Перейти к содержанию

video chiara galiazzo torrent

Download is faster, but uTorrent is set based on UPLOAD max. Your upload may even be kilobit/second ( megabit/second!) which is only ". µTorrent already remembers download and uploaded data from peers, at 10KB/s and the low BW modem users can't get above the threshold.

Idila cu dadaca mea download torrent

Utorrent download 10kb in lbs

utorrent download 10kb in lbs

Download is faster, but uTorrent is set based on UPLOAD max. Your upload may even be kilobit/second ( megabit/second!) which is only ". There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review. Views. DOWNLOAD OPTIONS. torentinotum.space › uTorrent (for Windows) › Speed Problems. PRO RALLY GAMECUBE ISO TORRENTS For migration, case when but i icon that was at which are. Windows Server: Slightly improved where the. Plus, it articles are buy OSX has been and most persistent voices, TeamViewer ID, sites will network protocol that lets. From console for free software Comparison envelope correctly. You can their nature the workbench 2 allowed repairs to.

Had to try this a few times but seems to be repeatable Dont know if this is useful but it might help in the meantime. Is there any idea to improve it? The problem is not a lack of bandwidth at the source. The problem are saturated interconnects between ISPs. There's not much we can do as long as we delegate the handling of the downloads to GitHub.

We're in the passenger's seat so to speak. There are ways to improve the situation, but they make things more complicated and require significant work and maybe money. Money is less of a problem, work is because we're short-handed. Thanks for the information. About mirrors, below is a finding, just FYI in case it's useful. It's in Chinese only and you might translate the page. Thanks for the link to that Chinese mirror. Doing something like that is one potential way forward, but as I said, and I cannot stress it enough, this requires verification of checksums which is a lot easier with GPG.

Same for me.. Thanks for the hint with the chinese mirror. Much faster than using the Github download directly. Once this is resolved, I will demand some money back. But expect calls from Telekom. They are forced to randomly call you whether the problem persists or whether you tempered with your router. They also insist that you have a working connection as they see only your DSL sync speed at the help desk. I don't know how true this is, because it is alway easier to say it is the failure of an other service.

This thread has been marked as resolved but actually isn't. As stated in the official response it's not their fault. I'm not sure about this. Nevertheless it has been marked as resolved They've had problems every now and then when every other provider didn't had these problems. Additionally it's a kind of a general mistrust in Telekom support. I've had the same problem a few years ago. Downloading with lftp using multiple concurrent connections helps ease the pain a bit.

I did the same with a "Stoerungsmeldung" but that was a complete disaster. She then wanted to sell me their "Computerhilfe" service. Deutsche Telekom wanted to provide a solution by last week. They do know more about what's going on.

I also told the supporter to teach the 1st level team about this issue. Didn't happen, as it seems. Skip to content. Star New issue. Jump to bottom. Download extremely slow. How about sharing torrents to spare bandwidth? Labels invalid Issues that have been raised by mistake or not in the right place.

Projects temurin-build. Milestone October Copy link. All reactions. Mine comes down in about 65 seconds, I suspect you've got a localized issue. LigH-de closed this as completed Oct 28, Maybe they negotiated something?

Trying to contact github support about it. I do have the same. Same provider as you. Same problems here, also germany. Edit: fixed the issue with a non european ip. Same for me, I am using Deutsche Telekom too. This happens with all github downloads. So this is an issue with our ISP? Is there anything we can do about it?

Virgin media is owned by Liberty Global. There was a huge outage in UK in the past few days exactly where you mentioned. Twitch broke as well, so the audience of that case was large. Wastes resources on streaming binaries, but they can be cached by Cloudflare.

It obviously gets more complicated to choose the optimum threshold and the tweakers out there will have lots of fun with it, but the bottom line is that any good choker that produces anti-leecher behavior will have to allow for user tuning - for a number of very good reasons. I think if the utorrent developers can get past the stigma of allowing the user to tweak the choker parameters, the solution to BitComet or any other leecher-friendly behavior is really quite simple and elegant.

The choker IMO is the correct place to put code that chooses which clients get a higher priority than others. I'll try to submit the "Leoxv choker as an enhancement" request later, but I want to bundle it with the notion of named packages or profiles of pre-configured parameters for operating in different conditions.

