toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Sun Client Maximum Throughputs
by beepy＠netapp.com 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Do any of our customers out there have some measurements of Sun client throughput? I thought I could use a 2 x 400MHz Ultra Enterprise E250 with a new Sun GbE card in it as a killer client, and I find that with V3 32KB UDP packets, the sucker rolls over at ~30 MB/s with 2 CPUs pinned at 99% in system time. This *sucks*. In an experimental filer setup reading from memory (all cached data) the F760 CPU is at 20%. I am totally client bound. Has anyone sized Sun clients out there? Are the PCI clients dogs? Is the new GbE card from Sun a loser? Should I go grab a new Alteon card for the Sun? What is your killer high performance client? It seems a function of the Sun E250 - 100BaseT seems to scale only to 30 MB/s before running out of CPU... Broken-hearted in Amsterdam, beepy

9 13

Re: Budtool / backup sw Mailing-List??
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Michael Coxe <mc(a)com21.com> writes: > Is there a mailing-list for this sort of discussion? > I'm looking for one, either Budtool specific or UNIX/NT > generic (@ enterprise level). > > If not, do others feel a need for one? We'd be very interested in one as well (and would be willing to host if it didn't exist already). Anyone else? Peace, dNb

4 5

W2000 and CIFS auth with unix passwd
by Stephen C. Losen 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

We are currently using unix passwd authentication for our CIFS logins. The filer is a NIS client. It works great because we use a single NIS passwd database for our unix boxes and the filer. The unix boxes all NFS mount the filer, so our users can access their home directory either via CIFS or via telnet to unix. The same password works for both methods. The whole reason we bought the filer was to provide this unified "home directory service." We are concerned about W2000 because no release we have tried works with this setup. We realize that clear text passwords must be enabled for this to work. There is even a registry entry for enabling this, but W2000 doesn't seem to pay any attention to it. We have over 25,000 accounts in our NIS database. We have no problems with W95, W98 or NT, so it seems dreadfully unfair to us that Microsoft would suddenly pull the plug on such an essential (to us) feature. I'm wondering if anyone else on this list knows anything about whether Microsoft plans to address this issue. Is anyone else out there using unix authentication for CIFS logins? How are you going to deal with W2000? I know we could work around this problem with a domain controller, etc., but that involves a lot of $$ for the NT box, NT account licenses, and maintaining a parallel user database. Or perhaps we can do it with Samba somehow. But our setup right now is so simple and painless. Admittedly it is less secure with clear text passwords, but we haven't turned off telnet, ftp, pop, imap, etc., yet and they use clear text passwords, too. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 1

y2k
by fubar＠mathworks.com 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Some of you may be wondering why you're just now getting messages from Jan 1st and on. No, it's not sendmail's lovely queue processing. In fact, it was hypermail not being happy with they year 2000. Damn thing spun in a loop forever... Anyway, I've upgraded. As a result, I've had to completely rebuild the toasters archive. A quick glance and it looks happy. The search, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... I'll have to play around a bit with that. If anyone notices any problems, please let me know. The archive is located at http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters.html Kendall..

4 3

RE: CIFS delays.
by Sanborn, Ed 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Actually I fixed the problem by sync'ing my duplex settings. They were mis-matched with the network port that the filer was connected to. -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/> -----Original Message----- From: Sanborn, Ed [mailto:esanborn@northchurch.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:03 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS delays. Hi folks, I have an F720 running 5.2.2. I am experiencing significant delays with the CIFS protocol. NFS is fine. Any troubleshooting suggestions? -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/>

1 0

Re: Netapp w. multiple NIC in WINS ?
by Brian Rice 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

> I have installed a quad ethernet NIC i my 720 and I wonder how it will > present it self in the NT Domain. Does any one know how to be sure > trafic goes to the correct interface ? How does WINS react on a > NT/Netapp host with multiple NIC's ? My NT servers are on the same > subnet as the "e1a" interface and NFS clients on the "e0". I used to have multi-homed F630's running CIFS. The multi-homing was mostly a historical accident; the network environment was such that traffic's choice of interface didn't have performance implications. Anyway, the big problem was that NT 4 revisions prior to Service Pack 4 have a NetBIOS bug that's exposed when you try to play with a multi-homed server. Every so often, NT clients would get a "The network path cannot be found" error when they tried to access a share from a NetApp. When you did a net view from a DOS prompt, you'd get System error 53 has occurred. At the time, there was an NT patch; the fix nowadays would be to upgrade to a non-ancient service pack. Brian

1 0

Re: 9gig drives
by Patrick Day 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

