Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download



Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

WSUS 3.0

microsoft.public.windowsupdate






Speedup My PC
Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2007
Ripley
 

Posts: n/a
WSUS 3.0
I have a few clients which are showing in the console as needing between 110
and 170 updates each. Whilst this may be the case for a brand new machine,
these clients have been on my network for some time. In fact they were always
updating fine in WSUS 2.0.

I have checked the windowsupdate.log file on one of these machines and can
see the updates TRYING to install, but there are a few failures. Here is an
exceprt:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: SOAP Fault: 0x00012c
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: faultstring:Fault occurred
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: ErrorCode:CookieExpired(6)
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: Messagenull)
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING:
Method:"http://www.microsoft.com/SoftwareDistribution/Server/ClientWebService/GetFileLocations"
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING:
ID:db2f8370-14f6-4916-8467-c7484e901e46
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: Cached cookie has expired or
new PID is available
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Initializing simple targeting cookie,
clientId = a6a1e250-86d8-457d-9f89-f588ca7a1d25, target group = , DNS name =
pc164.plasman.local
2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Server URL =
http://everest:8530/SimpleAuthWebSer...impleAuth.asmx
2007-11-13 17:03:28:089 1024 448 DnldMgr *********** DnldMgr: New download
job [UpdateId = {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101] ***********
2007-11-13 17:03:28:121 1024 448 DnldMgr * Queueing update for download
handler request generation.
2007-11-13 17:03:28:121 1024 448 DnldMgr Generating download request for
update {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101
2007-11-13 17:03:29:793 1024 448 Handler Windows Patch download for UpdateId
= {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}: selected action is download
full-file.
2007-11-13 17:03:29:793 1024 448 DnldMgr *********** DnldMgr: New download
job [UpdateId = {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have tried to force the updates, I've tried deleting the update folders
but the problems remain. I'm not sure whether these have happened because
when I have built the machines in the past - could they have downloaded the
updates from Microsoft, then when I joined the domain and pointed the client
to the WSUS server, these updates somehow didn't register and now cannot be
installed?

If anyone could help with this I would greatly appreciate it!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2007
TaurArian
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
"Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:54F9A59A-F7BD-4487-863D-184625D5707F@microsoft.com...
|I have a few clients which are showing in the console as needing between 110
| and 170 updates each. Whilst this may be the case for a brand new machine,
| these clients have been on my network for some time. In fact they were always
| updating fine in WSUS 2.0.
|
| I have checked the windowsupdate.log file on one of these machines and can
| see the updates TRYING to install, but there are a few failures. Here is an
| exceprt:
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: SOAP Fault: 0x00012c
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: faultstring:Fault occurred
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: ErrorCode:CookieExpired(6)
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: Messagenull)
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING:
|
Method:"http://www.microsoft.com/SoftwareDistribution/Server/ClientWebService/GetFileLocations"
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING:
| ID:db2f8370-14f6-4916-8467-c7484e901e46
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT WARNING: Cached cookie has expired or
| new PID is available
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Initializing simple targeting cookie,
| clientId = a6a1e250-86d8-457d-9f89-f588ca7a1d25, target group = , DNS name =
| pc164.plasman.local
| 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Server URL =
| http://everest:8530/SimpleAuthWebSer...impleAuth.asmx
| 2007-11-13 17:03:28:089 1024 448 DnldMgr *********** DnldMgr: New download
| job [UpdateId = {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101] ***********
| 2007-11-13 17:03:28:121 1024 448 DnldMgr * Queueing update for download
| handler request generation.
| 2007-11-13 17:03:28:121 1024 448 DnldMgr Generating download request for
| update {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101
| 2007-11-13 17:03:29:793 1024 448 Handler Windows Patch download for UpdateId
| = {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}: selected action is download
| full-file.
| 2007-11-13 17:03:29:793 1024 448 DnldMgr *********** DnldMgr: New download
| job [UpdateId = {C59E753F-A19A-422E-9F36-3C8F8E101920}.101]
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| I have tried to force the updates, I've tried deleting the update folders
| but the problems remain. I'm not sure whether these have happened because
| when I have built the machines in the past - could they have downloaded the
| updates from Microsoft, then when I joined the domain and pointed the client
| to the WSUS server, these updates somehow didn't register and now cannot be
| installed?
|
| If anyone could help with this I would greatly appreciate it!


Perhaps try the WSUS Newsgroup
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com... date_services

news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsof...pdate_services
(OE client)

xposted for your convenience.
--
====================================
TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Australia
====================================
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
http://taurarian.mvps.org/index.htm
Emails will not be acknowledged - please post to the newsgroup so all may benefit.


Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2007
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
"TaurArian" <taurarianREMOVECAPS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OYaEFNJKIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:54F9A59A-F7BD-4487-863D-184625D5707F@microsoft.com...
> |I have a few clients which are showing in the console as needing between
> 110
> | and 170 updates each. Whilst this may be the case for a brand new
> machine,
> | these clients have been on my network for some time. In fact they were
> always
> | updating fine in WSUS 2.0.


The fact that they need a hundred updates really contradicts the idea that
they've ever "updated just fine". :-)


> |
> | I have checked the windowsupdate.log file on one of these machines and
> can
> | see the updates TRYING to install, but there are a few failures. Here is
> an
> | exceprt:


Your excerpt starts in the middle of an error package, and doesn't include
the successful (or unsuccessful) completion of the download. Can you please
repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00 and going through 11/13
17:15, or as much as you can get into a single posting.

> | 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Initializing simple targeting
> cookie,
> | clientId = a6a1e250-86d8-457d-9f89-f588ca7a1d25, target group = , DNS
> name =
> | pc164.plasman.local


btw.. the client has no information about a target group assignment, so this
is a very likely culprit for why it may not be detecting/installing updates.


--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-19-2007
Ripley
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
I cannot post the entire log from 5pm for a particular date because it's too
long. Do you have an email address I could send the log to??

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" wrote:

> "TaurArian" <taurarianREMOVECAPS@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OYaEFNJKIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > "Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:54F9A59A-F7BD-4487-863D-184625D5707F@microsoft.com...
> > |I have a few clients which are showing in the console as needing between
> > 110
> > | and 170 updates each. Whilst this may be the case for a brand new
> > machine,
> > | these clients have been on my network for some time. In fact they were
> > always
> > | updating fine in WSUS 2.0.

>
> The fact that they need a hundred updates really contradicts the idea that
> they've ever "updated just fine". :-)
>
>
> > |
> > | I have checked the windowsupdate.log file on one of these machines and
> > can
> > | see the updates TRYING to install, but there are a few failures. Here is
> > an
> > | exceprt:

>
> Your excerpt starts in the middle of an error package, and doesn't include
> the successful (or unsuccessful) completion of the download. Can you please
> repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00 and going through 11/13
> 17:15, or as much as you can get into a single posting.
>
> > | 2007-11-13 17:03:27:980 1024 448 PT Initializing simple targeting
> > cookie,
> > | clientId = a6a1e250-86d8-457d-9f89-f588ca7a1d25, target group = , DNS
> > name =
> > | pc164.plasman.local

>
> btw.. the client has no information about a target group assignment, so this
> is a very likely culprit for why it may not be detecting/installing updates.
>
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
> Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
> MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin
>

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
"Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B106E18-096D-4E0E-AB60-4BFEB1B44B8D@microsoft.com...
>I cannot post the entire log from 5pm for a particular date because it's
>too
>long.


Let's try quoting my request again:

>> Can you please repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00
>> and going through 11/13 17:15,


Now, frankly, I've never seen a scenario where ==15 minutes== of
WindowsUpdate.log wouldn't fit in a single posting...

but on the rare chance that might actually occur.... I suggested this
alternatve:

>> or as much as you can get into a single posting.



--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007
Ripley
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
Lawrence,

Thanks for your response. I'm not too sure there was any need for the level
of sarcasm that came across on the post. But to answer your comments:

1) Yes I understood perfectly well what you asked me to do
2) Yes I know how to post a snippet from 5pm to 5.15pm
3) Whether you have seen it or not, I can assure you that the time frame of
the snippet you were asking about would NOT fit into this forum
4) Instead of posting a NON COMPLETE version of the snippet, and therefore
opening myself up for further criticism since you may not have been able to
see the portion of the log file you were interested in, etc ... I decided it
would be best to send you the complete log file via email. Hence the request
for your email address

To be honest, I never post replies in a sarcastic way to people since we are
all part of the same community and as such we are supposed to work together
to solve issues. I try and answer posts whenever I feel I have something
beneficial to offer, and I am never sarcastic or overly short with people.

If you cannot extend the same courtesy to me on this forum then I'd rather
that you didn't reply in the first place.


"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" wrote:

> "Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B106E18-096D-4E0E-AB60-4BFEB1B44B8D@microsoft.com...
> >I cannot post the entire log from 5pm for a particular date because it's
> >too
> >long.

>
> Let's try quoting my request again:
>
> >> Can you please repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00
> >> and going through 11/13 17:15,

>
> Now, frankly, I've never seen a scenario where ==15 minutes== of
> WindowsUpdate.log wouldn't fit in a single posting...
>
> but on the rare chance that might actually occur.... I suggested this
> alternatve:
>
> >> or as much as you can get into a single posting.

>
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
> Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
> MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin
>

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007
Lawrence Garvin [MVP]
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
"Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA8EEE13-BB58-45EC-BB00-667DD0ABC40D@microsoft.com...

================================================== ==========
> >I cannot post the entire log from 5pm for a particular date because it's
> >too long.

>
> Let's try quoting my request again:
>
> >> Can you please repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00
> >> and going through 11/13 17:15,

>
> Now, frankly, I've never seen a scenario where ==15 minutes== of
> WindowsUpdate.log wouldn't fit in a single posting...
>
> but on the rare chance that might actually occur.... I suggested this
> alternatve:
>
> >> or as much as you can get into a single posting.

================================================== ==========


> Thanks for your response. I'm not too sure there was any need for the
> level
> of sarcasm that came across on the post.


I'm sorry that you interpreted that as sarcasm, though I'll admit I was
somewhat critical of your response.

For the most part however, my comments were nothing but very strongly
worded facts:


> 1) Yes I understood perfectly well what you asked me to do


Yet, you chose not to do what I suggested
..

> 2) Yes I know how to post a snippet from 5pm to 5.15pm


That was never in question.


> 3) Whether you have seen it or not, I can assure you that the time frame
> of
> the snippet you were asking about would NOT fit into this forum


[a] I've never seen 15 minutes of log entries span more than a few
hundred lines
[b] On the off chance that it might have actually happened (certainly
I've not seen everything)...
I noted that a single posting of whatever could be posted would
be more than sufficient to proceed with the analysis
(and, truth be told, probably isolate the actual cause -- given
that if that many lines were generated in 15 minutes, it's likely a
gazillion repeats of a few lines for several dozen updates -- and I only
need the first one to identify the issue)
[c] Despite giving you the option, you indicated that wasn't even
possible and decided you'd rather communicate via email. Now, I can
absolutely guarantee you that nobody will ever get an email address from me
based on their solicitation of that email address, unless I also agree that
continuing the conversation is =inappropriate= (not, merely, inconvenient)
to continue in a public forum.

> 4) Instead of posting a NON COMPLETE version of the snippet, and therefore
> opening myself up for further criticism since you may not have been able
> to
> see the portion of the log file you were interested in, etc ... I decided
> it
> would be best to send you the complete log file via email. Hence the
> request
> for your email address


See, this is an *assumption* on your part (and an erroneous one, at that),
for being concerned about being criticized for complying with my request. I
specificaly said "...or as much as you can get into a single posting..." --
yet you're concerned I would be critical of you for doing exactly that.

And, presuming that those fif**** minutes do span more lines than will
physically fit in a newsgroup post, I'm inclined to think the true nature of
the problem will likely be identified in the first couple of dozen lines
anyway -- and I'm fairly confident that it's highly unlikely it would take
more than a single post of log entries to isolate the root cause (and
possibly even a solution).

So, instead, we both have just wasted a couple of days of /your/ time
diagnosing this issue so we could engage in this little rant, when, instead,
right now, you might already have the exact cause and resolution to /your/
problem, had I been able to review even a portion of your log entries
yesterday, instead of engaging in this little spat today.



> To be honest, I never post replies in a sarcastic way to people since we
> are
> all part of the same community and as such we are supposed to work
> together
> to solve issues. I try and answer posts whenever I feel I have something
> beneficial to offer, and I am never sarcastic or overly short with people.


Your point is well taken. Again, I apologize, and it's unfortunate you
interpreted my words as sarcasm, rather than just disapointment at your
willingness to work with me in my attempt to help /you/ get a resolution to
/your/ problem.


> If you cannot extend the same courtesy to me on this forum then I'd rather
> that you didn't reply in the first place.


Fair enough.

Havind said that, my offer still stands. If you can post the fif**** minutes
of log entries, or as much as can be posted in a single post, I'll be happy
to review the log entries, and point out the likely cause(s) of your issue.


--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)

MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2007
Ripley
 

Posts: n/a
Re: WSUS 3.0
Thanks for that. I feel like a child at school who has just got told off from
a teacher!

I'm 34 years old and I can't be bothered picking things out of your reply to
disagree with, comment on, or to patronise you about. So, as I said last
time, no response required. Goodbye and thanks for nothing.

"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" wrote:

> "Ripley" <Ripley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BA8EEE13-BB58-45EC-BB00-667DD0ABC40D@microsoft.com...
>
> ================================================== ==========
> > >I cannot post the entire log from 5pm for a particular date because it's
> > >too long.

> >
> > Let's try quoting my request again:
> >
> > >> Can you please repost this log snippet starting at 11/13 17:00
> > >> and going through 11/13 17:15,

> >
> > Now, frankly, I've never seen a scenario where ==15 minutes== of
> > WindowsUpdate.log wouldn't fit in a single posting...
> >
> > but on the rare chance that might actually occur.... I suggested this
> > alternatve:
> >
> > >> or as much as you can get into a single posting.

> ================================================== ==========
>
>
> > Thanks for your response. I'm not too sure there was any need for the
> > level
> > of sarcasm that came across on the post.

>
> I'm sorry that you interpreted that as sarcasm, though I'll admit I was
> somewhat critical of your response.
>
> For the most part however, my comments were nothing but very strongly
> worded facts:
>
>
> > 1) Yes I understood perfectly well what you asked me to do

>
> Yet, you chose not to do what I suggested
> .
>
> > 2) Yes I know how to post a snippet from 5pm to 5.15pm

>
> That was never in question.
>
>
> > 3) Whether you have seen it or not, I can assure you that the time frame
> > of
> > the snippet you were asking about would NOT fit into this forum

>
> [a] I've never seen 15 minutes of log entries span more than a few
> hundred lines
> [b] On the off chance that it might have actually happened (certainly
> I've not seen everything)...
> I noted that a single posting of whatever could be posted would
> be more than sufficient to proceed with the analysis
> (and, truth be told, probably isolate the actual cause -- given
> that if that many lines were generated in 15 minutes, it's likely a
> gazillion repeats of a few lines for several dozen updates -- and I only
> need the first one to identify the issue)
> [c] Despite giving you the option, you indicated that wasn't even
> possible and decided you'd rather communicate via email. Now, I can
> absolutely guarantee you that nobody will ever get an email address from me
> based on their solicitation of that email address, unless I also agree that
> continuing the conversation is =inappropriate= (not, merely, inconvenient)
> to continue in a public forum.
>
> > 4) Instead of posting a NON COMPLETE version of the snippet, and therefore
> > opening myself up for further criticism since you may not have been able
> > to
> > see the portion of the log file you were interested in, etc ... I decided
> > it
> > would be best to send you the complete log file via email. Hence the
> > request
> > for your email address

>
> See, this is an *assumption* on your part (and an erroneous one, at that),
> for being concerned about being criticized for complying with my request. I
> specificaly said "...or as much as you can get into a single posting..." --
> yet you're concerned I would be critical of you for doing exactly that.
>
> And, presuming that those fif**** minutes do span more lines than will
> physically fit in a newsgroup post, I'm inclined to think the true nature of
> the problem will likely be identified in the first couple of dozen lines
> anyway -- and I'm fairly confident that it's highly unlikely it would take
> more than a single post of log entries to isolate the root cause (and
> possibly even a solution).
>
> So, instead, we both have just wasted a couple of days of /your/ time
> diagnosing this issue so we could engage in this little rant, when, instead,
> right now, you might already have the exact cause and resolution to /your/
> problem, had I been able to review even a portion of your log entries
> yesterday, instead of engaging in this little spat today.
>
>
>
> > To be honest, I never post replies in a sarcastic way to people since we
> > are
> > all part of the same community and as such we are supposed to work
> > together
> > to solve issues. I try and answer posts whenever I feel I have something
> > beneficial to offer, and I am never sarcastic or overly short with people.

>
> Your point is well taken. Again, I apologize, and it's unfortunate you
> interpreted my words as sarcasm, rather than just disapointment at your
> willingness to work with me in my attempt to help /you/ get a resolution to
> /your/ problem.
>
>
> > If you cannot extend the same courtesy to me on this forum then I'd rather
> > that you didn't reply in the first place.

>
> Fair enough.
>
> Havind said that, my offer still stands. If you can post the fif**** minutes
> of log entries, or as much as can be posted in a single post, I'll be happy
> to review the log entries, and point out the likely cause(s) of your issue.
>
>
> --
> Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP
> Senior Data Architect, APQC, Houston, Texas
> MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2007)
>
> MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
> My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
> http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
> My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/pro...awrence.Garvin
>

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WSUS 3.0 Errors Guido van Brakel microsoft.public.windowsupdate 4 12-17-2007 09:57
Time off in WSUS 2 Gis Bun microsoft.public.windowsupdate 2 11-17-2007 03:25
Re: Problems after upgrading from WSUS 2.0 to WSUS 3.0 R.liderman microsoft.public.windowsupdate 1 11-01-2007 20:38
WSUS tobymills@gmail.com microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 0 02-20-2007 21:35




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:29.




Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now

Vistaheads.com is part of the Heads Network. See also XPHeads.com , Win7Heads.com and Win8Heads.com.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120