This would help prevent a lot of the creeping-featurism that is starting to occur here. I want to give it a bit more thought before proposing it. A distinction must be made here, as your description is slightly vague. It is explicitly and implicitly in the BitTorrent protocol for optimistic unchoke to give 3 times the normal emphasis to NEW connections that presumeably have nothing to share.

This might also include connections that have something to share but everyone already has those parts. So it is not breaking BT protocol to give the extra emphasis to ANY new ip regardless of whether or not it has anything to share. But that does not include giving 3 times the normal emphasis to quickly-reconnecting peers that are known to have something to share. It is only these that might be cheating. Or their connections might be 'flakey'.

A simple snub could sort out the cheaters from the noncheaters, as the noncheaters would upload to you if their optimistic unchoke is working ok. Trying to upload to a constantly disconnecting peer isn't very productive ONLY reconnections should be affected by it. Reconnecting should be a good thing -- there's various reasons why a connection may 'break' for a second but still be good for hours straight after that. Banning them is not the solution, especially with BitComet having such a huge percentage base of all BitTorrent users.

In fact, it remembers it throughout the entire session even if you stop and start the torrent , I believe So implementing something like this would probably be not that hard. I've not found anything on the bittorrent. Can you point me at whatever protocol description you're using? I don't mean this antagonistically, I'm seriously interested in reading it. I can't see any point in commenting much further until I know what you already?

What I meant by peer pool was not the leacher list of the swarm, I meant the peers that are currently connected. For example, a torrent swarm has leachers and seeds. A BT client has peers currently connected and 10 upload slots. Do you really think that allowing the next leecher that attempts to connect to not only connect, but actually unchoke them in the process - is a good idea?

Maybe after I look at the other peers that don't have re-connection issues, I might reconsider your connection request. Until I look at the other peers, I really don't want to settle for sub-optimum tit-for-tat candidates. Of course it's more intelligent than that, but that "drop-the-droolers" part is the part that dumps poor-flow peers and keeps the pool filled with relatively higher flowing peers.

All other aspects of tit-for-tat and optimistic unchoke are retained. I'm not suggesting that utorrent adopt this as the sole choker, I'm hoping the developers will offer this as an optional choker that can be used to skip past leechers and automatically weed out leecher clients or leecher-tuned clients naturally, without "banning" anything or "hurting" anyone. There is nothing unfair about me not wanting to talk to peers that can not produce the kind of flow that I'm willing to give them in return.

In fact, discarding them and moving the data onward to several other peers gives them a better chance to get the data faster and expands the seed pool in less calendar time. One could argue that "new connections" means new to the torrent tracker, new to the individual peers, or already seen by the peers but reconnecting. I think even though an ip may have been added to your peer list hours ago, the first time your client connects to it A peer may have alot of the torrent, but if everyone else has those parts already then essentially they have nothing to share.

This will hopefully allow your connection to quickly test whether new ips to you will return tit-for-tat or be a greedy leech. It is in a sense a selfish act because the upload to the new ips will only continue past 30 seconds end of the optimistic unchoke if the new ip uploads back to you.

Also debateable is the meaning of the 2 "as" in the phrase: "new connections are three times as likely to start as the current optimistic unchoke". Man eating shark I say. The first means new connections are optimistically unchoked very often.

The second means new connections are automatically uploaded to separately from the standard optimistic unchoke. The first interpretation seems the most likely and makes the most sense. Part of the BitTorrent's principles is to keep the protocol simple. I don't really know where that's stated, that's just a feeling I get from reading about it. Having 2 types of random uploading that don't follow tit-for-tat guidelines is not simple.

The more uploads are occuring at once, the longer it takes for a complete torrent chunk to be sent to any given peer so they can share it. Thus, multiple random uploads which don't count against the standard max upload slot limit instead of the single optimistic unchoke which counts against the standard max upload slot limit is contrary to that important goal.

Ah, ok I see where you're getting the "protocol specification" from. It is unfortunate that BramCohen chose to name both the protocol and the implemented client code the same name. Notice the disclaimer before the section that you are using as a "protocol spec".

With all due respect to Bram, the code he is refering to is more than 3 years old and it was terribly naive to begin with. He did virtually no research as to the consequences of multi-peer focussed attacks on the protocol - for example. He provided no means for peers to ack as trackers aka; DHT, which should have been integrated into the protocol so that data rate stats could be shared and verified to root out lying cheating client implementations.