I have an unpopulated 9Gb shelf with 1 power supply that was attached to a 740 that i we no longer need. if you are interested, let me know and i'll check on a price. --patrick day patrick.day.b(a)bayer.com mathworks owner-toasters <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> on 01/04/2000 10:51:53 AM To: "DDA.RFC-822=toasters(a)mathworks.com/P=Internet/A= /C=us"@X400 cc: Subject: 9gig drives Does anyone have a source for Netapp 9 gig drives and disk trays for a f720. We are being told form our reseller they can only get 18gig drives now. Thats a problem for us since we just want a couple more to expand our current raidset. Not to build another raidset of larger drives. Or to format the 18gig drives to 9gig to use in the current raid set. -Cameron Slye

1 0

Re: Goodies (was wack)
by chris＠cecil.muscat.com 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Nick Hilliard wrote: >Perhaps this is o/s revision dependent, but 4.x can have many millions of >objects. Bzzzzt. 256bytes RAM per object so on a C760 only 4M objects. We were hoping to cache pure html (which would never be more than a few K in size) and 200M documents was the minimum number of documents for things to be usefull to us. [sigh] -- Chris Good - Dialog Corp. The Westbrook Centre, Milton Rd, Cambridge UK Phone: 01223 715006 Mobile: 07801 788997 http://www.dialog.com

3 2

"Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by E Hunter 03 Jan '00

03 Jan '00

Greetings. I'm brand-spankin' new to this list, so please please please excuse me if I landed this question in the wrong space/time. I'm looking for infomation on NetApps because the company I'm working for is considering a 760 for our network. I have been told by someone who is only vaguely familiar with the NetApps that the filesystem has to be maintained in some way by running a _wac_ command, but I have been unable to find any information on such a command in a week of searching . Can anyone fill me in on the use of this _wac_ command , what it does, how often it needs to be done, and whehter or not the filer requires downtime to do it? Thanx. -- Eric Hunter System Administrator _______________________ eric(a)gigaton.com

22 35

Netcache object capacities (was Re: Goodies (was wack))
by jrg＠acm.org 02 Jan '00

02 Jan '00

On Fri 31 Dec, 1999, chris(a)cecil.muscat.com (Chris Good) wrote: >BTW who else thinks it sucks that you can only have a million or >so objects in a netcache. bang went another couple of sales when >we discovered that... I've not played with one in ages, but can that really be right? The Tech Specs sheet says that the C740 maxes at 990GB, (ok, probably because that's what the filer can do), so for an average 13kB object size that gives space for: 990*1024*1024/13 = approx 79 000 000 objects. Even for the C720 (4 disks)'s more reasonable max 27GB, that's around 2 million. The C720/486GB is 39 million or so. Surely you wouldn't have a system that would waste all that disk space? To look at it another way, 990GB of disk and only one million objects would mean the average file size could be as high 1MB. The aforementioned specs, and the rest of the docs, have nothing to say on the matter though. James.

2 1

RE: volcopy and snapmirror performance
by Walters, Mike 31 Dec '99

31 Dec '99

We did this transfer on a site to migrate around 150GB data between F630 to F760 - it went though at around 14-15MB/s (50+GB/hour) on a direct cross-over GbE connection. Although it's not a requirement, I would sugggest using the same versions of ONTAP - we hit a hardware problem on one filer which aborted the transfer, & there was a problem with aborted transfers when the filers were on 5.2.1 and 5.2.3 resp. - we upped them both to 5.2.3 & all was well ;-) Cheers Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of kevin graham > Sent: 30 December 1999 11:54 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: volcopy and snapmirror performance > > > > We're looking at moving 287gb (~10.7m inodes) worth of data > from a 630 to > a clean volume on a 760. > > To schedule the downtime, I need to know if anyone has > ballpark figures > for calculating the tiem for a volcopy. The filers are well > connected > (gbit ether on both of them), and I can sacrafice big chunks of > performance to make this go in a timely manner. (the > 100mbit interfaces > are inactive as well, if those should just be strapped together) > > Later on, we're looking at trying to snapmirror 536gb > (~17.2m inodes) > spread pretty evenly across two volumes between two > locations. Are there > numbers available on the approximate overhead of the > snapmirror protocol > (delta bytes * overhead), and how often it would be > feasible to run it > (I'd prefer something in the neighborhood of 5-10 minutes). > > The best numbers I could find on NOW were "36GB/hr will > drive the cpu to > 100%" without any reference to the filer model, cache sizes > (the filer > does do read-aheads, right?), inode density, etc... > > thanks. > > ..kg.. > >

