toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Visio diagrams...
by Ken Nishikawa 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

Hey there Does anyone know where I can get some Visio stencils that represent the various NetApp boxes? I want to diagram our NAS/SAN setup in our colo. Also, does anyone know where I can get some good Visio stencils that represent logical volumes and such? Thanks KEN

2 1

RE: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Callaway, Michael 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

He's right, the traditional volumes will not be able to be upgraded. You have to have the room to migrate your storage over. We used a SnapMirror to new discs to accomplish our migration. That's the only small drawback to the 7.x flex vols. Everything else about them is golden. We have used NetApp for many years and use them in many creative ways, but the flex vols have opened up new worlds to us. You will want to check with your rep and make sure you are running the proper release. 7.x comes in a few flavors, some may be better for one part of your environment and some for others. Thanks, Michael NTTA/IT http://www.ntta.org 214.461.2033 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Langenbach Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:30 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp I installed 7.1 on three 270, two 920 and on two 3020 (Metro)clusters all with iSCSI, FC, SQL, Exchange, Oracle (CIFS/NFS/SAN), Snapmirror/SnapVault not one problem so far but we don't use quotas don't wait for an inplace migration from traditional to flex volume you won't get it Herbert Langenbach Senior Technical Consultant Databasement bv tel: 079 361 97 65 mobile: 06 23 352 168 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wargel [mailto:mwargel@cstor.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:51 PM To: Pichardo, Socrates; Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp We've been running 7G for a few months now with only one CIFS issue that was resolved by 7.03. Have setup Aggregates, flex vols, snapmirror, snapvault, CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, quotas, qtrees, ATA disks, clusters all on 7G. Have done several 6.x to 7G upgrades as well recently with migration to flexvols without any issues. Now if only NetApp were to come out with 7G that allowed an inplace migration from traditional to flex vols... Mike Wargel Senior Systems Engineer Custom Storage, Inc mwargel(a)customstorage.com O: 480 941-4026, x101 C: 602 690-4788 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Pichardo, Socrates Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:26 AM To: Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp We have been running OnTap 7G for a few months now without any significant glitches. We are using snapshots, snapmirror, NDMP, CIFS, iSCSI, Flex Vols, Flex Clones and Aggregates on clustered heads. Socrates Pichardo Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems with >OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit leary >of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major bugs... "IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."

1 0

RE: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Varghese, John 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

You may not be able to run a seamless transfer from trad to flexvol using just NetAPP; however, if you are using complimentary software such as VFM or even hardware such as Acopia you can do it. I think it only works with NAS though. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Langenbach Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:30 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp I installed 7.1 on three 270, two 920 and on two 3020 (Metro)clusters all with iSCSI, FC, SQL, Exchange, Oracle (CIFS/NFS/SAN), Snapmirror/SnapVault not one problem so far but we don't use quotas don't wait for an inplace migration from traditional to flex volume you won't get it Herbert Langenbach Senior Technical Consultant Databasement bv tel: 079 361 97 65 mobile: 06 23 352 168 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wargel [mailto:mwargel@cstor.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:51 PM To: Pichardo, Socrates; Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp We've been running 7G for a few months now with only one CIFS issue that was resolved by 7.03. Have setup Aggregates, flex vols, snapmirror, snapvault, CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, quotas, qtrees, ATA disks, clusters all on 7G. Have done several 6.x to 7G upgrades as well recently with migration to flexvols without any issues. Now if only NetApp were to come out with 7G that allowed an inplace migration from traditional to flex vols... Mike Wargel Senior Systems Engineer Custom Storage, Inc mwargel(a)customstorage.com O: 480 941-4026, x101 C: 602 690-4788 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Pichardo, Socrates Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:26 AM To: Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp We have been running OnTap 7G for a few months now without any significant glitches. We are using snapshots, snapmirror, NDMP, CIFS, iSCSI, Flex Vols, Flex Clones and Aggregates on clustered heads. Socrates Pichardo Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems with >OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit leary >of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major bugs... "IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."