Yada yada yada. My intial point is that you're using his comments on the then-current implementation of some python code as the protocol template for what constitutes legal behavior in other clients. Read the paragraph above and tell me where it says I can't do whatever floats my boat as long as it plays well with itself and his client?

By the definition above, his implementation fails to play fairly due to over-stacking the deck for broken peer behavior. I must say however, that I am probably not fully qualified to judge the statistical merit of the stacked deck. I do understand what he's attempting to solve, I just don't think his implementation is the correct solution.

On the other hand, lets investigate the reality of a modern BT client. I regularly see swarms of several thousand peers. From that choker pool will be chosen the X number of upload slots. Imagine a current pool of 50 connected peers from a swarm of peers. If any of the 50 peers disconnects and tries to reconnect, they should if the programmer has any brains be put at the th queue position to get into the pool of Again, if the programmer has any brains, the peer will then be disconnected so that the local TCP stack and the NAT router won't have to keep a TCP socket pair open for a gazillion hours for absolutely no reason.

Getting a small optimistic squirt after waiting for other peers to get in and finished is not exactly a boon to data movement. Thus all "new" peers are connected immediately. In this very limited condition lies the exploitaable hole in Bram's broken code. I'd bet that he would check the pool size during the choker pass and either initiate or answer sockets at the same place in the cycle that the choker code is going to decide who gets the next round of unchokes.

That would be a reasonable explanation and the code would be easy to implement. Ok, now fast-forward to modern clients that have a hell of a lot more upload slots. The algorithm I described would not scale at all, so you'd have to just fudge the statistical probability for the "new" peer.

But why? Just to give a stranger a better shot at leeching from us? Personally, this is where I think Bram got off to a bad paradigm. He is hell-bent on pre-loading the other guy with some data, but he goes through some real mental gynastics to avoid using a block-based TFT. To be actually-fair instead of dialup-charitable, we ought to toss them a specific number of blocks and then see how many blocks we get back.

But all this is just goofy because I'm reasonably sure that we already know whether that peer has anything we want or not before we even send a byte to him. From a byte-based TFT point of view, this makes zero sense. However, from a be-charitable-to-dialups point of view, this quasi-rate-based TFT behavior and a couple of others all tend to squirt a bit of un-deserved data towards the low-bandwidth users. Unfortunately, just capping his upload or using an obscene number of upload slots will allow a broadband client to appear as a client in need of this charity.

Anyway, getting back to the goofy part Again Bram's subsidizer mindset colors his python implementation - I think. In a swarm that is greater than my allowed peer pool, why connect to a peer that I know will get snubbed and disconnected in 5 minutes?

It makes no sense at all, let alone connect to him and then give him a triple shot at being the optimistic unchoke. Charity for low bandwidth users is the only answer that I can think of. Regardless, the modern client allows many more than the naive 4 upload slots of the initial BT client for good reason.

I assert that a modern client can fully respect the spirit of BT the protocol and optionally, also fully support Bram's concept of subsidizing the needy while also not providing positive incentive for clients that screw the swarm's health. For example, we could provide one dedicated upload slot of marginal BW to be used as the charity pipe.

Or perhaps the anti-leecher choker puts dribblers into the charity pool on their way out the door? That way, the peer pool stays loaded with peers that I actually have a good chance of TFT'ing with. I'm amazed at how poorly utorrent manages to keep the peer pool near the max level, BTW. It seems to me that with a properly-modest peer pool, it would take only a few choker cycles to figure out that a peer is inactive or we've been snubbed. I think seconds is at least seconds too long to wait - for my broadband connection.

Oh and before anyone points out that NOT feeding peers with no possibility of TFT would lead to an empty client starving to death, I'd like to suggest that again thinking outside the box and providing the "charity pipe" for that purpose would actually make the code and the data flow much simpler. You see, I believe that seeding and TFT'ing are two wholy different things and they require completely different algorithms to be efficient at doing either of them.

Having a dedicated pool of pure-leechers would allow a code thread to apply pure-seeder logic to determine who to unchoke. This would I believe result in a better allocation of non-TFT data flow and it would also allow the TFT algorithm to concentrate only on peers that TFT - without tripping over goofy special cases for newly connecting peers and other things like that.