2 1

RE: Goodies (was wack)
by Mohler, Jeff 31 Dec '99

31 Dec '99

Depends. If it's a round of golf or a T-shirt..its a safe bet, feel free to produce a P.O.. But if it's a leather jacket...hold out for the jacket, because between the jacket and the gold, you KNOW the salesguy _wants_ that round of golf. Isn't there a Dilbert about this..yet? :-----Original Message----- :From: Alan R. White [mailto:arw@tipper.demon.co.uk] :Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 12:44 PM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: Re: Goodies (was wack) : : :Wonder how many sales folk actually believe that there is a direct :relationship between giveaways and meeting their end of year targets? : :....or is it me thats being naive.....

1 0

toasters
by TomArlington 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

toasters

1 0

RE: "Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by Mohler, Jeff 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

Yes, but in the spirit of keeping the post simple for our new user, I didnt bring in complexities of how a F720 and lower work, or clustering. So yes, my post is somewhat inaccurate outside the scope of the reply itself. :-----Original Message----- :From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] :Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 8:51 AM :Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: RE: "Wac"-ing the WAFL? : : : :On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Mohler, Jeff wrote: : :> When a series of writes comes into the box, it is buffered :*im making this :> simple*, and it flushed out to disk (on a 760) ever 10 :seconds, of when 16Mb of :> data is in the buffer (NVRAM). : :This is inaccurate, I believe in clustered machines with 32MB :NVRAM it is :8MB. I think the general rule is half of NVRAM dedicated to the :particular filer. : :Tom :

1 0

RE: "Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by Mohler, Jeff 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

:RAID 0. I know, I know, it sounds almost suicidal but as I :said speed is more :important in this instance than recovery. We'll be testing :this 760 against :an Auspex, which can be configured to use RAID 0, so I was :wondering if the :NetApps could also do this. --- Actually, the way RAID4 is used in conjunction with WAFL, really looks and feels like RAID0, just with a parity write at the end. WAFL removes the problem on a UFS type filesystem of having that single parity drive just thrash to tiny bits, taking the stripe performance with it. When a series of writes comes into the box, it is buffered *im making this simple*, and it flushed out to disk (on a 760) ever 10 seconds, of when 16Mb of data is in the buffer (NVRAM). A single stripe (or series of stripes) is then written in a _very_ optimized manner using the WAFL filesystem, and a single parity calculation/write is created per stripe. I direct you to a document Mr. Hitz wrote at http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3001.html for more details. I have every confidence you will enjoy our performance in your testing.

3 2

volcopy and snapmirror performance
by kevin graham 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

We're looking at moving 287gb (~10.7m inodes) worth of data from a 630 to a clean volume on a 760. To schedule the downtime, I need to know if anyone has ballpark figures for calculating the tiem for a volcopy. The filers are well connected (gbit ether on both of them), and I can sacrafice big chunks of performance to make this go in a timely manner. (the 100mbit interfaces are inactive as well, if those should just be strapped together) Later on, we're looking at trying to snapmirror 536gb (~17.2m inodes) spread pretty evenly across two volumes between two locations. Are there numbers available on the approximate overhead of the snapmirror protocol (delta bytes * overhead), and how often it would be feasible to run it (I'd prefer something in the neighborhood of 5-10 minutes). The best numbers I could find on NOW were "36GB/hr will drive the cpu to 100%" without any reference to the filer model, cache sizes (the filer does do read-aheads, right?), inode density, etc... thanks. ..kg..

1 0

RE: "Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by Anders Ljungberg S (QDT) 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

We have 9 F760's in 3 clusters and 3 mirrors. They are all fully populated with shelfs ( 80 shelfs/~8TB in total ). I dont know the wack time because a never had to run a single one. The system was taken into production 9 months ago. So in our case it's not very common. Anders -----Original Message----- From: E Hunter [mailto:eric@gigaton.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 4:28 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: "Wac"-ing the WAFL? How long does it take to wack a fully loaded 760? By fully loaded, I mean somewhere in the 1TB range, which I think is the upper limit of the 760.

