Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site April 24, 2014, 06:16:19 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Your Support Funds this Site: View the Supporter Yearbook.
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible  (Read 36117 times)
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« on: November 01, 2007, 02:15:52 PM »

I've been looking for backup software to do versioned differential backups. I tend to prefer hands-on packages and was trying out SyncBackSE when I noticed zridling's mini-review of Super Flexible File Synchronizer.

Back in May some people expressed the intention of switching to SFFS from SyncBackSE. Now that the dust has settled, are people happy about the move - if they made it? Or, on closer inspection, did they find features of SyncBackSE that they preferred to those of SFFS after all?

Both look to me as if they would do what I want, but I didn't see much in the way of detailed comparison that would have enabled me to make a choice between the two. Unfortunately, my trial of SyncBackSe has run out so I can't compare them in action.

In favour of SyncBackSE, it has a very lively forum, lots of documentation, and is about $10 cheaper than SFFS - even with the latter's discount. I also tend to like companies that offer decent free versions of their software as well as paid ones (e.g. like SyncBack and NoteTab). In favour of SFFS, it has a rather neater interface, and some enthusiastic users here.

DBC
Logged
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,067



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2007, 02:31:43 PM »

cant compare I'm afraid
but I can say that if you've any problems -
Tobias - the developer of SFFS is very helpful & quick to respond to emails & fix any bugs -
same day service last (& first) time I found a bug.

Has the partial file backup thing - backing up only the changed portion of large files
& supports S3/Amazon online backup - I havent used that though..

a forum is nice to have though too  undecided
Logged

Tom
Darwin
Charter Member
***
Posts: 6,979



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2007, 04:20:53 PM »

I am not in a position to comment on SyncBackSE, either, but SFFS is everything Zaine (and Tom!) make it out to be and more. I didn't think I needed/wanted it because I have DOpus 9, which features a pretty robust folder syncher and used it daily for three years. I NEVER use it anymore, SFFS is that good.

YMMV.
Logged

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
PPLandry
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 691


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2007, 05:01:19 PM »

It's not a backup software per se, but it does the same... have you tried SyncToy? Free tool from MS. I have a portable HD. It compares the two and copies just what's relevant. Many options. I use contribute so the backup includes stuff I've deleted.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 07:19:24 PM by PPLandry » Logged

Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present -- Albert Camus -- www.InfoQube.biz
zridling
Friend of the Site
Charter Member
***
Posts: 3,285


Linux captive

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2007, 06:33:29 PM »

DBC, test them all and find what you like. Super Flexible File Synchronizer (SFFS) is built for enterprise use on top of desktop use, so it not only does Delta synching, but can handle almost any remote task — a great feature when you're somewhere/anywhere else. Super Flexible Software primarily caters to enterprise clients, meaning, they don't have time to deal with mistakes. Although it's pricey, we're lucky to have this software available to individual users.

SFFS can detect and merge changes in files — even in different locations using 'SmartTracking' — or it can copy the entire file if you choose to do so within your profile. SmartTracking does what you're talking about; that is, track changes that have been made between the various invocations of your files rather than creating duplicates by merely copying files between the left and right locations. SFFS also has an advanced algorithm for efficiently comparing source and target directories while sending only a little bit of data across the wire, and copying only changed parts of files, saving bandwidth when using FTP or S3.

You decide what SFFS does by properly setting up your sync profile. In attended mode inside the Synchronization Preview dialog, you can even choose the action of any specific file, one-by-one. Therefore, I think you misunderstand the nature of delta synchronization, which is a process method, not an algorithm. You can create a variety of algorithms to run a delta synchronization of your files.

SFFS is updated frequently and also has a Linux version. So you can take it with you to anothe platform and not have to buy another license. After using the others — all of which are good! — I really, really like the power and feature set of Super Flexible File Synchronizer.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 06:35:39 PM by zridling » Logged

- zaine (on Google+)
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2007, 07:16:29 PM »

a forum is nice to have though too  undecided

Yes. All things being more-or-less equal, I tend to prefer software that has a forum or mailing-list - providing members use it, of course. 

