.

The important point here is that when the OS (and programs) will fill up to the brim all available memory (RAM+pagefile) the system will crash.
Normally this won't happen, there are warnings and automatic safeguards to avoid this, but in the case of a program "gone loose" and eating memory without releasing it, if you have a large pagefile it will simply take more time (thanks also to the page file being on a much slower device) to crash.

So, what you are doing by having a pagefile is only that of "moving" the point where the system will crash, but it will crash alright.

On the other hand, if you setup a pagefile, let's say conventionally sized 1.2x the available RAM and monitor your usage of the machine, you can have only three possible results from analyzing the results:
1) pagefile is NEVER hit
2) pagefile is sometimes hit (but for an amount much less than the 1.2*RAM you set it up)
3) pagefile is constantly or often hit (and for an amount near the 1.2*RAM size you set it up)

Considerations:
if #1 your pagefile is unneeded and you can remove it alright, in the case of a program that *needs* a pagefile you can reduce it to a minimum, of course you can leave it the full size but it won't give you any advantage.
if #2 your pagefile is needed but you can reduce its size (again you can leave it the full size but it won't give you any advantage).
if #3 your machine (or OS or both) is not suited for what you do on it, you should upgrade the machine (or OS and both) and have MORE RAM.

 

You have to understand (about your idea of "limitiing RAM and increase the pagefile size and put it in RAM):

2GB for normal RAM in Windows 7 and 2GB with a virtual disk for the swap file. Or am I missing anything?

 

 that RAM is FAST and pagefile is SLOWER even if placed in RAM (because there is an overhead of the driver that you use to have the pagefile in RAM).

So yes, you are missing the main point.

So is the fastest variant the 2GB for normal RAM in Windows 7 and 2GB with a virtual disk for the swap file?

 

No, no, NO.

That will be (besides being more prone to issues/crashes/whatever) SLOWER!

 

The fastest (theory) might be to have the MOST accessible RAM direct and have a small pagefile on the "inaccessible" part of RAM (this will be enogh to make programs *needing*  a page file to run), but in practice you won't ever notice the difference, as the pagefile will very rarely or never be hit (and again if it is hit constantly you'd better get a more powerful machine/OS and more RAM).

 

:duff:

Wonko



 


  • virgus likes this

#8 v77

v77

    Silver Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 507 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 01 July 2016 - 12:48 PM

Even if the access to the pagefile was instant, this would still be slower, because the swapfile is meant to swap memory pages that are not currently reachable.

 

See this little diagram:

 

Case 1:

+--------------------------------+-----------------+

|            2GB RAM             |    HARD DRIVE   |

|                                |     swapfile    |

+--------------------------------+-----------------+

     ^                   ^                ^

 access OK           access OK      indirect access

 

Case 2:

+--------------------------------+-----------------+

|            2GB RAM             |    HARD DRIVE   |

|               |  1GB swapfile  |     swapfile    |

+--------------------------------+-----------------+

     ^                   ^                ^

 access OK        indirect access   indirect access

 

 



#9 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 03 July 2016 - 05:34 PM

@v77

Nice diagram

 

@Wonko the Sane

Thank you again for your detailed Answer.

 

I think I will upgrade my 32bit PC- System which has actually 2GB with additional 2GB and use it in a normal manner.



#10 cdob

cdob

    Gold Member

  • Expert
  • 1314 posts

Posted 03 July 2016 - 07:22 PM

I think I will upgrade my 32bit PC- System which has actually 2GB with additional 2GB and use it in a normal manner.

Yes, use the 3.5 GB (true size depends on hardware/BIOS) in a normal manner.
And try the mentioned Gavotte's Ramdisk in PAE mode to enable the "missing" 0.5 GB.

#11 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 13 July 2016 - 03:15 PM

Windows 7, 32bit

 

@Wonko

Yes, I did it. I have now installed 2x2GB RAM. It works so far. And I use it in normal mode. But I am suprised that now according to  resource- monitor my total memory is only 2941MB instead of 4096MB. He has reserved for hardware 1155MB. In the past when I had installed only 2GB RAM he has reserved for hardware only 133MB.

I have not a seperate graphic card. My computer has an Intel G41 Chipset with an integrated Graphics  0 [A3] [Lenovo]. Has this something to do with the need of RAM for hardware?

 

Why does hardware now need more RAM?

 

2acfed-1468422963.png



#12 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 13 July 2016 - 07:11 PM

Unmappable memory is seen as hardware reserved AFAICR.

In other words for *some* reasons your machine sees 133 mb (as before) +1024 mb (unusable) + give or take 2 mb=1155 mb 

 

You should anyway have more memory available than before, in theory that amount of hardware reserved should be 133 mb (as before) + 512 mb (unusable)+ give or take a few mb, BUT *something* limits the accessible memory to roughly 3 Gb, as I doubt that your graphic card uses more RAM.