1 0

RE: "Wac"-ing the WAFL?
by Anders Ljungberg S (QDT) 30 Dec '99

30 Dec '99

This is my personal expirience from a heavy NFS Site. Which lead to replacing 2x7000/600 Auspex Netservers with a F740. To get realy good write performace lets say that you have to use atleast 7 drives/raidgroup.The performance raises up to lets say ~14. 7 drives without parity ( raid 4 or 5 ) is not verry funny considering the risk of a failing drive , restore times etc. So, in the Auspex case i had to go for mirrored stripes. ( Very bad price/performance and i finaly grew out of my cabinets ) On a filer i spend money on one "extra" drive instead of seven. The 740 is just cruising with the load which lead to the fall of the Netservers. Not to even mention the decreased need of administration. Anders Ljungberg As Jeff said, Netapp's RAID-4 implementation is not performance limiting in most cases. Most of the time a filer with RAID-4 will provide better performance than an equivalent product without RAID or with RAID-0. So I'm sure you will be quite pleased in your tests, particularly against a (*snicker*) Auspex. (Be sure to compare the price and number of filesystems in each system configuration as well.) I seem to recall some public talk waay back when about Netapp possibly offering RAID-0 since basically all you have to do is remove the parity drive. You could simulate this yourself by manually failing the parity drive and letting the filer operate in degraded mode with just the data disks. However, I'm not sure that the code is actually optimized for this case, so there might be some other normal RAID-4 checks that get in the way of realizing any performance gains. Bruce

1 0

RE: Some fun things not to try at home
by Priebe, Jason 28 Dec '99

28 Dec '99

> Are you implying that you'd rather use 6 drives per shelf > rather than 7? No -- I'm just assuming that the 7th disk (the hot spare) is drawing little or no power. Perhaps this is a bad assumption. > > Is startup power the power required to "spin up" the > > disks? In that case, isn't that power only delivered once at boot > > time? > > In addition to this, if I remember correctly, the filer spins up disks > sequentially, so there shouldn't be more than one disk drawing startup > power at any one time. That's good to note. Jason Priebe WRAL OnLine http://www.wral-tv.com/

2 1

RE: Some fun things not to try at home
by Priebe, Jason 27 Dec '99

27 Dec '99

Hmmm... that's interesting. I don't want to be foolhardy here, but I just checked the power requirements for the Seagate ST39173W (9GB Barracuda) drives and the ST15150W (4GB Barracuda) drives that are in the filer's shelf now. ST39173W ST15150W 12V startup 1.7 amps 2.18 12V typical 0.5 0.83 5V startup 1.2 amps 1.0 5V typical 0.75 0.75 It appears to me that, except for the 5V startup, the 9GB drives require _less_ power than the 4GB drives. Is the 5V startup the limiting factor? Can the power supply not deliver 1.2 amps at 5V to six drives? Is startup power the power required to "spin up" the disks? In that case, isn't that power only delivered once at boot time? Do the disks ever spin down in an active system? I really don't mean to be confrontational. We're just desperate to get some more life out of our F210 (we bought it new just two years ago). Jason Priebe WRAL OnLine http://www.wral-tv.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Bulfer, David [mailto:david.bulfer@netapp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 5:30 PM > To: 'Priebe, Jason'; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Some fun things not to try at home > > > Please be careful. I do not believe that your StorageWorks > shelf has enough > power for 9G drives. Buying a new supply from Compaq would > not solve the > problem either. Your results could be quite unhappy. > > David Bulfer > Director of Platform Engineering > Network Appliance, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Priebe, Jason [mailto:priebe@wral-tv.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 1:22 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Some fun things not to try at home > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > > If you find out something > > useful in your filer experience, plesae pass it along, even > if it's of > > the "I didn't read the manual, so I did this and it > crashed" variety. > > While we're airing dirty laundry -- a couple of months ago, I > mentioned > to the list that we wanted to try to replace our F210's 4GB SCSI disks > with 9GB disks (full shelf, no more shelves available from NetApp). > > I replaced two of the 4GB disks with 9GB ones, and all was well (of > course, the filer only used 4 of the 9GB, but we figured we'd dump > to tape, rebuild the file system, then restore once all the drives > were in place). > > So I'm opening the 3rd disk carrier, removing the flex circuit from > the disk drive (has anyone else ever tried to do this? How the #$%! > do you do it?) by prying with a screwdriver, and the screwdriver goes > right through the circuit. D'oh! > > I did find that I was able to call Compaq and order a new > circuit (only > $96 for that tiny little piece!). Still waiting on delivery, though. > I'll let you know how it goes. Wish I'd known you could still order > these parts -- I could have built a couple of my own carriers and had > them ready to go into the filer instead of failing a drive, > disassembling > the carrier, reassembling the carrier, and reinstalling. > > Jason Priebe > WRAL OnLine > http://www.wral-tv.com/ > >

3 2

NFAS-1400
by Russell Murphy 27 Dec '99

27 Dec '99

I picked up a rack mount cabinet at the local electronic surplus and while looking it over to strip, I discovered it was a toaster. Before I cannibalize it, is there documentation available? Network Appliances' support pages appear to be customer only.

