Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
MS Access as a backend database
Author: Damien McKenna
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164696
On May 27, 2004, at 3:17 PM, Dennis Powers wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Something that the folks at http://www.coveryourasp.com/ did was they
extensively use application and session variables to store data, which
greatly eases the load on Access. Might be worth trying...
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
Author: Dennis Powers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164694
> Again, I've never noticed huge performance problems with my
> sites that use Access.
We built most of our sites in Access for a long time. They were low volume
traffic sites that needed some basic commerce. They seemed to work pretty
well until we added one more low volume site and suddenly CF started pausing
for long periods of time. It seems that we hit a concurrency limit of some
kind where each site by itself was fine but all the others combined caused
trouble. We then got tasked to upgrade a commerce site with loads of new
features one was a cooperative shopping feature (People who have purchased
this item have also purchased these). We tested the query we needed to do
against access and it routinely returned in 9,400ms. Way too slow. We
tested the same query against MySql with the same data set and it returned
in 800ms we tested it against MS SQL server (separate box) with the same
dataset and it returned in 12ms. That alone made us move away from Access
never to return.
Not only that but our CF server has been up over 2,000 hours without a
problem (we routinely re-boot once every three months just because) where it
was hanging at least twice a week before.
Another thing is that Search engines are no longer as “friendly” as they
once were. On a regular basis the Froogle bot and the Yahoo bot hit our
servers and open thousands of simultaneous connections until they
momentarily saturate our T1 line. CF use to choke on the searches and we
would never get good ratings in the search engines. Just by changing to MS
SQL all of our database centric hosted sites get better than average ratings
in the search engines.
Best Regards,
Dennis Powers
UXB Internet- A Website Design and Hosting Company
690 Wolcott Road - P.O. Box 6028
Wolcott, CT 06716 tel: (203)879-2844
http://www.uxbinternet.com
http://dennis.uxb.net
Author: Eric Dawson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164593
>> the total connections to the database is less than 50
what is the ColdFusion pro version limitation for concurrent connections?
Eric
does it also have any of the limitations like excel does,
where 65536 is its magic number of limitations?
tony
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can
> referance for my managment?
Think of it this way
MS Access is a desktop application, it's designed for working on
people's desktops
If you want a server application, then use a server application
Just as a note, the Access ODBC driver was limited to 50 concurrent
connections - as long as your website was getting few enough hits that
the total connections to the database is less than 50, then you'll be
fine, but once you break 50, the whole thing breaks
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164586
Dave Watts wrote:
>I'm not sure at what point one would decide that "performance is your
>big issue," except when one's application doesn't support its users.
Well, there y'go... it works fine until it explodes, and then all you can really
do is scramble around and pick up pieces. One of those things no one who hasn't
been through it will accept I think, since the preventive cure smacks the wallet
squarely.
Or not. mySQL was my free ticket out of Access Hell. I meant it to be an
interim stop-gap, but something like 2 1/2 years later I haven't found a pressing
need to spring the bucks for a SQL Server license (admittedly, thats due to my
needs and won't work for everyone).
Still, for all its faults, if you are on an Access-served site and can't afford
to get a 'real' database, mySQL is an easy and potentially permanent solution.
--
-------------------------------------------
Matt Robertson, matt@mysecretbase.com
MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com
-------------------------------------------
--
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164582
> Again, I've never noticed huge performance problems with my
> sites that use Access. If performance is your big issue,
> then, yes, Access may not be the way to go. But, if
> simplicity and lower costs are more important, than Access
> may be the way to go. (Most hosts I've seen will charge more
> for SQL Server accounts than for Access accounts)
I'm not sure at what point one would decide that "performance is your big
issue," except when one's application doesn't support its users. I've run
into quite a few situations where Access was being used in unsuitable ways,
and to the detriment of the application's users.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164419
Original Message:
> From: "Dan Phillips"
> That's mainly because the SQL (either MySQL or MS SQL) run on a seperate
> server.
True (and a SQL Server license is more expensive than Access). But to the
customer, it's just an additional cost. (Of course, I think CrystalTech doesn't
charge extra for MySQL accounts, so it may be more the license costs than the
fact that they're on different boxes)
Scott
---------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
Author: Dan Phillips
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164417
<<(Most hosts I've seen will charge more for SQL Server accounts than
for Access accounts)>>
That's mainly because the SQL (either MySQL or MS SQL) run on a seperate
server.
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164413
Original Message:
> From: Dave Watts
> > That's only true if "Maintain Connection Across Client
> > Requests" is checked.
>
> That's correct, but the default setting is to enable this option, I think.
That was true in CF5 (and presumably earlier versions), but not in CFMX.
> In general, maintaining database connections can provide significantly
> better performance.
Again, I've never noticed huge performance problems with my sites that use
Access. If performance is your big issue, then, yes, Access may not be the way
to go. But, if simplicity and lower costs are more important, than Access may be
the way to go. (Most hosts I've seen will charge more for SQL Server accounts
than for Access accounts)
Scott
---------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
Author: techmike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164404
It will work, but from what I've read isn't really suggested.
If more than a handfull of users will be accessing access (no pun
intended) things have the potential to slow down.
If you don't want to spend the $$ for sql, go with MySQL which is free and
for me has worked flawlessly with Coldfusion.
-Mike
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
> managment?
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164386
> That's only true if "Maintain Connection Across Client
> Requests" is checked.
That's correct, but the default setting is to enable this option, I think.
> (I suppose there's a bit of a performance hit with leaving
> that unchecked, but I've never noticed it).
In general, maintaining database connections can provide significantly
better performance.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164385
Original Message:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Hence my parenthetical talking about the performance hit. Again, I've never
noticed it. If your site's performance is noticably bad because of that, then
either your code should be tuned better or you're getting enough traffic to
justify a non-Access database.
Scott
---------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164384
Original Message:
> From: cfhelp
> Put mission critical data in a real database like SQL Server, Oracle or
> MYSQL.
Of course, we don't know that the original question was for a "mission critical"
application. Just a general question about "web applications".
If this is a small business that is building a web site for dynamic content (to
ease updating the web site) then I'd say SQL Server or Oracle is overkill and
Access would work just fine for that.
My general rule of thumb for moving up from Access is whether sensitive
information will be stored in the database (such as potentially with e-commerce
applications) or if I expect it to be high-traffic.
Scott
---------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
Author: Simon Riley
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164383
Claude Schneegans wrote:
>
>I will vouch this statement.
>The "user limit curse" of Access is pure urban legend.
>The PROGRAM Acces installed in a lan does have a limit, but as far as CF
is concerned,
>the Access program is not used nor is installed on the server.
>
>Only the ODBC driver is used on a flat .mdb file, and only ONE user at a
time accesses the database:
>ColdFusion is the user. This driver is just as good as the Oracle or SQL
Server driver.
>
We've had several sites running quite happily on Access for years, but
we're gradually moving up to MS SQL Server. A recent upgrade to our
busiest client meant the (then Access driven) site fell off the web every
10 minutes or so. It was entirely down to the DB. They're on MS SQL
Server now and running beautifully.
Also here's another vote for this excellent article:
http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn17034.htm
originally suggested by mavinson@ra.rockwell.com, it was a big help to me
convincing management to stop using Access.
HTH
Simon Riley
Author: Philip Arnold
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164380
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
But without that checked, then your database accesses are going to be
slower as it's having to re-make the connection every request when it's
not connected
Author: Philip Arnold
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164379
> From: Claude Schneegans
>
> The fact that you CAN take the database offline to change it
> is way more significant for me ;-)
You like being able to kill your site in one easy step? :P
Author: cfhelp
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164378
I think your reply was well put!
I also think that it applies to any application that requires security and
stability. Access is for non programmer to catalog their CD collection.
Put mission critical data in a real database like SQL Server, Oracle or
MYSQL.
Rick
> Only the ODBC driver is used on a flat .mdb file, and only
> ONE user at a time accesses the database:
> ColdFusion is the user. This driver is just as good as the
> Oracle or SQL Server driver.
There are plenty of problems with using Access for web applications. While
it may work in some cases, such as Ray's Death Clock, it will certainly not
work acceptably in many other cases.
The problems with Access have nothing to do with the database driver itself,
although, under CFMX, people typically use SequeLink to connect CFMX's JDBC
drivers to the ODBC driver used by Access, which can't help performance any.
These problems also have nothing to do with the Access desktop application
itself, which is simply a GUI used to work with Access databases.
There are several significant problems with Access, which I'll list in no
particular order. First, Access files are typically locked by the
application server, and they typically can't be modified while the
application server is running.
Second, Access files must be directly accessible by the CF server's
filesystem, which is not very secure. If your CF server is compromised, so
is your data. If you have any "due diligence" security requirements, Access
simply won't meet them.
Third, Access doesn't automatically reclaim unused space. When you delete
records, Access doesn't put new records where the old ones were, it just
grabs more space for new records. As a result, within a sparsely populated
database in which deletions are frequent, Access might use a tremendous
amount of space for hardly any records. A prime example of this is when you
use Access to store Client variables within CF. I encountered a situation
where a ~2GB Access database had about 200 records total. Needless to say,
every page request was excruciatingly slow!
Most significantly, Access isn't designed to handle multiple concurrent
connections very well. The default granularity of locking within Access is
table-level, if I recall correctly. This means, you may have a table with
one million records (Access can actually handle large numbers of records
with no problem), but if someone's inserting a new record, you won't be able
to touch any records within the table until the insert is complete.
This isn't to say that Access isn't suitable for any web applications, or
that it's an inferior product. It's simply not designed to be a
transactional database for applications that support multiple concurrent
users. To the degree that you can get away with using it as such, good for
you! However, you should expect - and prepare for - the worst.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164375
Original Message:
> From: Dave Watts
> There are several significant problems with Access, which I'll list in no
> particular order. First, Access files are typically locked by the
> application server, and they typically can't be modified while the
> application server is running.
That's only true if "Maintain Connection Across Client Requests" is checked. I
leave that unchecked and, considering I never have this problem with my
CrystalTech accounts, apparently they don't either. (I suppose there's a bit of
a performance hit with leaving that unchecked, but I've never noticed it).
(Now that CT has mySQL support, I'd consider using that, but I haven't had any
new projects on CT come up since they started supporting it)
Scott
---------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164370
David Brown wrote:
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
managment?
If you have multiple options, Access would typically rank quite
low for a number of reasons:
- not client-server based
- bad concurrency
- horrible recovery of space used by deleted tuples
- runs on only one platform
However, it is not as bad as some answers might suggest. You can
absolutely change your schema using DDL without taking your
database offline. There is no 50 connections limit. Not that
anybody would have that number of connections because Access is
not client-server based and is not very concurrent, but 50
connections still means 500 queries per second or something, and
that is some serious website (I never had Access at over 80
queries per second with > 99% reads, which it handled just fine).
Compared to the often mentioned MySQL as alternative, Access has
views, subselects, Unicode support, sane foreign keys, decimal
safe arithmatic etc. So that is really a choice between the
performance and client-server model of MySQL vs. the features of
Access.
Compared to the bigger league alternatives such as MS SQL Server,
PostgreSQL and Oracle which may or may not be available to you,
the choice is really very simple: bigger is better.
Jochem
Author: Barney Boisvert
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164367
You can do that with any client-server db in exactly the same way as you
have to do it with Access, as well as numerous other ways (disabling user
accounts, locking specific resources, etc). So it's a moot point if you
want to kill the DB to change it, but if you don't, then Access is a burden.
Cheers,
barneyb
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164365
> Only the ODBC driver is used on a flat .mdb file, and only
> ONE user at a time accesses the database:
> ColdFusion is the user. This driver is just as good as the
> Oracle or SQL Server driver.
There are plenty of problems with using Access for web applications. While
it may work in some cases, such as Ray's Death Clock, it will certainly not
work acceptably in many other cases.
The problems with Access have nothing to do with the database driver itself,
although, under CFMX, people typically use SequeLink to connect CFMX's JDBC
drivers to the ODBC driver used by Access, which can't help performance any.
These problems also have nothing to do with the Access desktop application
itself, which is simply a GUI used to work with Access databases.
There are several significant problems with Access, which I'll list in no
particular order. First, Access files are typically locked by the
application server, and they typically can't be modified while the
application server is running.
Second, Access files must be directly accessible by the CF server's
filesystem, which is not very secure. If your CF server is compromised, so
is your data. If you have any "due diligence" security requirements, Access
simply won't meet them.
Third, Access doesn't automatically reclaim unused space. When you delete
records, Access doesn't put new records where the old ones were, it just
grabs more space for new records. As a result, within a sparsely populated
database in which deletions are frequent, Access might use a tremendous
amount of space for hardly any records. A prime example of this is when you
use Access to store Client variables within CF. I encountered a situation
where a ~2GB Access database had about 200 records total. Needless to say,
every page request was excruciatingly slow!
Most significantly, Access isn't designed to handle multiple concurrent
connections very well. The default granularity of locking within Access is
table-level, if I recall correctly. This means, you may have a table with
one million records (Access can actually handle large numbers of records
with no problem), but if someone's inserting a new record, you won't be able
to touch any records within the table until the insert is complete.
This isn't to say that Access isn't suitable for any web applications, or
that it's an inferior product. It's simply not designed to be a
transactional database for applications that support multiple concurrent
users. To the degree that you can get away with using it as such, good for
you! However, you should expect - and prepare for - the worst.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
Author: Claude Schneegans
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164361
>>The fact that you have to take the database offline to change it is way
more significant.
The fact that you CAN take the database offline to change it is way more
significant for me ;-)
--
_______________________________________
See some cool custom tags here:
http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
Please send any spam to this address: piegeacon@internetique.com
Thanks.
Author: Barney Boisvert
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164355
> Only the ODBC driver is used on a flat .mdb file, and only
> ONE user at a time accesses the database:
> ColdFusion is the user. This driver is just as good as the
> Oracle or SQL Server driver.
The driver is only part of the puzzle. There is a hard limit on what Access
can handle (I don't know where it is), but that's not my biggest gripe. The
fact that you have to take the database offline to change it is way more
significant. Sure, performance is important, but as Ray points out, if you
build the code right (and have the RAM and processor cycles on the app
server), you can run amazing load with a POS backend, regardless of the
actual storage engine. Backups are also problematic, because you have to
deal with the file as a whole, rather than individual tables, or the like.
Also, you have to have it local on the CF server, as far as I know, which
can lead to problems.
I can't say I've ever had major problems with Access, but at the same time,
I'll never use it for a site unless I have no other choice.
Cheers,
barneyb
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Philip Arnold
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164354
> From: Claude Schneegans
>
> I will vouch this statement.
> The "user limit curse" of Access is pure urban legend.
> The PROGRAM Acces installed in a lan does have a limit, but
> as far as CF is concerned, the Access program is not used nor
> is installed on the server.
I should change my name to Mr Urban Legend then
I used to run a site (many years ago) on Access, and because most of the
queries were dynamic to the user (the user's settings and personal
information), I ran into the "maximum user limit" all of the time
It depends on what you're using it for - if you CAN cache your queries,
then do, but if you can't, then don't use Access
Author: Claude Schneegans
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164351
>>this isn't exactly true. When
I use to run Death Clock, I would get 3-4.5 million hits a month.
I will vouch this statement.
The "user limit curse" of Access is pure urban legend.
The PROGRAM Acces installed in a lan does have a limit, but as far as CF is
concerned,
the Access program is not used nor is installed on the server.
Only the ODBC driver is used on a flat .mdb file, and only ONE user at a time
accesses the database:
ColdFusion is the user. This driver is just as good as the Oracle or SQL Server
driver.
--
_______________________________________
See some cool custom tags here:
http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
Please send any spam to this address: piegeacon@internetique.com
Thanks.
Author: Jacob
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164350
I concur. We started out on Access and what a pain after about two
years. Moved to SQL Server. Now I get sleep... ;-)
At 12:32 PM 5/25/2004, you wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Doug White
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164348
Also have a very small limit on concurrent access (queries)
======================================
Our Anti-spam solution works!!
http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069
======================================
Can't handle medium to large user loads
Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
managment?
_____
Author: mavinson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164347
Hi David,
It depends on many factors: budget, size, infrastructure, security,
concurrent users, etc.
We've been using Access as a backend db for an internal app for 2 years
without a hitch... That is, until 2 weeks ago, after a migration meeting
(oracle) with my boss (approved :) -- when we stepped out of the
conference room, a user was standing in the hall to show me an error:
[S1001 (mem alloc err) ODBC Access driver, bla bla] -- Yes, Access had
failed us (and given the timing, I couldn't have been more pleased ;)
The site met its goals (helping others make money) and now it's time to
move to a *real* database management system.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/tn17034.htm
http://www.clearform.com/microsoft_access.htm
-mike
Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
managment?
Author: Pete Ruckelshaus - CFList
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164346
Bad idea for so so many reasons.
First, not at all scalable as a DB. Need more horsepower for an Access
DB? Buy a more powerful machine. Need more power for SQL Server?
Cluster it.
Second, horrible for design & maintenance. Need to make a change to an
Access database? You've got to take it offline...becomes even mroe of a
pain if you don't have local access to the .mdb file.
Go with SQL Server or Oracle. If money is an issue, see if MSDE can
work for you, or try MySQL. Leave Access for the secretaries and the
guys who run fantasy football leagues.
Just my $.02
Pete
David Brown wrote:
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
managment?
Author: Dan Phillips
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164345
Should be used for testing only. If you are going to use it on a
production website, the site should have very little traffic. If not, be
prepared for trouble. I could list a million and 1 horror stories where
an Access DB was the root of the problem.
Dan Phillips
CFXHosting.com
dphillips@cfxhosting.com
Can't handle medium to large user loads
Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my
managment?
_____
_____
Author: Raymond Camden
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164343
While I wouldn't recommend Access to anyone - this isn't exactly true. When
I use to run Death Clock, I would get 3-4.5 million hits a month. The site
ran with no problems using Access as the back end database. Now - I cached
the heck out of things - but not everything. I guess the point is - if you
_have_ to use Access, you can support significant load as long as you code
carefully.
Author: Tony Weeg
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164344
does it also have any of the limitations like excel does,
where 65536 is its magic number of limitations?
tony
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can
> referance for my managment?
Think of it this way
MS Access is a desktop application, it's designed for working on
people's desktops
If you want a server application, then use a server application
Just as a note, the Access ODBC driver was limited to 50 concurrent
connections - as long as your website was getting few enough hits that
the total connections to the database is less than 50, then you'll be
fine, but once you break 50, the whole thing breaks
Author: Philip Arnold
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164341
> From: David Brown
>
> Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can
> referance for my managment?
Think of it this way
MS Access is a desktop application, it's designed for working on
people's desktops
If you want a server application, then use a server application
Just as a note, the Access ODBC driver was limited to 50 concurrent
connections - as long as your website was getting few enough hits that
the total connections to the database is less than 50, then you'll be
fine, but once you break 50, the whole thing breaks
Author: Eric Creese
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164339
Can't handle medium to large user loads
Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my managment?
_____
Author: David Brown
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:32771#164335
Is this good idea? If not; is there an article I can referance for my managment?
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