DBC
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2007, 07:35:58 PM »

It's not a backup software per se, but it does the same... have you tried SyncToy? Free tool from MS. I have a portable HD. It compares the two and copies just what's relevant. Many options. I use contribute so the backup includes stuff I've deleted.

Thanks. It looks as though it does basic synchronizing well, but I need something that does differential backups and so on. I use TotalCommander for any basic sync'ing I do.   

DBC
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2007, 07:54:05 PM »

DBC, test them all and find what you like...

Therefore, I think you misunderstand the nature of delta synchronization, which is a process method, not an algorithm. You can create a variety of algorithms to run a delta synchronization of your files.


So much so, that I didn't even realise that that was what I was talking about  embarassed As far as I can see, though, both SFFS and SyncBackSE would do what I want (differential backups with versioning). I'm just interested in why people are apparently migrating from the latter to the former - if this is what is happening. Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?

DBC
Logged
mwb1100
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,230


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2007, 08:11:11 PM »

Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?

Yes - I haven't tried SFFS because I'm happy with SyncBackSE.  From a brief look at feature lists, it seems that SFFS might have some more powerful features, but I don't need them and SyncBackSE has plenty of options and features, too.  I think that Zaine's advice to try them both is what you need to do.  Sometimes, a lot of what makes a program good (or bad) boils down to personal preference.  If your SyncBackSE trial has expired, try shooting them an email for an extension, some outfits will do that.
Logged
KenR
Super
Blogger
***
Posts: 825


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2007, 09:50:32 PM »

... Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?
DBC

Yes, I still use SyncBackSE. I have looked at SF about 4 times. I have tried earnestly to see what everyone's enthusiasm is with SF and I just don't. So, there is at least 1 left. smiley

Ken
Logged

Kenneth P. Reeder, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Jacksonville, North Carolina  28546
zridling
Friend of the Site
Charter Member
***
Posts: 3,285


Linux captive

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2007, 10:12:08 PM »

What mwb1100 said. You won't go wrong with using what you like. As for Ken, well, we're working on him!
Logged

- zaine (on Google+)
Armando
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,666



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2007, 12:26:47 AM »

... Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?
DBC

Yes, I still use SyncBackSE. I have looked at SF about 4 times. I have tried earnestly to see what everyone's enthusiasm is with SF and I just don't. So, there is at least 1 left. smiley

Ken

same here. synbackse works well for me.  It has plenty of features.

I should've kept notes about why I decided to keep syncbackse instead of sffs but... I didn't. One thing I remember though: I was interested in the delta updating of files but it didn't seem to make a big difference in speed in the end.

People seem to find syncbackse unreliable... but it's always been pretty reliable to me. smiley
Logged

"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
nosh
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,372


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2007, 02:27:37 AM »

Those interested in a mirroring tool with a good looking + v.user friendly interface may want to check out Second Copy. Sadly, it's not free.
Logged
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,067



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2007, 04:44:38 AM »

I presume you've looked at the other SFFS threads
http://www.donationcoder....um/index.php?topic=8273.0
and
http://www.donationcoder....um/index.php?topic=7714.0

how about dirsync ?

Quote
The only sync app I’ve found to be as accurate is DirSync, but it’s not as fast as Super Flexible File Synchronizer Pro. It has both a wizard step-by-step mode or an advanced mode. Profiles are simple to setup, easy to alter, and can be scheduled remotely. Worth every penny to protect your files.
(from [Zaine's SFFS] review)

I presume "It has both a wizard step-by-step mode or an advanced mode. Profiles are simple to setup, easy to alter, and can be scheduled remotely" refers to SFFS.
...
but DirSync is less than half the price...
Logged

Tom
urlwolf
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,784



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2007, 07:39:50 AM »

I moved from  SyncBackSE to SFFS.
I can say that after being a long-time user SyncBackSE -incremental backups- and having tried every app for backups under the sun, everything feels like a toy next to SFFS.

FTP sucks in SyncBackSE.
ever stopped a sync/backup profile in SyncBackSE? you have to start from scratch. SFFS will retake where it left it.