1 0

Spam alert
by Clawson, Simon 27 Dec '99

27 Dec '99

looks like this address has been hit with a spammer. Can you block this? Simon Clawson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: mbhdkp5(a)hotmail.com > Sent: 26 December 1999 18:44 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: FREE SEX, Free forever, forever free! From: 219.130.141.242 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------

2 1

FREE SEX, Free forever, forever free! From: 219.130.141.242
by mbhdkp5＠hotmail.com 26 Dec '99

26 Dec '99

Ok, I'll keep this short! At the following site... http://www.angelfire.com/la2/coolallforfree/enter.html you can download a program called Sextracker that finds you free sex on the internet, download is forever free, and free forever, no credit cards, no memberships, no hassles!. However, if you feel like spending some money, you can buy a legitimate password that would give you access to over 70,000 high quality adult sites 24/7 for a whole year (or a whole lifetime), your choice! Costs start from $1 A YEAR up to $1.20 a month (for the exact same service), go to http://www.angelfire.com/la2/coolallforfree/enter.html to see for yourself! Also a great Christmas pressent for your friends! ---- I am very sorry if you did not appreciate this email, your address was submitted from : 219.130.141.242 However, rest assured, this is a one time only email and you would never receive it again, have a wonderful year 2000 and don't forget, DRIVE SAFELY ON THE ROADS and DON'T drink and drive, for goodness sake :)! Take care out there and goodbye!

1 0

RE: Some fun things not to try at home
by Bond, Andrew 23 Dec '99

23 Dec '99

Note that some disks are not labelled with WIDE SCSI; however the DEC part number may have "W" in it, eg: SHWHB-GB (but you can't rely on this either!). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dl-toasters(a)netapp.com > [mailto:owner-dl-toasters@netapp.com]On Behalf Of Timothy A. McCarthy > Sent: 22 December 1999 22:14 > To: tkaczma(a)gryf.net > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Some fun things not to try at home > > > I've had this happen before... a long time ago anyway. > > Check the disk. In my case I tried to put a WIDE > SCSI disk into a narrow shelf. Result, not even recognized. > > Pulled it out, looked at the label, and in the wise > words of Homer Simpson said "Dogh!!" when I > read "4GB WIDE SCSI". > > --tmac > > tkaczma(a)gryf.net wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > > > > > Some of the older drivers didn't > > > like one version of the StorageWorks container, but did work > > > in another, and we spent the rest of the night scrounging for > > > parts off other containers for the right disk container. :) > > > > Is that right. I just plugged in a brand spanking new > spare (well it's > > been on the shelf for a while) into a 330's shelf and the > disk was not > > detected even after several tries (a defective spare?). I > pop a different > > disk in and it is detected immediately. I wonder whether > that was the > > problem, whether the shelf is becomming flakey, oe whether > it was simply a > > bad spare. > > > > Tom > > -- > ******All New Numbers!!!****** > ************* ************* > > Timothy A. McCarthy --> System Engineer, Eastern Region > Network Appliance http://www.netapp.com > 240-268-2034 Office \ / Page Me at: > 240-268-2002 Fax \/ 888-971-4468 > > > >

3 2

RE: Some fun things not to try at home
by Priebe, Jason 23 Dec '99

23 Dec '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] > If you find out something > useful in your filer experience, plesae pass it along, even if it's of > the "I didn't read the manual, so I did this and it crashed" variety. While we're airing dirty laundry -- a couple of months ago, I mentioned to the list that we wanted to try to replace our F210's 4GB SCSI disks with 9GB disks (full shelf, no more shelves available from NetApp). I replaced two of the 4GB disks with 9GB ones, and all was well (of course, the filer only used 4 of the 9GB, but we figured we'd dump to tape, rebuild the file system, then restore once all the drives were in place). So I'm opening the 3rd disk carrier, removing the flex circuit from the disk drive (has anyone else ever tried to do this? How the #$%! do you do it?) by prying with a screwdriver, and the screwdriver goes right through the circuit. D'oh! I did find that I was able to call Compaq and order a new circuit (only $96 for that tiny little piece!). Still waiting on delivery, though. I'll let you know how it goes. Wish I'd known you could still order these parts -- I could have built a couple of my own carriers and had them ready to go into the filer instead of failing a drive, disassembling the carrier, reassembling the carrier, and reinstalling. Jason Priebe WRAL OnLine http://www.wral-tv.com/

3 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters