|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.a-plus > July 2003 > Serial ATA
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
|
| Newt wrote:
> Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
> http://www.serialata.org/
>
Thank you, I bookmarked the URL and well have a look tomorrow, when i am
more awake. I want to know more about Serial ATA as my board supports them
| |
| Baffie 2003-07-18, 7:23 pm |
| On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:13:45 +0100, "Newt" <no.one@home.co.uk> wrote:
>Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
>http://www.serialata.org/
>
>HTH
>Newt
>
I must take a look at this website - there may well be an explanation
on why such flimsy connectors were specified when it's pretty obvious
how easy they can be broken.
Please reply to newsgroup - it's not my address in the header!
| |
| Robert Baer 2003-07-19, 2:24 am |
| Newt wrote:
>
> Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
> http://www.serialata.org/
>
> HTH
> Newt
I think the "fuss" (or hype) is a bit over-rated at best.
For example, take a "ho-hum" parallel IDE data transfer rate of
100Mbytes/sec, and make the false assumption that only data is
transferred via the cable.
Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
| |
|
| Baffie wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:13:45 +0100, "Newt" <no.one@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
>>http://www.serialata.org/
>>
>>HTH
>>Newt
>>
>
> I must take a look at this website - there may well be an explanation
> on why such flimsy connectors were specified when it's pretty obvious
> how easy they can be broken.
they do look flimsy, I must admit, I looked at the cable that came with
my abit board, I suppose most of the time they are pluged in and left,so
being flimsy is not a problem.
You may be able to help me here, one day soon, in the future, when I got
some money :-) , I am looking to buy a Serial ATA drive. I know that
you need a different data cable, but I also heard you need a convertor
for the power lead, is that true?
The only thing that came with my mother board is a data cable and a EIDE
convertor so I can one my normal har drive on the Serial if I want to.
See no need to do that yet, unles I was suign raid or I had all my EIDE
ports filled.
| |
|
| Robert Baer wrote:
> Newt wrote:
>
>>Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
>>http://www.serialata.org/
>>
>>HTH
>>Newt
>
>
> I think the "fuss" (or hype) is a bit over-rated at best.
> For example, take a "ho-hum" parallel IDE data transfer rate of
> 100Mbytes/sec, and make the false assumption that only data is
> transferred via the cable.
> Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
I will have a look at what you said when I am more awake and then try
and understand it :-)
| |
| DeMoN LaG 2003-07-19, 5:23 am |
| Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
| |
|
| Consider todays serial ATA to be the equivalent as earlier ATA 33
standards - 66 was an improvement and future SATA will be an improvement on
current specs. Saying that my current setup with an ASUS P48SX board is
much quicker and trouble free than my earlier version P4S333 with PATA
drives - using the same RAM and processor.
| |
|
|
"DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@21
6.168.3.30...
> Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
>
> > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
>
> See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
comes out?
Is this just hype-ware?
| |
|
|
"GB" <G@b.com> wrote in message news:3f190d89@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
>
> "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@21
6.168.3.30...
> > Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> >
> > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or
more.. [colo
r=darkred]
> > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
> >
> > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little[/color]
future.
> > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
>
> Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
> bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
> comes out?
>
> Is this just hype-ware?
No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward compatible,
just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward compatible
throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over time
will be in the BIOS just as before.
| |
| Richard Dower 2003-07-19, 1:23 pm |
|
"DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@21
6.168.3.30...
> Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
>
> > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
>
> See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
Indeed...SATA 300 is due mid 2004, and SATA 600 is due sometime 2006.
| |
| Robert Baer 2003-07-20, 4:23 am |
| DeMoN LaG wrote:
>
> Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
>
> > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
>
> See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
what i stated.
Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
(at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
would be fairly fast.
Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?
| |
| Robert Baer 2003-07-20, 4:23 am |
| Thor wrote:
>
> "GB" <G@b.com> wrote in message news:3f190d89@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
> >
> > "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@21
6.168.3.30...
> > > Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or
> more..
> > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
> > >
> > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little
> future.
> > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
> >
> > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
> > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
> > comes out?
> >
> > Is this just hype-ware?
>
> No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward compatible,
> just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward compatible
> throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over time
> will be in the BIOS just as before.
A single cable with data and control signals cannot be physically or
electronically "compatible" with a parallel cable having seperate data
and signal lines.
So anyone claiming direct "backwards compatibility" is a liar.
| |
|
|
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F1A4EBA.769D938B@earthlink.net...
> Thor wrote:
> >
> > "GB" <G@b.com> wrote in message news:3f190d89@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@21
6.168.3.30...
> > > > Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > > news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> > > >
> > > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or
> > more..
> > > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
> > > >
> > > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any).
The[c
olor=darkred]
> > > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little
> > future.
> > > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
> > >
> > > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware[/color]
is[co
lor=darkred]
> > > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when[/color]
it[co
lor=darkred]
> > > comes out?
