|
Home > Archive > Voice over IP Cisco > October 2007 > CCM Web Page performance issues, aka 'Loading,
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]
| Author |
CCM Web Page performance issues, aka 'Loading,
|
|
| Jonathan Charles 2007-10-05, 1:11 pm |
| So, I am curious why all of us are putting up with this.
For years we were all told that Linux was superior, that Linux was how
a real web server should function...
Now, we have CCM 5 and CCM 6... and the web server performance, is,
er, well, how do we put this...
Here we go. It is far worse than anything Microsoft has ever released.
I think Microsoft BOB would be a better web server than whatever crap
is on the backend of this RedHat monstrosity.
In CallManger 4.3, using Microsoft WINDOWS(!!!!!!) IIS and Cisco
Tomcat, I can scream through all of the web pages; do DB reads in
nanoseconds; do DB inserts almost as quick, and I have never seen a
message on my web browser saying, 'Loading, Please Wait'
I mean, seriously, this is godawful slow.
I just installed CCM5.1.3 on an HP 7845, 4GB of RAM, dual dual core
Xeons... and all I see at every mouse click is 'Loading, Please
Wait'..
Is cisco punishing us for something? Did we offend them in some way? I
am at a point where I am wondering if I should tell customers about
these performance issues prior to picking a version ('if you want to
be able to administer this and not slash your wrists, waiting for the
home page to load, you may want to go with 4.3...') because I am tired
of hearing about it afterwards...
Seriously guys, I mean, this pretty much kills whatever argument you
Linux freaks had that this was better than Windows... add the whole
SFTP requirement, and you can see why the Microsoft side won this
argument...
Jonathan
| |
| Paul Choi 2007-10-05, 1:11 pm |
| Linux is just an OS. What people put on top of it is
largely their choice. If cisco installed wine and ran
IIS on top of that for their web server, then that
would likely run slowly.
I am not informed on the Linux-based CCM boxen but I'd
certainly hope that cisco is using apache to serve its
webpages. I've heard that the DB is Informix or
something like that.
My point being, it doesn't matter what OS you are
using - if you put a slow application on it, it'll
still run slow no matter what you do to it.
Paul
--- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I am curious why all of us are putting up with
> this.
>
> For years we were all told that Linux was superior,
> that Linux was how
> a real web server should function...
>
> Now, we have CCM 5 and CCM 6... and the web server
> performance, is,
> er, well, how do we put this...
>
> Here we go. It is far worse than anything Microsoft
> has ever released.
> I think Microsoft BOB would be a better web server
> than whatever crap
> is on the backend of this RedHat monstrosity.
>
> In CallManger 4.3, using Microsoft WINDOWS(!!!!!!)
> IIS and Cisco
> Tomcat, I can scream through all of the web pages;
> do DB reads in
> nanoseconds; do DB inserts almost as quick, and I
> have never seen a
> message on my web browser saying, 'Loading, Please
> Wait'
>
> I mean, seriously, this is godawful slow.
>
> I just installed CCM5.1.3 on an HP 7845, 4GB of RAM,
> dual dual core
> Xeons... and all I see at every mouse click is
> 'Loading, Please
> Wait'..
>
> Is cisco punishing us for something? Did we offend
> them in some way? I
> am at a point where I am wondering if I should tell
> customers about
> these performance issues prior to picking a version
> ('if you want to
> be able to administer this and not slash your
> wrists, waiting for the
> home page to load, you may want to go with 4.3...')
> because I am tired
> of hearing about it afterwards...
>
> Seriously guys, I mean, this pretty much kills
> whatever argument you
> Linux freaks had that this was better than
> Windows... add the whole
> SFTP requirement, and you can see why the Microsoft
> side won this
> argument...
>
>
>
> Jonathan
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc...monopolyherenow
| |
| Bill Simon 2007-10-05, 1:11 pm |
| Yeah, just a WAG but I'd suspect the DB, not the web server.
CCM 4.x remains, in my opinion, the best out there. Why are you all
moving to the higher versions, anyway? Just for SIP endpoints?
Paul Choi wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Linux is just an OS. What people put on top of it is
> largely their choice. If cisco installed wine and ran
> IIS on top of that for their web server, then that
> would likely run slowly.
>
> I am not informed on the Linux-based CCM boxen but I'd
> certainly hope that cisco is using apache to serve its
> webpages. I've heard that the DB is Informix or
> something like that.
>
> My point being, it doesn't matter what OS you are
> using - if you put a slow application on it, it'll
> still run slow no matter what you do to it.
>
> Paul
>
> --- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Scott Voll 2007-10-05, 1:12 pm |
| upgrade ease. no Java issues. BLF/Mobility/presence.
Scott
On 10/5/07, Bill Simon <bills@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Yeah, just a WAG but I'd suspect the DB, not the web server.
>
> CCM 4.x remains, in my opinion, the best out there. Why are you all
> moving to the higher versions, anyway? Just for SIP endpoints?
>
>
> Paul Choi wrote:
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
| |
| Jonathan Charles 2007-10-05, 1:12 pm |
| We upgrade cuz the customer hears 'linux' and thinks it is better...
that is also what the sales people are selling...
To be honest, the only kick-XXX features for CCM5 are BAT and the LDAP
integration.
Jonathan
On 10/5/07, Bill Simon <bills@psu.edu> wrote:
> Yeah, just a WAG but I'd suspect the DB, not the web server.
>
> CCM 4.x remains, in my opinion, the best out there. Why are you all
> moving to the higher versions, anyway? Just for SIP endpoints?
>
>
> Paul Choi wrote:
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
| |
| Jason Aarons \(US\) 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| Customers do complain the "Loading" is slow, especially when on a Phone
DN you hit Line Partition and "Loading" changes focus. You would think
Cisco could speed it up. I do miss the SQL Enterprise Manager for
queries versus the SOAP AXL or command line I've seen TAC do. TAC isn't
happy when they have to type long select statements.
Informix isn't the database of choice by DBAs.
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Charles
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:19 PM
To: Bill Simon
Cc: cisco voip list
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM Web Page performance issues, aka
'Loading,Please Wait' (a rant)
We upgrade cuz the customer hears 'linux' and thinks it is better...
that is also what the sales people are selling...
To be honest, the only kick-XXX features for CCM5 are BAT and the LDAP
integration.
Jonathan
On 10/5/07, Bill Simon <bills@psu.edu> wrote:
> Yeah, just a WAG but I'd suspect the DB, not the web server.
>
> CCM 4.x remains, in my opinion, the best out there. Why are you all
> moving to the higher versions, anyway? Just for SIP endpoints?
>
>
> Paul Choi wrote:
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
| |
| Paul Choi 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| Just be glad they didn't pick something like, Oracle.
Oh the humanity!
IANADBA (I'm not a DBA) so I don't know the difference
in how SQL Server 2005 compares to say, PostgreSQL. I
hope that cisco finds a faster DBMS if it really is as
slow as you folks make it sound.
--- "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons@us.didata.com>
wrote:
> Customers do complain the "Loading" is slow,
> especially when on a Phone
> DN you hit Line Partition and "Loading" changes
> focus. You would think
> cisco could speed it up. I do miss the SQL
> Enterprise Manager for
> queries versus the SOAP AXL or command line I've
> seen TAC do. TAC isn't
> happy when they have to type long select statements.
>
> Informix isn't the database of choice by DBAs.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan
> Charles
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:19 PM
> To: Bill Simon
> Cc: cisco voip list
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM Web Page performance
> issues, aka
> 'Loading,Please Wait' (a rant)
>
> We upgrade cuz the customer hears 'linux' and thinks
> it is better...
> that is also what the sales people are selling...
>
> To be honest, the only kick-XXX features for CCM5
> are BAT and the LDAP
> integration.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 10/5/07, Bill Simon <bills@psu.edu> wrote:
> web server.
> there. Why are you all
> SIP endpoints?
> it is
> and ran
> that
> but I'd
> serve its
> are
> it'll
> with
> superior,
> server
> Microsoft
> server
> WINDOWS(!!!!!!)
> pages;
> I
> Please
> RAM,
> offend
> tell
> version
> 4.3...')
> Microsoft
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for
> use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only. If you
> are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you
> have received
> this communication in error and that any use or
> reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited
> and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message
> and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
| |
| Jonathan Charles 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| You have no idea...
The only way to show you is to have you set up a CCM 4.3 box on
Windows 2003 and CCM6.0 box...
Put CCM4.3 on a VMWare with too little ram (say 1GB).
Put CCM6.0 on a 7845.
The 4.3 box will beat the 6.0 box by seconds on each page load or query.
I have timed it. The average time to load an empty page (go to
device-phone, how long does it take for that page to load?): for
CCM6.0, about 8 seconds, for 4.3, about 1.5.
For queries, 4.3 nukes the crap out of 6 (or 5)... it can be 20
seconds for a CCM6 query, and about 3 seconds for 4.3...
Jonathan
On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just be glad they didn't pick something like, Oracle.
> Oh the humanity!