Many, many minor details make me thing that SFFS is head and shoulders over SyncBackSE.

my 2 cents.
Logged
urlwolf
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,784



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2007, 07:40:51 AM »

NOTE: I haven't used SyncBackSE in a year, some of the things I found lacking may have been resolved, as the devs are very active!
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2007, 10:34:40 AM »

Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?

Yes - I haven't tried SFFS because I'm happy with SyncBackSE.  From a brief look at feature lists, it seems that SFFS might have some more powerful features, but I don't need them and SyncBackSE has plenty of options and features, too.  I think that Zaine's advice to try them both is what you need to do.  Sometimes, a lot of what makes a program good (or bad) boils down to personal preference.  If your SyncBackSE trial has expired, try shooting them an email for an extension, some outfits will do that.

Thanks for answering my plaintive cry. Yes, I've contacted SB for an extension. As you say, sometimes it's possible to get one, sometimes not. I think it depends on the way the trial software is set up.

DBC
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2007, 10:41:37 AM »


Yes, I still use SyncBackSE. I have looked at SF about 4 times. I have tried earnestly to see what everyone's enthusiasm is with SF and I just don't. So, there is at least 1 left. smiley

Ken

Thanks for letting me know, Ken.

DBC
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2007, 10:57:15 AM »


same here. synbackse works well for me.  It has plenty of features.

I should've kept notes about why I decided to keep syncbackse instead of sffs but... I didn't. One thing I remember though: I was interested in the delta updating of files but it didn't seem to make a big difference in speed in the end.

People seem to find syncbackse unreliable... but it's always been pretty reliable to me. smiley

Armando -

I think it was your original message following mouser's review of other backup programs that alerted me to SBSE. Glad to know it is still your choice. As to the reliability issue, this may be the downside of having a public forum. On cursory inspection these often give a misleading impression of software unreliability, when in fact they are mainly about getting users to read the manual.

With SFFS - which I am sure is as reliable as SBSE, incidentally - it would be difficult to asess its relative reliability as against SBSE as there is no data other than individual users' reports on private communications with the develper. This is why I like user forums.

DBC   
Logged
Armando
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,666



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2007, 11:27:57 AM »

ever stopped a sync/backup profile in SyncBackSE? you have to start from scratch. SFFS will retake where it left it.

Very true! Although you can pause profiles in SBSE.
SFFS is a very good app. It's a matter of what one wants to do exactly.
SBSE does everything I need and much much more.

DBC -- you should really try both and see which one you prefer. Try to set profiles in SBSE to do exactly what you want. Try the same in SFFS.
Logged

"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2007, 11:31:18 AM »

I presume you've looked at the other SFFS threads
http://www.donationcoder....bb/index.php?topic=8273.0
and
http://www.donationcoder....bb/index.php?topic=7714.0

how about dirsync ?


Thanks. Yes, I did, and they were very helpful.

I'll take a look at dirsync. I assume it does differential backup and versioning?

DBC
Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2007, 11:36:16 AM »


SBSE does everything I need and much much more.

DBC -- you should really try both and see which one you prefer. Try to set profiles in SBSE to do exactly what you want. Try the same in SFFS.

Yes, this is my intention if I can get an extension to my trial. I think in principle that both will do what I need. At present I don't use ftp so that's not an issue.

LATER - Good news - just got the word from 2brightsparks that I can d\l SBSE for a further 30 days. Should be long enough  smiley

DBC

DBC
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 12:00:19 PM by DBC » Logged
DBC
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 24

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2007, 11:53:16 AM »

NOTE: I haven't used SyncBackSE in a year, some of the things I found lacking may have been resolved, as the devs are very active!

urlwolf - Thanks. Along with Armando's posts, it was your comments about some of the conventional backup programs that got me thinking about looking at sync'ing software.

SBSE has versioning now. I don't know whether restoring from incremental backups has been improved. I recall your finding it cumbersome. Is SFFS better at this?

DBC
Logged
tranglos
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,079



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2007, 04:24:55 PM »

Since I built a new machine last month, I've been going through various backup tools like Google goes through startups :) And to DBC's question I must say, none of the above. So far, it's been none of the above to all I've tried, and I'm trying to figure out what it is about backup that no-one can get it quite right (at least not for my needs).

Since all the strong points of various backup/synchronize apps have been discussed pretty thoroughly before, let me just list the major weaknesses I've found:

SuperFlexible

- I find the interface awful. I know I should be dragged over hot coals for saying so, since most people here have lauded what they consider a well laid-out interface... well, I think it's horrid. For one thing, it's too crowded. (Have the authors given any though to localization? The Run button has space for exactly three characters. In Polish we need seven.) The pane that lists jobs is much too small if you want to have meaningful names for the backups. The profusion of tabs, horizontal and vertical, with options that are mutually exclusive, but you never find out until you try to run a job, because the program does not consistently grey out settings unavailable in a given context. The one-click menus - who puts Exit as a top-level menu item? (Joel Spolsky once wrote a whole usability article on just this one UI design mistake.)

Also, by not using a separate editing mode, the program makes it easy to make an accidental change to a backup profile, and when it then asks to save the changes, I don't know what changed and why, since I didn't intend to change anything, and cannot easily see what has changed and cancel the changes. With this number of configurable settings, a program must be really considerate to the user and very clear about what is being done and to what. To me, the UI in SFFS is chaos, which is unforgivable in a tool whose only purpose is to give me peace of mind, an assurance of my files being secure.

- The help file says it cannot encrypt zip files when target is what they call z "zip package" (which is just a zip file to most people :) This appears to be wrong, because the program does produce an encrypted zip file (using zip password), although TotalCommander is unable to extract files from the resulting zip, which gives me a pause.

- The scheduler has me totally confused. I have to start the scheduler manually, otherwise backup jobs won't run - how good is that? Once the scheduler is running, I cannot view the backup jobs or edit them until I disable the scheduler (again, manually, and the program helpfully asks me to "Also, please close this message window"). If the authors ever come across "About Face", a book on UI design by Alan Cooper, they will find themselves very, very ashamed, and I mean it. Yet this is not just a UI design issue - it's a critical failure of reliability, because none of the backup jobs will run if I forget to turn on the scheduler, e.g. after tweaking a profile.

(Aside: I've had it with programs that install their own scheduler services. I now have four of those running: Acronis, PerfectDisk, Avira updater, and one other I forget. I am torn between disabling them and losing important functionality, or allowing them to run and consume about 30 MB total just for what should be tiny timers. Windows has a perfectly good scheduler, which everyone should use - if you want to have your own, at least make it an option, like Backup4All does. Ugh!)

- Zip file handling, high weirdness. By default SFFS insists on zipping each file individually - expect fun manually unzipping thousands of files, one by one, if you ever need to access the backup without SFFS! And when you tell it to create a "package" it still puts large files unzipped, in separate folders, unless you specify high enough values for two options (Start new package after and Max file size). Would have to repeat this for every backup job, as there seems to be no way to just tell it to put all the files in a single zip file and shut up about it already...

No redemption for SFFS, even though it is capable and it is fast. Moving on...

SyncBack SE

Dead simple here: it will not compress or encrypt backups to FTP. It seems to be the only (major, popular) backup program with this limitation. Compression is of course important for bandwidth and FTP disk space, which isn't always cheap. Encryption though is simply critical, because an FTP server at a third-party ISP is much more vulnerable to break-ins and abuse (including by their own employees) than my home machine. I cannot put important personal data on FTP unencrypted.

When I contacted 2BrightSparks about it, first they told me I was wrong and SyncBack could zip to FTP. Then I sent them a screenshot of the program saying "Compression is disabled because you are using FTP", and was given a workaround: create one profile to zip up files locally, then another profile to backup the zip file to FTP. This is a workable solution, but it adds complexity to an already complex scenario.

Backup4All

What I've been using for about a year, chosen mostly because of the clear interface. As many have observed, it is slow - slow enough to give Delphi a bad name. I'd love to have a peek at the source code, Delphi apps are not normally that sluggish! It's not just the backup jobs that run slow, the whole application does. I run all backup jobs at the lowest priority setting, which means they take even longer to run, but at least then they don't clog both CPUs :) I find it does FTP and encryption very well, although I've had major problems with firewalls. (I had to drop Outpost after three years of use, simply because it would not work with Backup4All, no matter what. One day it let ftp through, another day it did not, while other FTP clients ran fine.)

Among other issues, weak error handling. Any FTP problems result in "connection error", regardless of what actually happened. I once mistyped the server name, so the error was a DNS failure, and it took me a few minutes to spot the typo, where the program should have told me exactly what was wrong. Also, you have to dig for any errors in the logfile, without any markup or highlighting - so I am never 100% certain if my backups are running smoothly, and that's a big deal for me. (A backup profile signals errors with a special icon, which is great, but you are mostly on your own trying to find what went wrong.)

No way to initiate a backup whenever a file or a folder changes. (This is really a weakness of Windows' scheduler, but Backup4All doesn't offer this option even when you choose to use its own scheduler).

Cannot pause a running backup job or temporarily suspend it (except directly in Windows scheduler).

The worst issue for me, Backup4All will not make up for missed jobs. The author advised me to run the computer 24/7 if I didn't want any jobs missed. Well, I will, the day the author starts chipping in for my electricity bills :) Again, no security in my backups, just because I had to leave home, switched off the machine and an important profile didn't run.

Poor versioning support, though no backup program I've seen does it any better. You can either back up frequently, and have lots of very recent backups, or backup rarely, and be able to go further back in time, but with gaps. (That is, unless you want to back up like every hour AND keep unlimited number of versions, which would eat up disk space like mad).

What I'd love to see is what Time Machine does on OS X: keep hourly backups for the last 24 hours, keep daily backups for the last month, and keep weekly backups for all previous months. No, let me make this big and loud, because this is what versioning looks done right:

Keep hourly backups for the last 24 hours, keep daily backups for the last month, and keep weekly backups for all previous months

Backup software vendors, is it too hard to do?


HandyBackup Pro

Haven't tried this one yet. I'd love to hear comments on it. The feature list looks good, but so did many others. It's expensive ($99), and there are two different versions of the product homepage (handybackup.net, handybackup.com), with conflicting information about features. One of the pages lists "open file backup" and "modified file backup" as "coming soon", which isn't very comforting, at that price.

So after all that bile let me mention two backup-related apps I've found to be fantastic:

WebDrive http://www.webdrive.com/ Makes a permanent, secure FTP connection (also supports WebDav and a few other protocols) and assigns it a drive letter. This could help a lot with backup programs that make fuss about FTP, since they won't know any better). It optionally caches files on the local drive, so access is really smooth, and has its own simple backup/synchronize tool. Bought it yesterday ($59, not cheap), love it.

MirrorFolder http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.php There are many real-time mirroring apps, but this one has won me over. It has a somewhat dated interface and doesn't look powerful at all until you click Options for the mirror, which is where I became impressed. And it works, too - any change to the source is instantly reflected in the mirror. Open or locked files are no problem. It's a relatively small program, has no perceptible effect on system performance. The service takes about 7 MB, so it's not tiny, but it seems to be highly reliable. I'm not sure if mirroring is the right thing for me, since if you make a bad change and save it, the mirror will go bad too (although MirrorFolder can also zip up previous versions of the mirrors it creates on schedule). I absolutely love how it works though and am severely tempted to buy it first and find a use for it later :)

I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's favorite program's toes, as I probably have...
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 04:36:27 PM by tranglos » Logged

Armando
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,666



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2007, 05:09:32 PM »

I agree with almost all your criticisms.

Of course, if you rely on ftp, SyncBackSe is probably not the best solution. But it's very configurable for every single other aspect. And I like the interface. A matter of taste?

There are no perfect programs out there that'll do everything perfectly (mirroring, synching, incremental, differential, etc. with all), all with a nice UI. Well, I haven't found one. All in all, SyncBackSE offers more bang for MY buck -- even though I wish it had more features, like Delta Backup...  But you can mirror, sync, do incremental backup, choose to backup only those files modified inside a specific time frame (something Genie Backup couldn't do when I trialed it) etc.
Logged

"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.05s | Server load: 0.1 ]