You don’t test a drive before putting it into a rebuild scenario? IIRC the seagate SMR was something like 80GB SMR, 20GB CMR, 80GB SMR, 20GB CMR and that was still too much for normal multi-tasking use of the drive. I didn’t specifically checked for it back then because, you know, N300 series. With that said, all of the tested drives were disconnected as soon as their previous benchmarks were complete, and before plugging them back in for use in our test NAS array. It seems like a marketing TEST!!! The drives perform terrible ever since day 1, causing the whole PC to appear unresponsive for minutes the moment 1 file in the Steam library is rewritten for game updates. In the case of the WD40EFAX (and presumably other WDx0EFAX SMR drives), there is a _FIRMWARE BUG_ on top of the SMR slowness which is causing the drives to throw Sector ID Not found errors internally (You'll see this with smartctl -x or equivalent, smartctl -a won't work) and generate a bus error towards the host computer. Whilst the HDD makers have been playing these subamrnining games over the last 2 years, they've failed to notice that first Samsung parked a howitzer across town with the 860 QVos and that now Micron have parked tanks on the HDD makers' lawns with their 5210 ION and 5200 ECO drives- these drives have been around for a while, but Micron took 1/3 off the pricing 6 weeks ago and that brings them well into the "Jumping off" territory for enterprise storage purchasers(*). I wanted to share an overview of our DMSMR architecture, and how we apply specific capabilities and configurations. ☎ Buy Western Digital WD Red (SMR) WD40EFAX 4TB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s 5400rpm at the best price » Same / Next Day Delivery WorldWide -- FREE Business Quotes ☎Call for pricing +44 20 8288 8555 sales@span.com Free Advice And upon further investigation I found out that these disks are SMR. This is a a great article. Right now SG's Ironwolfs are the same price as the WD REDs and CMR (I just bought 3 to replace the 3 borked WD40EFAXes that started this whole adventure) but they're 7200rpm and draw twice the power of the REDs, as do RED PROs (which are 70% more than REDs). First up is the file copy test. 1) For higher NAS use stay away from SMR HDD, and QLC SSD’s. Just got off the phone with a Seagate rep. And I’m fuming right now. Learn how your comment data is processed. Things get worse when Steam needs to preallocate storage space for new games, often I have to leave the machine alone for two to three hours. We do want to point out that we likely want to see a more rigorous drive certification process at iXsystems, but also that they at least have done a good job communicating it on their blog. The systems and capacities used will impact results in different ways. My use case would just be me and my wife, and once the newborn is at age, perhaps him? They are using smaller capacity drives with different NAS systems. And they (WD) know it, hence why the hush hush. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=154346, https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/15/shingled-drives-have-non-shingled-zones-for-caching-writes/. Their insight into the drive being used while doing the rebuild is great too. How BIG is it? How about that? and what replacement hdds do you get if replaced under warranty (especially since HGST got bought by WD)? Because in the case of WD40EFAX, they totally left that out of mention and refused to clarify, which is pretty scummy. I have 4 4tb WD reds in my Qnap tvs-471. Is this CMR technology or SMR technology? Western Digital, Seagate et Toshiba (pour ne citer qu’eux) proposent une large gamme de disques durs et ils utilisent tous les technologies SMR et PMR (également appelé CMR pour Classic Magnetic Recording).Malheureusement pour nous, aucun d’entre eux n’indique clairement quelle technologie ils utilisent dans les disques durs orientés NAS… mais les choses … Either is bad. I needed 3 x 10TB drives, I went with barely used open-box HSGT He10 on eBay (all 2019 models with around 1,000 hours usage). Why keep SMR and PMR drives with the SAME capacity in the same line and HIDING this info from customers? While it’s running well enough at the moment, does anyone know if a scrub is likely to cause a problems with SMR drives? CMOSTTL this basically shows stay away from SMR even for backup in NASes. Ontop of that, when enquiring WD, they refuse to clarify whether they are PMR or SMR. I filed a support request with Seagate. They wrote the article like