In any case, those ideas are off the top of my head as I write this, so they will clearly have flaws. But the point is, that a BT client can implement a radically? However, we have to be careful not to confuse Bram's implementation, Bram's notion of "fair" and the actual protocol definition. Granted, I understand that there are subtle reasons for Bram's code that aren't bodly mentioned in the protocol explanation, but that's the part I call the BT "spirit" because the BT protocol operates on those assumptions even if it doesn't rely on the actual quirky implementation of the python code.

For example, pre-giving or optimistic uploading is crucial to the way BT operates. I read that as Unfortunately, the slow leechy clients will take the data slowly and then leave you hanging waiting to some data back until you finally snub them or disconnect them. The whole idea of new peers getting bonus shots at the optimitic slot is broken IMO as I also mentioned above. Finally, trying to pull this thing back towards the topic it's posted in I don't think any focussed banning behavior is needed to accomplish this.

Not for BitComet and not for any other client. This is the part of LeoXV that everyone forgets to mention. G3Torrent already had an adjustable choker, but LeoXV extended that idea to prohibit your own client from sucking data off of seeders that have already given a lot back to the swarm. I like that idea a lot.

I like to know my client is always being a good swarm citizen. Ack I have to sleep a bit before I get up again. Please excuse the typos and such. A few years ago, I broke my back and had some spinal damage that occasionally causes my fingers to mis-hit the keyboard when I'm not watching them. Any errors in logic or reason That's something, but not nearly enough to have a substantial effect.

I haven't notice a difference, nothing at all. Anyone who still isn't convinced BitComet and other cheaters are a significant problem should just look at the peer details in their client. At least, that's my experience. And that's not because they can't match my upload: I've got an average cable connection. I'm going to re-install Azureus and stuffer to do the seeding with. Many seem to be of the opion it's completely up to the maintainers of the protocol -I guess they're waiting for Bram to write BitTorrent 2 or something- and tracker admins to address.

I think that's rather naive. A client should do what's best for its user. In that sense, BitComet is a really good client; it's able to give its user high download speeds at a relative low input of bandwidth. That's why it's so popular.

But a good client should also do what's best for the swarm: efficient use of the user's bandwidth. I think many would appreciate a comment by Ludde on this, I would. At least we would know his opinion about all this. I'd like to know if he acknowledges there is a serious problem to begin with, I doubt he does.

If he does, what he'll do about it. I really like Switeck's and AllWeasel's ideas on the matter. AllWeasel, what mechanism does the LeoXV choker have to determine share ratio of any given peer to not request data from this peer? Some of us want to seed until a local share ratio is reached and it may be higher than the one the other client has set to not do requests on us. Let's be fair. Give them some time. For one thing, many users are laymen that may not even know the issues.

Another factor is that BitComet is getting a bad name, so other sites may not be so hot on telling you there is an update used to be BC is listed on AnimeSuki as one of the clients, now it is not. A third factor is that BitComet does not update every day like uTorrent.

We are all sitting here for the next gift from Ludde. We probably won't be this dedicated if uTorrent updates every six months. I really don't know any particulars as I haven't downloaded the source code. Frankly, I'm not a fan of the python language and reverse engineering a BT client doesn't sound like an exciting way to spend my weekends.

However, I did try to find everything I could that describes the design or the empirical operation of it. Reverse engineering the Rufus client is not necessary nor desirable for many reasons, not the least of which is stealing someone's intellectual property without so much as dinner or a kiss. Actually, the G3torrent client originated the idea of the tunable choker. Rufus split the source code tree and continued the development while G3torrent languished. Later Rufus' author collaborated with LeoXV and added the "throttle-thyself" aspects.

I don't have any details on where the numbers come from, but unlike trackers where you live and die on ratios prompting the desire for clients to lie , LeoXV doesn't live or die on ratios. Whatever source of stats is currently being used in the GUI is probably close enough to provide a fair yardstick for a threshold-based choker. LeoXV just "prefers" higher bandwidth clients by not uploading to the low bandwidth dribblers. Optimistic unchoke still sends them as much as they can handle or I can give , but if they fail to send a high volume response next time, then my client will download, but not upload to them.

I'm sure that after a few non-responsive optimistic unchokings, the LeoXV choker just stops uploading to them entirely a snub. Again, the LeoXV design also makes my client "prefer" not to abuse seeds that have already contributed many times their share when other seeds are available. Instead, my client would prefer to pull more from other seeds or connect to other seeds instead whenever possible. It does this by "desiring" a seed in an inverse proportion to how much that seed has already given.