 

Compare with:
http://www.unawave.d...er.html?lang=EN

 

Check your OS properties, like:
4GB-Computer-info-overwiev-unpatched.png

 

It may be due to a (mis-) configuration of the BIOS, an actual (documented or undocumented) limitation of the BIOS, or it could be due to some (arcane/unusual/queer) issue with the actual sticks, their timing and/o a number of other things.

 

Post also specific motherboard info (exact make/model and exact BIOS revision) and RAM sticks info (again Exact make/model and timing) , if the amount of usable memory is low in some cases a new BIOS may allow more RAM to be usable :unsure:

 

:duff:

Wonko



#13 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 13 July 2016 - 09:24 PM

Thank you Wonko.
 
My Basic Information:
51e7fe-1468444679.png
Motherboard and BIOS:

43071f-1468444922.png

 

RAM Stick 1:

db76e5-1468444967.png

 

RAM Stick 2:

e3ffdb-1468445006.png

 

RAM both together in work:

aa5280-1468445045.png

 

Let me know if it needs something else too. Thank you.



#14 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 July 2016 - 06:35 AM

Hmmm.

It seems like a tricky situation. :(

 

Your BIOS does seem like an old version so it is possible that a new one would change something, BUT for the moment at least leave it "as is"

 

Check thoroughly your BIOS, there might be an option *like* "Memory Remapping Feature" and/or "UMA Frame Buffer Size" and/or "AGP aperture size" or similar (this greatly depends on the BIOS, yours is an AMI, but Lenovo may have modified it removing options or renaming them.

 

Also, run msconfig and in the Boot tab check settings for "Maximum Memory".

See:
http://superuser.com...ed-in-windows-7

 

 

If you google the issue you will find any number of similar problems on Lenovo Support Forum (and elsewhere), included usually the common answers by some totally clueless responders, don't do anything suggested on these thread before a minimal check for consistency/reliability.

 

There is an "official" article that doesn't say anything useful:
https://support.leno...uments/ht002570

anyway do check in BIOS what is "seen" by it.

 

On the other hand there is another "official" article that gives space to some hope:
https://support.leno...on in Windows 7

 

:duff:

Wonko



#15 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 14 July 2016 - 03:14 PM

Thank you for your answer Wonko.
 

 

Check thoroughly your BIOS, there might be an option *like* "Memory Remapping Feature" and/or "UMA Frame Buffer Size" and/or "AGP aperture size" or similar.


The only thing I found in BIOS was
7816b5-1468509536.jpg
I have not changed this setting.
 

Also, run msconfig and in the Boot tab check settings for "Maximum Memory".

"Maximum Memory" was unchecked.

Maybe this can be interesting, but I do not know how to interpret:
In the Device Manager I selected Resources by Connection in the View Menu, and expanded the Memory node:
302ab6-1468509279.png

 

 

Maybe also interesting: Memtest86+ seems to know all the 4GB memory:

4172bd-1468511186.jpg


Edited by Imram, 14 July 2016 - 03:45 PM.


#16 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 14 July 2016 - 04:23 PM

Do I interpret right that according to post #13 (Print Screens RAM Stick 1, RAM Stick 2, RAM both together):
-Stick 1 runs with 333.3MHz and 5-5-5-15
-Stick 2 runs with 400 MHz and   5-5-5-18
when I use them together?



#17 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 July 2016 - 05:15 PM

I don't know.

Surely the two sticks are not a "perfect match", but I don' t think that is connected with usable RAM, at the most the system will have other issues or be a tad bit slower.

Back to BIOS, later BIOS revisions do not mention anything that may be connected:

https://support.leno...ents/migr-71909

version 5HKT53A
Updates the latest Ethernet EEPROM
version 5HKT52A
Fixes Windows7 preload issue
version 5HKT51A
Resumes the DMBM function
Fixes the DVMT issue
version 5HKT50A
A Patch for system hang '8D' after reboot
version 5HKT48A
Removes Lenovo DMBM function
version 5HKT47A
Modifies the debug code and DMBM function
version 5HKT46A
Adds function to Auto Detect Floppy for Lenovo NPI floppy error

 

so I would expect that a BIOS update might be totally ineffective to the issue at hand, though it would not be the first time that a BIOS update solves one or more issues that are not mentioned in the release notes, I wouldn't count too much on it.

 

Let's see if someone comes out with any new idea to test the setup.

 

:duff:

Wonko



#18 Imram

Imram

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  •  
    Switzerland

Posted 10 August 2016 - 12:00 PM

Nevertheless I made the BIOS- update. And as Wonko has expected there is no different compared to before.



#19 cdob

cdob

    Gold Member

  • Expert
  • 1314 posts

Posted 10 August 2016 - 09:53 PM

The BIOS occupais 3 GB to 4 GB address range still.
Therefore Windows 7 32 bit can access the first 3 GB RAM only.
The G41 chipset can remap the physical RAM above 4 GB address.

I would try a PAE RAM disk to get a 'free' 1 GB RAM disk.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ram

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users