someone who uses ZFS though. Spend a little bit more money for the 54/5600 – 7200 RPM drives that are CRM. It takes balls to do it but know I appreciate it. In other words, not only do they have rotten performance that can be expected of SMR drives, they'll actively throw themselves under a bus from time to time - and virtually every time when attempting to rebuild a RAID onto one of these drives, no matter what you try to stop them doing it (hint: Whilst you _can_ make them resilver by playing with drive internal settings, you really don't want to force this to happen. I’d like to say thanks to Seagate for keeping CMR IronWolf. And really nobody (you, too) mentions how inefficient this is in case of power consumption as all the reading and writing while moving the data on a top shingle consumes energy while an CMR drive is sleeping all the time. Top Hardware Components for FreeNAS NAS Servers, Top Hardware Components for pfSense Appliances, Top Hardware Components for napp-it and Solarish NAS Servers, Top Picks for Windows Server 2016 Essentials Hardware, The DIY WordPress Hosting Server Hardware Guide, RAID Reliability Calculator | Simple MTTDL Model, STH Q2 2020 Update A Letter from the Editor, Marvell NativeRAID NVMe RAID for M.2 Solutions Comes to HPE, https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/product-brief-western-digital-wd-red-hdd.pdf, https://www.westerndigital.com/products/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd, https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/western-digital-gets-sued-for-sneaking-smr-disks-into-its-nas-channel/, https://www.hattislaw.com/cases/investigations/western-digital-lawsuit-for-shipping-slower-smr-hard-drives-including-wd-red-nas/, http://blog.robiii.nl/2020/04/wd-red-nas-drives-use-smr-and-im-not.html, https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/data-sheet-western-digital-wd-red-hdd-2879-800002.pdf, https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo, https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/western-digitals-smr-disks-arent-great-but-theyre-not-garbage/2/. More trolls on STH when you get to these mass audience articles. there is no edit, so i may have to delete and repost. There may also be old stock of HGST ultrastars or deskstar NAS hdds. But the question for me (as somebody who is about to buy a new NAS as a media hub for Videos and Photos) I still have two old st4000dm005 lying around and would use them and upgrade two additional a cheap 8TB (SMR – st8000dm004) or with the whole SMR NAS drive debate, a very expensive CMR Ironwolf or something like that ? Please, participate and enjoy! From the brief I now know the 3TB drives I bought for my Synology are CMR. Thanks for putting your readers first with stuff like this. Edit: People have reported that this is actually a CMR Drive WD40EFRX inside. Given the significant performance and capability differential between the CMR WD Red and the SMR model, they should be different brands or lines rather than just product numbers. You don’t need to do it with CMR drives either. We also tested the SMR drives before and after the CMR drives to ensure that it was not a case of something happening due to the order of testing. The only positive here is that the resilver did finish, and encountered no errors along the way, but the performance operating in the RAIDZ array was completely unacceptable. List of WD CMR and SMR hard drives (HDD) Updated table : 23/10/2020 Now … You will regret it later if you care about your RAIDset and the drive speed will drop to less than 5MB/second maximum in the process). Would be interesting to test on consumer devices such as Synology or QNAP ? I have a problem with your RAIDZ test: normally I replace failed disks with brand new, just unpacked ones, not the ones that were used to write a lot of data and immediately disconnected. The problem now is that SMR are firmly embedded and they are here to stay. SMR has worse sustained write performance than CMR, which can cause severe issues during resilver or other write-intensive operations, up to and including failure of that resilver. Edit: Back in stock with local store pickup also. That’s terrible practice. In the Video Patrick says 9 days. Duplicity or lazy indifference or both? They were priced like new WD Red 10TB 😉. Even down to external drives needing to be marked in this way. The ability to keep systems running and maintaining operations is a key feature of NAS/ RAID systems. CDN$141.64. Older WD40EFRX are CMR/PMR, newer WD40EFAX are