1 0

RE: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Herbert Langenbach 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

I installed 7.1 on three 270, two 920 and on two 3020 (Metro)clusters all with iSCSI, FC, SQL, Exchange, Oracle (CIFS/NFS/SAN), Snapmirror/SnapVault not one problem so far but we don't use quotas don't wait for an inplace migration from traditional to flex volume you won't get it Herbert Langenbach Senior Technical Consultant Databasement bv tel: 079 361 97 65 mobile: 06 23 352 168 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wargel [mailto:mwargel@cstor.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:51 PM To: Pichardo, Socrates; Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp We've been running 7G for a few months now with only one CIFS issue that was resolved by 7.03. Have setup Aggregates, flex vols, snapmirror, snapvault, CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, quotas, qtrees, ATA disks, clusters all on 7G. Have done several 6.x to 7G upgrades as well recently with migration to flexvols without any issues. Now if only NetApp were to come out with 7G that allowed an inplace migration from traditional to flex vols... Mike Wargel Senior Systems Engineer Custom Storage, Inc mwargel(a)customstorage.com O: 480 941-4026, x101 C: 602 690-4788 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Pichardo, Socrates Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:26 AM To: Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp We have been running OnTap 7G for a few months now without any significant glitches. We are using snapshots, snapmirror, NDMP, CIFS, iSCSI, Flex Vols, Flex Clones and Aggregates on clustered heads. Socrates Pichardo Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems >with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit >leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major >bugs... "IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."

1 0

OnTap 7G; was RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Mike Wargel 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

We've been running 7G for a few months now with only one CIFS issue that was resolved by 7.03. Have setup Aggregates, flex vols, snapmirror, snapvault, CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, quotas, qtrees, ATA disks, clusters all on 7G. Have done several 6.x to 7G upgrades as well recently with migration to flexvols without any issues. Now if only NetApp were to come out with 7G that allowed an inplace migration from traditional to flex vols... Mike Wargel Senior Systems Engineer Custom Storage, Inc mwargel(a)customstorage.com O: 480 941-4026, x101 C: 602 690-4788 -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Pichardo, Socrates Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:26 AM To: Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp We have been running OnTap 7G for a few months now without any significant glitches. We are using snapshots, snapmirror, NDMP, CIFS, iSCSI, Flex Vols, Flex Clones and Aggregates on clustered heads. Socrates Pichardo Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems >with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit >leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major >bugs... "IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Glenn Walker 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

Always go with the latest available release :) We've also had problems with our filers (I think 6 bugs in the 6 weeks I've been here)... however, we're running 7.0.0.1 which was pretty abysmal as far as reliability. 7.0.4 should be the new Safe Harbor release when it comes out - it will do much for stability. As for the quota bug(s), I think there is still one that exists in 7.0.4, but will probably be addressed with a P release. Personally, I'd feel comfortable with upgrading to 7.0.4 for our enterprise, but also looking at 7.1 when it gets cooked a bit more - some good enhancements for Exchange in that release. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems >with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit >leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major >bugs...

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Pichardo, Socrates 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

We have been running OnTap 7G for a few months now without any significant glitches. We are using snapshots, snapmirror, NDMP, CIFS, iSCSI, Flex Vols, Flex Clones and Aggregates on clustered heads. Socrates Pichardo Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems >with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit >leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major >bugs... "IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email (and any attachments hereto) is confidential and may be protected by legal privileges and work product immunities. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work product privilege. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use."

1 0

RE: Replacing our NetApp
by Glenn Dekhayser 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

John: You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7. I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas, iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev. -Glenn Dekhayser Voyant Strategies, Inc. >The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems >with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit >leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major >bugs...

1 0

Config help
by Tim Longo 01 Feb '06

01 Feb '06

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone is using a configuration with an FAS 270, and Qualstar RLS-4221? If so, I'd be interested in hearing about your configuration and how your backup system works. Thanks.

1 0

FW: Replacing OUR NetApp
by Ken Nishikawa 01 Feb '06

01 Feb '06

Hi Luther I can speak with experience on working with Pillar Data. Back in May 05 I started looking into a SAN/NAS solution for my company. Having worked with both EMC and NetApp's in prior lives I had a pretty good idea on what each of them could bring to the table, but since I currently work for a small startup, big expenditures like disk arrays HAVE to be methodically laid out. So, I had to start my search from the ground up. For starters I spent the week down at the Storage world conf down in Long Beach and talked to about 75 different vendors. looking into both SATA and FC disk arrays, iSCSI, NAS, traditional FC SAN, etc. The sum of that foray was I was able to narrow the pack down to about 5 "interesting" vendors. after a few post conference meetings, the list was quickly narrowed down to 3 vendors. EMC, NetApp and Pillar Data. BTW non negotiable requirements were: System must be able to do: NAS and SAN Easily expandable Easily managed World class support Cost effective I won't bore you with the details but. in a nut shell, objectively ALL three were excellent candidates (email me if you want to discuss my objective opinions of all three choices, as each one of the vendors were good) Bottom line when it came to putting my John Hancock on a sales PO I went with NetApp. REASONS:. 1. Interestingly this was the first time that both EMC and NetApp had gone head to head with a customer that was seriously considering Pillar Data. (something I'm sure that is more common today). In any event, because of this, its my opinion that both of them were "pulling out all the stops" as far as pricing was concerned. Naturally this worked out good for me =:-) and as expected Pillar kept throwing more and more into the pot. so much that I was ready to sign a PO with Pillar. But. literally at the 11 hour (and 59th minutes) NetApp "made me an offer I couldn't refuse" 2. Irrespective of the dollar sacrifice all three vendors were making I have to admit that Pillars offerings were VERY interesting. Pillar has an interesting advantage of starting from scratch in designing their disk arrays with "today's technology" where as most "established vendors are using years, almost decades old technology. that has been "upgraded over the years" so here I say advantage Pillar Data for being innovative. This is not to say that EMC or NetApp are not innovative. its just a different perspective if you get what I mean. but with newness comes uncertainty and that concerned me. 3. Which leads me to my number one concern with Pillar: Newness of the product. I believe I would have been one of the first "real sales" they made..sure they touted all the "big shops" that had gazillions of terabytes of data sitting on Pillar Axioms. but I'd bet a dollar that these were test boxes that folks were "kicking the tires" on. Bottom line, I didn't feel 100% comfortable putting my job on the line with a product that was that "wet" Now, 7 months later. if I was going to buy another disk array #2 and #3 might not be as big a deterrent, and I might end up with a Pillar system. maybe. Bottom line. I think EMC and NetApp have the first "real contender" to their domains EMC with SAN and NetApp with NAS. but what the real test will be is how eagerly the rest of the industry accepts. yet another disk mfg. Just my .02 KEN Ken Nishikawa Director of IT/Operations KeepMedia, Inc. 275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 650 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 587-7031 Voice (650) 587-7001 Fax knishikawa(a)keepmedia.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Luther Allin Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:10 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Replacing OUR NetApp I'm liking the thread that John Stewart started about his filer replacement, so I decided to start my own. We too are faced with replacing our NetApp filers this year. We have and F720 (cifs file shares) and an F810 (cifs and iscsi). Both of these filers are maxed out both in disk space and processor. We had NetApp come up with a solution for us to replace these and the proposal is attractive. They put together a 3020 system for us that should meet both of our storage and processing needs for at least the next 2 years. So we budgeted for the replacement. Then the unthinkable happened... My boss received a postcard from a company called Pillar Data. He brought the postcard to me and said, "we should look at what these guys have." The rest is history. For those of you not familiar with Pillar Data, it's a startup of Larry Ellison's (the ORACLE Larry Ellison.) They have a really neat product, and their QOS is quite impressive. But I don't think that their product is mature enough yet for prime time. After spending some time with their engineers and traveling to the Enterprise Technology Center in Atlanta to demo one of these solutions, I found some chinks in their armor. I won't go into the details here, but if anyone wants to know what I've learned about them, I'll be happy to share that information. So this leads me to my question. Has anyone heard of Pillar Data and if so I was wondering if you shared my opinion (or not) of their product? I want to stick with the NetApp solution that was proposed, so I'm looking for ammunition to back up my argument. Cheers. Luther L. Allin IV, MCSE, ICSA Network Systems Engineer Miller <http://www.millermartin.com/> & Martin PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000 Chattanooga, TN 37402 lallin(a)millermartin.com (423) 785-8381 (Direct) (423) 321-1678 (Fax) Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Please also advise us immediately if you or your employer does not consent to receipt of Internet email for confidential messages of this kind.

1 0

Jump to page:

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