> > >
> > > Is this just hype-ware?
> >
> > No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward[/color]
compatible,
> > just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward
compatible
> > throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over
time
> > will be in the BIOS just as before.
>
> A single cable with data and control signals cannot be physically or
> electronically "compatible" with a parallel cable having seperate data
> and signal lines.
> So anyone claiming direct "backwards compatibility" is a liar.
First, I wasn't talking about direct backward compatibility between P-ATA
and S-ATA. I was referring to backward compatibility between different
generations of S-ATA. This is what the poster I repsonded to was asking.
whether S-ATA drives available now will work with the faster generations of
S-ATA controllers that are brought out in the future. There was backward
compatibility between different generations of P-ATA. S-ATA won't be any
different in that regard, thus no need to avoid using S-ATA. However, as to
the issue you mistakenly addressed, there are adapters available right now
that allow P-ATA drives to interface with S-ATA controllers and ATA drives
to interface with P-ATA controllers. No, it's not "direct" backward
compatibility, but it's damn close. Close enough that the compatibitliy
issues between the two standards are a moot point.
| |
| V W Wall 2003-07-20, 1:23 pm |
| Robert Baer wrote:
>
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> >
> > Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> >
> > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
> >
> > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
>
> Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
> what i stated.
> Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
> times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
> times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
> If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
> then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
> (at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
> If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
> would be fairly fast.
> Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
> differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
> being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?
Thor explained the problems with increasing the data transfer rate with
the present parallel ATA standard(s). Also, remember that the ultimate
origin and destiny of the data is on the surface of a hard disk platter.
This is, of itself, a "serial" data train.
There is some work being done on "parallel" data recording. Multi layers
in optical data media are being investigated, but using magnetic media,
SATA looks like the best near-term solution.
Incidently, without some major change in optical recording, the data density
is limited by the wavelength of the recording "light". Magnetic recording
has no such theoretical limitation.
Virg Wall
--
Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
| |
|
| DeMoN LaG wrote:
> See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
you need 4 SATA ports.
I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
| |
|
| GB wrote:
> Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
> bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
> comes out?
>
> Is this just hype-ware?
>
>
It will be beack ward compatible, just like PATA and usb is now.
| |
|
|
"AD C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfekb0$b5q$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
>
>
> > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little
future.
> > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
>
> That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
> only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
> you need 4 SATA ports.
True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to
route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also, you
don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors can't
properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own cable.
Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.
>
> I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
> prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
> the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
>
| |
| Robert Baer 2003-07-21, 2:24 am |
| V W Wall wrote:
>
> Robert Baer wrote:
> >
> > DeMoN LaG wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > news:3F18E4A2.F010C7EB@earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
> > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
> > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
> > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
> > >
> > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
> > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
> > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
> >
> > Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
> > what i stated.
> > Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
> > times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
> > times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
> > If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
> > then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
> > (at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
> > If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
> > would be fairly fast.
> > Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
> > differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
> > being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?
>
> Thor explained the problems with increasing the data transfer rate with
> the present parallel ATA standard(s). Also, remember that the ultimate
> origin and destiny of the data is on the surface of a hard disk platter.
> This is, of itself, a "serial" data train.
>
> There is some work being done on "parallel" data recording. Multi layers
> in optical data media are being investigated, but using magnetic media,
> SATA looks like the best near-term solution.
>
> Incidently, without some major change in optical recording, the data density
> is limited by the wavelength of the recording "light". Magnetic recording
> has no such theoretical limitation.
>
> Virg Wall
>
> --
> Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
> Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
Ahhhh, you mentioned something i thought of in the mid 1980s..namely
that since all platters have heads, then *parallel* output is so easy
and obvious that it is a wonder how stupid HD makers have been (and for
so long).
Hell, with 8 platters (16 heads) and a different cable configuration,
true 16-bit computing could have been achieved at the outset of the
80386!
That was roughly the time that both IDE and SCSI first came out,
replacing the older MFM multi-cable systems; a lot of new schemes and
"space" for a (then) kick-XXX truly parallel system.
Oh, you want to *double* the file access speed (on open and close,
anyway)?
Just put the FAT in the middle of the disk instead of having it at the
edge!
Not my idea; Tandy did that on 8 inch floppies, model 80 if i remember
correctly.
| |
|
| Thor wrote:
>
> True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
> isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
> connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to
True, my old board got 2 PATA and two PATa raid and they take up a fair
bit of space on the board, my new Abit, got two PAta and two S-ATA and
it is difficult to find the S-ATA on the board, they are so small.
> route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also, you
> don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors can't
> properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own cable.
I hate that, I had a full size towercase and my old board had the
connection low down on the motherboard, it was a pain to connect the CD
writer and dvd drive. The smaller cables are nice, I must admit.
> Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.