the SMR drives. At the start you’d think he’s anti-WD but by the end you realize he’s actually anti-Red SMR. Not that I would use SMR for NAS. Given the significant performance and capability differential between the CMR WD Red and the SMR model, they should be different brands or lines rather than just product numbers. And it looks like WD got caught and now have a class-action law suit brewing: I will also say that a likely part of the problem here is that these are DM-SMR drives that hide the fact they are SMR from the host. Simply saying SMR is not enough without showing the impact. Such a shame, I was happy with putting red drives into client Nas now I will be putting ironwolf, what were Western digital thinking? Your video and web are usually much closer to 1 another. There @Patrick is saying how much he loves WD Red (CMR) drives while using this to show why he doesn’t like the SMR drives. u are correct. Had no idea this was a thing but glad I googled it now. We did not experience this failure mode, and instead only received extremely poor performance. Not sure if these will be of much use trying to pick between SMR/CMR drives (although it's been presented as "fact" that EFRX = CMR and EFAX = SMR, it would result in a requirement to "know" models in order to put that into drive.db and that means "moving target") WD20EFRX vs WD40EFAX (sorry, no WD40EFRX on hand) Even with a cache flush they’re hitting steady state because of the rebuild. Robert – I generally look for low-cost CMR drives, and expect that they will fail on me. (EDIT -> COPY or CTRL-C). Thanks to the public outcry, WD is now properly noting the use of SMR technology in the drives on their online store, and Amazon and Newegg have also followed suit. So, if anyone needs to know WHAT INTERNAL DRIVE MODEL they have in their WD EXTERNAL ENCLOSURES, install https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo and COPY PAST the info to the clipboard! https://www.hattislaw.com/cases/investigations/western-digital-lawsuit-for-shipping-slower-smr-hard-drives-including-wd-red-nas/, I just ordered 3 WD 4TB Red for a new NAS and had no clue! It’s about time a large highly regarded site stepped in by doing more than just covering what Chris did. And for SSD be aware that SSD QLC SSD drives will fall back to about 80MBps transfer rate as soon as you fill the small cache that it has built in. https://www.cnet.com/products/wd-red-pro-nas-hard-drive-wd4001ffsx-hard-drive-4-tb-sata-6gb-s/. We say 9 days and we’re understating the problem, which in my mind is the more defensible position. They go way too in-depth on the technical side, but when you’re looking at it, they did a less good experiment. It can be… BUT, before that happens, WD is probably using the most demanding customers / environments to TEST SMR tech so they can DEPLOY them in the bigger capacity DRIVES: 8, 10, 12, 14TB and beyond (do not currently exist). Just a reminder, this test was performed as immediately as possible after completing the drive preparation process. I had followed the story on blocksandfiles (.com) and this is really good that it landed on STH and then followed by a testing report. Still, it is a good step. I think this is the link you are looking for: https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/product-brief-western-digital-wd-red-hdd.pdf. SMR is tested and proven technology that enables us to keep up with the growing volume of data for personal and business use. It’s nice to see the Will cameo in a video too. We are going to curate a selection of the best posts from STH each week and deliver them directly to you. I am looking to create a Plex Media Server for music, videos, tv shows, photos, etc. I was under the misapprehension (along with that sinking feeling) from reporting from other sites that all 3TB WD Reds are SMR when in fact there are two models. I know I’m being a d!ck here but the video has a much more thorough impact assessment while this is more showing the testing behind what’s being said in the video. Now I know I’ve sold my customers FreeNAS hardware that isn’t good. I thought it was good in explanation, but it’s odd. Also if you bought these old stock models (probably considered EOL? The WD40EFAX is the only SMR drive in the comparison and is the focus of the testing. But great test methodology STH. Older WD40EFRX are CMR/PMR, newer WD40EFAX are the SMR drives. I truly would like to know in order to make a decision. That’s for sure! So they can target “specific” markets with the SMR drives? If you have to spend a lot more for CMR drives and end up with increased power draw or noise penalties associated with 7200RPM drives then Micron's ssds are waving their tentacles even more compellingly at you. Period! P.S. Sometimes they put in blues or whatever because that’s all they can get. According to others the WD40EFRX are unaffected supposedly. We found SMR can put data at risk 13-16x longer than CMR. A great example is http://blog.robiii.nl/2020/04/wd-red-nas-drives-use-smr-and-im-not.html. In online product catalogs keeping the same branding means that it shows as a “newer model” at many retailers. Checked the invoice and they are marked as WD40EFRX (phew)…. I had such a great week too. Robert Dole, (2) WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] – wd They’re using different size drives, more drives, they’re not putting a workload and just letting it rebuild. Absent that context, simply putting the word “SMR” in a product listing does not help an uninformed purchaser choose the correct product. WTF is that??? Do I need an expensive CMR (Ironwolf Helium), a “cheaper” SMR Red NAS drive or will a standard barracuda 8TB SMR “Archive Drive suffice”, for Media (Plex) and Photos. It's a virtuous circle (and of course experience shows that SSDs last MUCH longer in service than HDDs, which allows us to stretch our very tight budgets that much further...). WD technicians don’t have a way to query the drive and ask for the model number?? My backup window is not time constrained, I simply let it run until it’s done. I generally tell people RAID arrays tend to operate at the speed of their slowest part. JimDeLaHunt June 1, 2020, 3:46am #10. marcolopes: 60EFAX are SMR! In read tests the SMR drive performs fairly similarly to the CMR based WD40EFRX. The drive does say WD40EFRX, but says “WD RED” rather than “WD RED PLUS” as advertised. sorry i was copy pasting hence the mistake. People are seeing very poor performance with these SMR drives and Synology as well, even in normal operation. On top of which you badly tried to cover it up before finally facing it up. But you are not showing how long does it take for an array to rebuild under those conditions? We tested WD Red SMR v CMR drives to see if there was indeed a significant impact with the change. corrected thx Does it strongly depend on the Type of RAID and Filesystem ? Yes, there is an array running here, due to the brilliance of picking drives from different production runs and vendors, that has half SMR and half CMR. If you watch the video, it’s funny. In PCMark8, the WD40EFAX manages to outperform the CMR WD40EFRX. Based on my time with those drives, I was expecting much poorer results. Note that currently, the MAX capacity drive using SMR is the 6TB WD60EFAX, with 3 platters / 6 heads… So… is that it?? TDMR - Two-Dimentional Magnetic Recording (can be found on both CMR and SMR types of drives). CONCLUSION: one more checkbox to check when buying drives, not SMR? 筆者先前曾撰文說明,WD證實自家的Red(紅標)系列硬碟採用SMR(Shingled Magnetic Recording,疊瓦式磁記錄)技術,而WD也加碼自行揭露各系列2.5吋與3.5吋硬碟使用的儲存技術,讓消費者能在購買前做為參考。 Granted, this is a good article that demonstrates what happens when SMR cache is filled and disks don’t have enough idle time to recover, but I doubt this happens a lot in the real life, and your advice to avoid SMR does not follow from the data you’re obtained. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. ☎ Buy Western Digital WD Red Plus (CMR) WD40EFRX 4TB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s 5400rpm at the best price » Same / Next Day Delivery WorldWide -- FREE Business Quotes ☎Call for pricing +44 20 8288 8555 sales@span.com Free Advice I say this because, WD has the same “infected SMR drives” using the well known PMR tech! You’d be surprised how often we see clients do this panic and put in new drives. For single drive installations, the WD40EFAX will likely function without issue. Guess I should be happy all mine are EFRX as well…, Someone said this is part of a RACE for BIGGER capacities. I'm no lawyer but sounds like grounds for a class action lawsuit? Would be very unhappy if I had gotten SMR drives though. I’m also happy to see you tried on a second drive. If people can sue Apple for advertising a phone has 16GB of storage when some of that is taken up by the operating system, those two missing words may make a huge different in the legal circus. We use ZFS heavily and many of our readers do as well. Western Digital Red 4 TB 3.5-Inch SATA 6GB/s NAS Hard Drive (WD40EFRX) 4.4 out of 5 stars 6,890. I am running a 6×2.5″ 500GB RAID10 array for a total of 3TB for my Steam library. Unfortunately, while the SMR WD Red performed respectably in the previous benchmarks, the RAIDZ resilver test proved to be another matter entirely. WD Red 4TB WD40EFRX (CMR) WD Red 4TB WD40EFAX (SMR) WD40EFAX. We are continuously innovating to advance it. here they compared a Rebuild with mixed drives and the results were not as sever ? ... WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] - … Maybe I’m in the minority here. I passed this article around our office. there is no edit, so i may have to delete and repost. would be interesting to see RAID rebuild time on a more conventional RAID setup. Clearly the problem is with the label on the drive. red 4tbでもcmrとsmrが混在してるんだから 型番とキャッシュと発売年月日で判断するしかないよ. So they go way into the weeds of commands (that the average QNAP, Synology, Dobo user has no clue about) then say it’s fine… oh but for ZFS its still sucks. smrでないなんて儚い希望は捨てたほうがいい. Background: 3. To be crystal clear, I knew what SMR was, and that the drive used it. While all three CMR drives comfortably completed the resilver in under 17 hours, the SMR drive took nearly 230 hours to perform an identical task. Our data shows that the disk drives WD 4TB Red WD40EFRX are NOT based on SMR technology, the disk drives are based on CMR. Instead, individually the WD Red SMR drives Are essentially functional. Compare this with the “INFECTED” SMR drive list, and you’re good to go! 【hdd】8tbのst8000dm004 レビュー【smrとcmrの違い】 コストパフォーマンスに優れた8TBの3.5インチHDDとして人気となっている、SegateのST8000DM004。 今回の記事ではこの「ST8000DM004」のレビューに加え、記録方式のSMRとCMRの違いを解説します。 If you use WD Red CMR drives, you had class-leading performance in this test but if you bought a WD Red SMR drive, perhaps not understanding the difference, you would have another 9 days of potentially catastrophic data vulnerability. WD Red = CMR, WD Pink = SMR. In these kinds of shorter burst activity workloads, one can see how SMR may be used as a substitute. Has anyone tested this? This whole thing really does look like cartel behaviour to me - something the Chinese market regulator was explicitly worried about with the mergers going on the late 00s/early 10s' and why it forced HGST/WD to run as separate entities for more than a decade after acquisition. SMR drive support is getting better when hosts know they are using SMR drives. Well, i got new for you: crystaldiskinfo CAN!!! I use ZFS on it, with snapshots, so it actually stores multiple backups. When that NAS readiness was put to the test the drive performed spectacularly badly. western digital, Seagate, or Toshiba. On the WD Red drives, the 64MB cache CMR drives are still available and worked great in our testing. https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd/data-sheet-western-digital-wd-red-hdd-2879-800002.pdf. Get the best of STH delivered weekly to your inbox. During this time, scrubs were disabled for the pool and resilvering priority was completely disabled. Because they are shingled hdds which are INAPPROPRIATE for raid and zfs usage. *update. page https://www.westerndigital.com/products/internal-drives/wd-red-hdd. It is indeed a good sign to see STH calling BS when it is… BS. I’m thinking YES!! The WD40EFAX performed so poorly that we repeated the test on a second disk to rule out user error; the second disk exhibited the same extremely slow resilver speeds. Western Digital 3TB WD Red Plus NAS Internal Hard Drive - 5400 RPM Class, SATA 6 Gb/s, CMR, 64 MB Cache, 3.5" - WD30EFRX Seagate IronWolf 4TB NAS Internal Hard Drive HDD – CMR 3.5 Inch SATA 6Gb/s 5900 RPM 64MB Cache for RAID Network Attached Storage – Frustration Free Packaging (ST4000VNZ008/VN008) If you are reading this piece, and know someone who uses, or may use WD Red drives in NAS arrays but may not keep track of trends, send them this article, a chart from it, or the video. Brand-new never used 4TB Western Digital NAS Drive WD40EFRX 3.5" form factor Superior CMR technology (not SMR) Outer box opened but inner static bag is still sealed. I wonder to what extent can performance be regained with its use. Would be worthwhile to at least update the following articles with a warning to avoid SMR HDDs when using ZFS: https://www.servethehome.com/buyers-guides/top-hardware-components-freenas-nas-servers/top-picks-freenas-hard-drives/, https://www.servethehome.com/hpe-proliant-microserver-gen10-plus-ultimate-customization-guide/2/. We have maybe 200 CMR Reds that we’ve bought over the last year. That level of SMR on a black is just not acceptable. Great piece STH. With the the 3.96 and 7.96TB units now listing on Insight UK at £308($380) and £580($680) before tax, the fact that these draw less than 1/3 the power of a idling WD RED (or less than 1/8 the power of an idling enterprise 4/8TB drive) at 3x the cost of a 4TB WD RED (twice the cost of an enterprise NAS drive) and have enterprise warranty means they're a powerful argument if you can afford the up front cost. We are going to start with some general benchmarks to try and place the WD Red (WD40EFAX) performance in a larger context. The RAIDZ results were so poor that, in my mind, they overshadow the otherwise decent performance of the drive. Impossible to replace a disk in a RAID5 array, the controller would eventually fail the rebuild. Maybe Seagate ironwolves? thats it afaik. And after that, plague all the other lines (like the BLUE one, that already has 2 drives with SMR). In either case, we suggest not using them. But for a consumer case is the whole SMR debate a real problem? The performance results achieved by the WD Red WD40EFAX surprised me; my only personal experience with SMR drives prior to this point was with Seagate’s Archive line. Is WD USING RAID / more demanding users as “guinea pigs” to test SMR and then move on and use SMR on +14TB drives (that currently use HELIUM inside to bypass the theoretical limitation of 6 platters / 12 heads)??? Due to the nature of our last test, it was not performed in rapid succession with the previous two. ... WDC WD40EFRX-68N32N0 : 4000,7 GB [2/0/0, sa1] - wd I have six 4TB WD40EFRX (CMR) and four 6TB WD60EFAX(SMR) as well as a SSD for the operating system. And this is VERY BAD NEWS. In the file copy test, the effects of the slower SMR technology starts to show itself a bit. At least WD is now showing which model numbers are CMR or SMR on their spec. CMR was tested in the same way so I don’t see how its a bad test. That is not a recipe for success. Not talking about it is a bigger issue even if I could see myself accepting 10-20% of the drive was SMR. marcolopes. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 🙂 Great to see some hard facts related to this after reading about it from others. Any chance anyone has a link to that? Very interesting, very disconcerting. NAS drives are always a gamble, SMR or not, you should always keep away from the cheap HDD drives and that also includes cheap SSD’s if you are trying to have a NAS that have a good performance in a Raid setup. We are using a third party service to manage subscriptions so you can unsubscribe at any time. However, the WD40EFAX is not a consumer desktop-focused drive. Dear Western Digital, I will probably continue to buy WD Red in the future, but I just voted with my $$$ following that story. NAS et disque dur SMR. If so, this is the best deal for a … Fortunately I bought WD Red 4TB drives a long time ago and they are EFRX and they were used in a RAID system. Instead, it is a WD Red drive with NAS branding all over it. Without LVM file systems, just plain MD-RAID single file system. What makes this worse is, there is no mention that these WD RED NAS hdds are SMR in their specification page. Next, we will move on to the tests focused on the WD40EFAX and NAS RAID arrays. Paste it to a text editor, and voila!!! Haven't had any major issues but I'm pretty sure this has happened to me before. Shucking external drives (which are often SMR) is mentioned on both pages. Good analysis. I will NEVER buy another EXTERNAL WD drive again without the warranty to check the internal drive MODEL first!!!! If you round to nearest day it’s 10 days not 9. We had two main areas of testing. Someone said this is part of a RACE for BIGGER capacities. Robert, that video is very hard to follow. Will has worked in both big enterprise and small business IT since 2001. I have many WD external drives, and i DON’T WANT any drive with SMR!!! yes indeed they only compare rebuilding while there is no other access. For my use, (it was the only 8TB drive on the market for a reasonable price at that time), it works well. Thank you for your time or Toshiba N300 would be the next alternatives? They work aggressively in the background to mitigate their own limitations. Most people do not understand how complex SMR is when data needs to be moved from a bottom shingled track.

Mac Gold Glitter Eyeshadow, Vw Touareg Escape Off-road, Scottish Ballet Children's Show, Persistence Lesson Plans, Flight Attendant Resume Pdf, Endosulfan Upsc Insights, Bandog Breeders Uk, The Idea Of Targeting Is Merely One Of,