>
> IANADBA (I'm not a DBA) so I don't know the difference
> in how SQL Server 2005 compares to say, PostgreSQL. I
> hope that cisco finds a faster DBMS if it really is as
> slow as you folks make it sound.
>
> --- "Jason Aarons (US)" <jason.aarons@us.didata.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
| |
| Paul Choi 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| This is not encouraging news...
We're about to embark on a CCM6 install on Monday. . .
--- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no idea...
>
> The only way to show you is to have you set up a CCM
> 4.3 box on
> Windows 2003 and CCM6.0 box...
>
> Put CCM4.3 on a VMWare with too little ram (say
> 1GB).
>
> Put CCM6.0 on a 7845.
>
> The 4.3 box will beat the 6.0 box by seconds on each
> page load or query.
>
> I have timed it. The average time to load an empty
> page (go to
> device-phone, how long does it take for that page to
> load?): for
> CCM6.0, about 8 seconds, for 4.3, about 1.5.
>
> For queries, 4.3 nukes the crap out of 6 (or 5)...
> it can be 20
> seconds for a CCM6 query, and about 3 seconds for
> 4.3...
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oracle.
> difference
> PostgreSQL. I
> is as
> <jason.aarons@us.didata.com>
> statements.
> performance
> thinks
> selling...
> CCM5
> the
> for
> of
> wine
> then
> boxen
> or
> you
> wrote:
> up
> monstrosity.
> and
> 4GB of
> is
> should
> your
> kills
> ________________________________________
_______
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> may
> for
> you
> you
> prohibited
> communication
> message
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers -
> Check it out.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
| |
| Scott Voll 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| but the good news is theres no more Java issues ;-)
On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is not encouraging news...
>
> We're about to embark on a CCM6 install on Monday. . .
>
>
>
>
> --- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all
> the tools to get online.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
| |
|
|
| Jonathan Charles 2007-10-05, 7:11 pm |
| Yeah, cuz being annoyed for 15 seconds while you have to type in your
credentials into the Java console, and having to install mcafee is
much worse than the 500 hours each year you will waste while waiting
for a ccm web page to load...
Stick with CCM 4.3...
The weird thing is that ccm 6 is easily twice as bad as ccm 5... if
this progression continues, I figure by ccm 10 it will take two hours
to search for a phone.
Jonathan
On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> and having to install antivirus crap...
>
>
> --- Scott Voll <svoll.voip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>
| |
| Paul Choi 2007-10-06, 1:11 am |
| I'd argue that not having to worry about viruses is
huge. I have a customer whose phone system was taken
out for two weeks during Slammer. There are still
rootkits but those are far fewer than viruses.
--- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, cuz being annoyed for 15 seconds while you
> have to type in your
> credentials into the Java console, and having to
> install mcafee is
> much worse than the 500 hours each year you will
> waste while waiting
> for a ccm web page to load...
>
> Stick with CCM 4.3...
>
> The weird thing is that ccm 6 is easily twice as bad
> as ccm 5... if
> this progression continues, I figure by ccm 10 it
> will take two hours
> to search for a phone.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ;-)
> wrote:
> Monday.
> wrote:
> up a
> (say
> on
> seconds
> <asobihoudai@yahoo.com>
> like,
> the
> slow,
> SQL
> line
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]
> 'linux'
> for
> DB,
> best
> on
> installed
> server,
> CCM
> what
> application on
> to
> <jonvoip@gmail.com>
> Linux
> function...
> the
> better
> the
> as
> mouse
> something?
> if I
> go
> better
> why
> ________________________________________
_______
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> -----------------------------------------
> and
> only.
> notified
> use
> this
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> travel
> Answers -
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> ________________________________________
_______
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
>
________________________________________
________________________________________
____
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/ya..._invite.asp?a=7
| |
| Jonathan Charles 2007-10-06, 1:11 am |
| In my four years of doing this, I have not directly experienced a
single customer with a virus on CallManager.
I have had customers with Virii on their Unity servers however.
Mostly it is because the CCM doesn't have the same default gateway and
is on a different subnet than the PCs, and they generally don't have
internet access.
Yes, it is a big deal if/when it happens, however, you are far more
likely to lose a publisher from bad hardware than from a virus.
Also, I am pretty sure I could rebuild their Publisher and all their
Subscribers in a day or so (if they bothered backing it up, which was
easy in CCM4.X).
To be really honest, I think CSA on CCM kills most viruses before they
can do anything.
Jonathan
On 10/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd argue that not having to worry about viruses is
> huge. I have a customer whose phone system was taken
> out for two weeks during Slammer. There are still
> rootkits but those are far fewer than viruses.
>
> --- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
________________________________________
____
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/ya..._invite.asp?a=7
>
>
| |
| Andre Beck 2007-10-09, 7:11 am |
| Hi,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:27:47AM -0500, Jonathan Charles wrote:
> So, I am curious why all of us are putting up with this.
Because there is no choice? 4.x is severly dated and we want BLF and
other features...
> For years we were all told that Linux was superior, that Linux was how
> a real web server should function...
And it is. The problem here is, we are not talking about a web server.
> Now, we have CCM 5 and CCM 6... and the web server performance, is,
> er, well, how do we put this...
>
> Here we go. It is far worse than anything Microsoft has ever released.
This is missing the target.
Do you really *know* what the pure web server performance in this setup
is? Or are you just concluding it from the web UI in your browser that
feels like supergiants beeing sucked through nanotubes?
> I think Microsoft BOB would be a better web server than whatever crap
> is on the backend of this RedHat monstrosity.
Bait. But I bite. Yes, there is a monstrosity. No doubt. Seeing how
this rather obsolete OS base (RHEL 3 aka Linux 2.4 - this is as old
as W2k) is flattened by an insanely obese application server is no
fun. But this is not in much way caused by the underlying OS (it might
be in some way - availability of midlayer software cisco wants to use
like a mostly MSSQL compatible DBMS). The infrastructure on top of the
OS would flatten Windows as well. (BTW, wasn't 6.0 supposed to run on
both OS again? Anyone who can compare to Win2k3?)
And when it comes to the web UI, I actually fear that most of the
sluggishness is happening at the *browser* side, with reliance on
JavaScript and even Java Applet code. Something is popping up these
silly wait splash screens, and it costs more performance than just
plain dumping the pages IMO.
> In CallManger 4.3, using Microsoft WINDOWS(!!!!!!) IIS and Cisco
> Tomcat, I can scream through all of the web pages; do DB reads in
> nanoseconds; do DB inserts almost as quick, and I have never seen a
> message on my web browser saying, 'Loading, Please Wait'
You've never seen this strange Java Proxy Applet that blocks your page
access for seconds? Strange. I cannot scream through 4.x pages either,
with this artificial roadblock in the way.
> I mean, seriously, this is godawful slow.
Yes, it is.
I was plainly shocked to see how long it takes for the RHEL stuff
to just boot to the prompt (my Debian servers with half the resources
boot way faster), but *then* to see it take a *full* *other* *nine*
*MINUTES* for the application stuff (DB, CCM et all) to come up. It
is indeed pathetic.
> I just installed CCM5.1.3 on an HP 7845, 4GB of RAM, dual dual core
> Xeons...
Wasting a Gig ;)
> and all I see at every mouse click is 'Loading, Please Wait'..
Yep. Mostly you just wait for the JavaScript code to display this
message beeing downloaded, beeing executed, messing with the CSS to
display an inpage Ad^WSplash, messing again with the CSS to undisplay
it again, and then actually showing the results.
> Is cisco punishing us for something? Did we offend them in some way? I
> am at a point where I am wondering if I should tell customers about
> these performance issues prior to picking a version ('if you want to
> be able to administer this and not slash your wrists, waiting for the
> home page to load, you may want to go with 4.3...') because I am tired
> of hearing about it afterwards...
I'm telling customers that each new version bloats badly compared
to the older ones (which, we don't want to forget, were enourmous bloat
in the first place, my first 3.3 CCM on W2k was equipped with at-that-time
plenty 1.5GiB and trying to run CRS flattened it badly - this silly thing
alone allocated 450MiB of RAM).
> Seriously guys, I mean, this pretty much kills whatever argument you
> Linux freaks had that this was better than Windows...
It doesn't. Sadly, it kills any welcoming expectations we Linux "freaks"
had for CCM on a free and open platform. It got worse.
> add the whole SFTP requirement,
It's just an entirely silly decision by *Cisco* to close the platform
into "Appliance mode" instead of allowing people at least the same
freedom of tinkering with the OS that we had on Windows. All these
complications would have been unnecessary. But it was crippled
intentionally, and now I can't even debug problems myself anymore but
have to input convoluted commands at the lobotomized admin "shell".
> and you can see why the Microsoft side won this argument...
Which argument did MS win? Not the one in Europe. SCNR ;)
Andre.
--
.sig making fun of Santa Claus Operation currently unavailable
-> Andre Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ IBH Prof. Dr. Horn GmbH, Dresden <-
| |
|
|
|
|
|