That is also nice as well.
The only problem is that for a while P-ATA will still need to be on the
board due to the fact there ar so many products that use them. CDrom,
DVD rom,DVD writer,Cd writer, Zip drives and the LS drive. plus others.
How do Sata drives get their power, do they use the normal molex connector?
| |
|
| Robert Baer wrote:
>
>
> A single cable with data and control signals cannot be physically or
> electronically "compatible" with a parallel cable having seperate data
> and signal lines.
> So anyone claiming direct "backwards compatibility" is a liar.
No one was claiming that at all, what was being said is that Drives made
for later SATa will still work on the earlier SATAs, just like what
happens with P-ATA.
parralell
Anyway, you can get convectors to run PATA drives on SATA, I am using
one at the moment. Not sure if they will make one for the other way.
| |
|
|
"AD C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfgf6g$coj$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Thor wrote:
>
>
> >
> > True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
> > isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
> > connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to
>
> True, my old board got 2 PATA and two PATa raid and they take up a fair
> bit of space on the board, my new Abit, got two PAta and two S-ATA and
> it is difficult to find the S-ATA on the board, they are so small.
>
>
> > route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also,
you
> > don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors
can't
> > properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own
cable.
>
> I hate that, I had a full size towercase and my old board had the
> connection low down on the motherboard, it was a pain to connect the CD
> writer and dvd drive. The smaller cables are nice, I must admit.
>
>
>
> > Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.
>
> That is also nice as well.
>
> The only problem is that for a while P-ATA will still need to be on the
> board due to the fact there ar so many products that use them. CDrom,
> DVD rom,DVD writer,Cd writer, Zip drives and the LS drive. plus others.
>
>
> How do Sata drives get their power, do they use the normal molex
connector?
No. They use a new style small connector adjacent to the S-ATA Data
connector. However, current S-ATA drives are often coming with the old-style
molex for compatibility reasons. There are also adapters available for older
power supplies. The new ATX spec coming out will have the new S-ATA power
connector, so new power supplies should start showing up with it.
| |
|
| Thor wrote:
>>How do Sata drives get their power, do they use the normal molex
>
> connector?
>
> No. They use a new style small connector adjacent to the S-ATA Data
> connector. However, current S-ATA drives are often coming with the old-style
> molex for compatibility reasons. There are also adapters available for older
> power supplies. The new ATX spec coming out will have the new S-ATA power
> connector, so new power supplies should start showing up with it.
>
I see, So when I get a drive, I got to make sure what connector it got.
Maybe they should have stuck with the old power conectors, they seem to
work ok.
| |
|
| > I see, So when I get a drive, I got to make sure what connector it got.
> Maybe they should have stuck with the old power conectors, they seem to work ok.
As I understand it, the SATA drives work at a lower
voltage.
--
Nick
A+, Network+, MCP
| |
|
|
"Nick" <nick2030@excite.com> wrote in message
news VWSa.3846$NB5.2267@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > I see, So when I get a drive, I got to make sure what connector it got.
> > Maybe they should have stuck with the old power conectors, they seem to
work ok.
>
>
>
> As I understand it, the SATA drives work at a lower
> voltage.
On the data cable, yes. The signalling is 250mv instead of the 5V signalling
that P-ATA uses. But, the S-ATA *power* connectors still supply 12V (motors)
and 5V (logic) just like the old molex connector, but the S-ATA power supply
connectors now also supply a 3.3V source for anticipated future low power
mobile devices. In today's desktop machines, the 3.3V is not utilized on the
S-ATA drives, so a simple adapter for the standard 12V/5V AT/ATX molex
connector is available to fit the drive. Many drives are also still coming
with the old-style molex anyway.
| |
|
| Ok, I wondered about that part (the motors running with
less power.) Thank you, that helped a lot to clarify.
--
Nick
A+, Network+, MCP
| |
|
| Nick wrote:
>> I see, So when I get a drive, I got to make sure what connector it got.
>> Maybe they should have stuck with the old power conectors, they seem
>> to work ok.
>
>
>
>
> As I understand it, the SATA drives work at a lower voltage.
I can not see that, as the motors will still need 12 volts to run.
| |
|
| Thor wrote:
>
> On the data cable, yes. The signalling is 250mv instead of the 5V signalling
> that P-ATA uses. But, the S-ATA *power* connectors still supply 12V (motors)
> and 5V (logic) just like the old molex connector, but the S-ATA power supply
> connectors now also supply a 3.3V source for anticipated future low power
> mobile devices. In today's desktop machines, the 3.3V is not utilized on the
> S-ATA drives, so a simple adapter for the standard 12V/5V AT/ATX molex
> connector is available to fit the drive. Many drives are also still coming
> with the old-style molex anyway.
>
Now we know, thank you, I did not think the motors would have a lower
voltage.
|
|
|
|
|