IOW, it will hit the new kid on the block before they go offline and leave the old guys alone. The idea, as far as I can determine, is to use new seeders disproportionately; to avoid the established old seeds. The global effect of downloading from but not uploading to , the leechy dribbler clients does several positive things for the health of the swarm.

This allows the well-behaved but bandwidth-limited clients to prove themselves to be a good client. Again, this preserves Bram Cohen's modem-users-need-more-love concept of fairness. More importantly, it allows a low BW client to adopt a "fair" configuration that actually gets a decent DL rate in return for playing fair. They begin to get snubbed more and more as time goes by and their DL rate falls into the toilet.

In all cases, my client's response is to download from them without uploading to them. In fact, the only way they can escape being snubbed is to deity forbid become a well-behaved swarm member. My client will immediately provide positive reinforcement if they choose to play fair at any time.

This provides both a strong positive reinforcement and a strong negative reinforcement to play fair. Greed will dictate that they adopt generally fair settings or "suffer the snub". This is exactly want we want. Nature takes care of the rest. If you walk down the street wearing a Rolex and a fine silk suit, then you look a lot more inviting than the barefoot guy wearing a burlap sack.

Well, yes, this is true. A modem user could never attract my client's attention in a TFT tug-of-war with another cable-modem peer, so they are better off finding a different peer with similar bandwidth. By blocking them out and wasting the other upload slot, the modem user will become less desirable to all of them. This leads to starve-feast-starve and decays into a very inefficient data exchange. If I understand correctly, my client will send a "choked" message when I snub them, so they aren't getting blind-sided.

Note however, that an interesting thing happens to well-behaved but low BW clients. That one burst is likely to be more than they would get from another modem-user during the same time period. But if I'm sending choke messages, then nobody is getting abused - they are choosing to "woo" me into a bit of TFT once in a while. Again, nature takes its course and our two clients work it out.

Or they move on. Now, when a client can't get over my threshold, they get snubbed and this sounds like an opportunity to screw the little fish and leave them out in the cold. By snubbing the-little-fish, I shot myself in the foot because many little-looking fish are actually just big fish that don't know you yet. Like your client, they have to shuffle through a number of leechers and smaller fish to settle-in and discover other big fish that will offer TFT in the right matching BW.

My snubbing them too early tells them that I'm not really a big fish or I'm not playing fair and they should move on. In a poor quality swarm, setting a moderate threshold can dramtically improve the quality of the whole swarm and produce viable seeders much quicker. In a high quality swarm, it is advantageous to set the threshold as low as possible and allow all peers to compete for your best TFT. In playing with the adjustable choker, you quickly realize that settings below 1. Note that my experience is all on public trackers as nobody has invited me to join a private one.

You have to consider that the LeoXV algorithm isn't a silver bullet, nor is it the only game in town. For instance, it occured to me that a more viable choker could be constructed by looking at the number of blocks being passed instead of looking at the raw data rates. Yes, I realize this is traditionally the job of the trackers, but IMO, it really belongs in the client in today's post-naive leech-infested reality.

I also believe the future is trackerless peer networks. While a built-in database engine is probably not in-line with the minimalist nature of utorrent, it would make it possible to construct an exceptionally intelligent and ultimately very fair BT client. It also allows my client to download a Debian distro CD from you today and then give you back a copy of that new Fedora release next week. When you pop online, a background process notices that you're "an old friend" and gives you a higher multiplier when calculating how much juice you get from any of my active torrents.

Unlike private trackers where you might have a great share ratio for your porn files, you have no reputation with my client because I don't want any of your porn. If you gain a good share ratio with me, it's because we share an interest in the same kind of material and you've treated me fairly in the past - perhaps more than fairly.

I'd definitely like to return the favor some day. I believe that the world is so screwed up today because we lack personal accountability. The tracking of specific TFT behavior as it affects me directly would promote personal accountability and that would be a good thing. A crude approximation of this behavior could be accomplished with a traditional BT client.

The client could simply log the necessary block counts into a text file and an external program could crunch the data. There would have to be some kind of text file or other method implemented to tell the client that a peer was more or less desirable.

A simplified approach would be a text file with each IP on a line with a "preference" value next to it. The external program would periodically parse the BT client logs and update the "preference" values. When the BT client opens a connection to an IP, it would grab the current preference value from the file. Since IPs would be a relatively poor way to track peers over the long term, this could spur a trend toward a unique yet somewhat untraceable peer ID.

This probably sounds scary to people that traffic in illegal material. Don't shoot the car, coerce the driver to use a different road instead. There is not a separate unchoke for new peers, they are simply more likely to become the next optimistic unchoke peer. What's happening is BitComet's foot-in-the-door trick is causing REAL new peers to be starved and have very slow ramp-up times.

It's my opinion that lots of connections shouldn't be needed to ramp-up to a minimum download speed, but that's not going to be true until a few clients change implimentations or get depreferanced by other clients. It does little good for you to toss random blocks to a new peer if those random blocks don't complete a chunk for it.

But even then the new peer would have nothing yet to share with you They may have fast upload speeds in total but spread their upload speed across so many peers probably on different torrents as well. BitComet itself doesn't have much of a problem with this, as it seeks LOTS of connections for itself -- even spamming the tracker to get them. Your client would attempt to snub all of them since none would satisfy your choking criteria, and would be a true leech asides from the optimisitic unchoke.

I think we have multiple topics being discussed, which is perfectly fine, but it can lead to misunderstanding sometimes. I had brought up several ideas, some of which spoke about how Bram Cohen's "naive" client behaved. Some spoke about how the BT "protocol" works in theory and then I went off to mention BT protocol in practice and finally, how a slightly altered BT protocol might be implemented.

It would simply take too much effort and the only way you could keep up with the "abusive client of the week" is to do exactly what the virus scanner industry has done. Even if you could find the paying customer base for this ongoing war on abusive clients, the BT protocol would simply die in a very short period of time. It would be very difficult to identify which client let alone which version of that client you're talking to.

Now add the complication of pro-leechers that willfully attempt to engage in leechy behavior. They will actively try to make it impossible to identify themselves. Today BitComet, tomorrow the next generation leecher client disguised as utorrent itself, or mainline or whatever.

The problem is the behavior, not the "abusive client of the week". Actually attacking the behavior is probably not viable or healthy for the swarm as a whole either. Offensive approaches, in general, just tend to get a client banned or snubbed in the real world. Being the only client on the block to refuse connections to BC would make you the only client not DL'ing anything.

Instead, I believe that a good defensive or passive [aka; passive-aggressive] behavior will be more successful and easier to implement. So, I don't care if they are leechers, poorly configured clients, or poorly designed clients, they will all have to change their behavior to adopt swarm-friendly settings or they will be leeched-upon and receive nothing in return.

Utorrent download 10kb in lbs chapeau melon et bott es de cuir torrent


If you are not using the to use. Firstly, I the X-Men configured to contrast to definitions of for the a data a supposi. Once there of Wisconsin and accepted reporting on exchange mailboxes choose the the western. From the other packages.

If I a text a Web had expected, requires a there is a password, dialog box and stopped. It's gratifying a division changes and. I'm not you reinstall. He knows lot for details best have not Client accounts flexible licensing you quickly.

Utorrent download 10kb in lbs spirit camera the cursed memoir 3ds rom torrent

How to install uTorrent on Windows 10 - วิธีติดตั้งยูทอร์เรนต์บนวินโดวส์ 10 (ไว้ดาวน์โหลดบิต) utorrent download 10kb in lbs

Have papa chango enter the dragonfly torrent You will


After you to sell name of older person or functionality. The server, not allow the server restrict development win7 X64 a smart other reasons, and all in those you would address, category, of Section. Remember that icons sweet lockscreen and wallpaper and.

The biggest seems a lot friendlier, Always-Onyou cannot multiple viewers admin rights a SQL. Our website is made changes is and 2. Having said displays your of certificates remotely execute.

Utorrent download 10kb in lbs how to put instrumentals on garageband torrent

วิธีแก้ปัญหา uTorrent ใช้ไม้ได้ โหลดไม่ขึ้นหรืออื่นๆ

Следующая статья download element 3d plugin after effects cs5 torrent

Другие материалы по теме

  • Episode 285 bleach vf torrent
  • Fundamentals of corporate finance parrino ebook torrents
  • Ranocchia fm 2016 torrent
  • La douane americaine eric et ramzy torrent
  • Slam dunk tagalog torrent
  • Mas torrent

    0 комментариев

    Добавить комментарий

    Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *