Fibre optic cable 0.5mm - Antenocitis Workshop\nHome / Modelling Supplies / Electronics / Fibre optic cable 0.5mm\n£0.12 £0.05 Price ex. VAT: £0.04\nFibre optic cable 0.5mm quantity\nSKU: fibreoptic05 Category: Electronics\nYou're viewing: Fibre optic cable 0.5mm £0.12 £0.05 Price ex. VAT: £0.04


De ferzje fan 22 mai 2019 om 09.32\n3 bytes lytser , 1 jier lyn\nDe ferzje fan 25 mai 2017 om 20.42 (wizigje)\nDe ferzje fan 22 mai 2019 om 09.32 (wizigje) (weromsette)\nMarten rjochtetrjochte [[Toonder Studio's]] op, in bedriuw dat films en reklame produsearretprodusearre. Yn [] ferhuzetferhuze hy mei syn frou nei [[Greystones]], yn Ierlân, om him folslein oan it striptekenjestriptekenjen te rjochtsjen. Hy besaude him dat it Ierske lânskip hiel bot like op wat hy al jierenjierren yn syn Bommel-strips tekene hie.\nPhiny ferstjertferstoar yn [], seis jierren letter,. ynYn [], troude Toonder opnij, mei de [[komponist]]e [[Tera de Marez Oyens]], dy't datselde jier ferstoar. Sûnttiid wenne hy wer yn Nederlân, yn it [[Rosa Spier Huis]] te Laren.\nUntfongen fan "https://fy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki:MobileDiff/964027"


Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Hard Drive - 1TB Serial ATA-3.0 5400RPM 2.5" 9.5mm Hybrid SSHD Laptop HD Replacement - Laptop Parts Expert You’ve found it, the best place to buy parts for your laptop or tablet! We go above and beyond the competition making us true laptop parts experts Because:\nToshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Hard Drive - 1TB Serial ATA-3.0 5400RPM 2.5" 9.5mm Hybrid SSHD Laptop HD Replacement\nToshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Hard Drive Replacement (9.5mm 1TB Serial ATA-3.0 5400RPM Hybrid SSHD)\nToshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) 1TB 5400RPM 2.5" 9.5mm height Hybrid SSHD Laptop hard drive replacement/upgrade, New with 3-year factory warranty.Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Hard Drive Specs:HD Capacity: 1TB, 8GB NAND FlashHD Type: Hybrid SSHDHD Size: 2.5", 9.5mm heightHD Speed: 5400RPM, 12ms SeekHD Interface: Serial ATA-3.0, Serial ATA-8HD Transfer Rate: Up to 6.0GB/secHD Buffer Rate: 32MB/secHD Alt P/N: MQ01ABD100HHD Warranty: 3-yearClick here for our SATA drives on clearanceClick here for more Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 Hard Drive upgrade options\nWatch our video on Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Parts Replacement 1TB Hybrid SATA Hard Drives before ordering\nBrand: ToshibaProduct Type: Hard DriveDescription: Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Laptop Hard DriveSKU: MQ01ABD100HMfg. P/N: MQ01ABD100HPrice: $116.10Availability: In-StockCondition: NewSeller: LaptopPartsExpert.comCategory: Electronics > Computers > Computer Components > Storage Devices > Hard DrivesURL: http://www.laptoppartsexpert.com/i-17194110-toshiba-tecra-a7-s712-pta70u-hard-drive-replacement-9-5mm-1tb-serial-ata-3-0-5400rpm-hybrid-sshd.htmlImage: http://www.laptoppartsexpert.com/images/F98341519\nStock #: MQ01ABD100H-15163\nToshiba Tecra Parts - Toshiba Tecra A7 Series Parts - Toshiba Tecra A7-S712 (PTA70U) Parts


Renata (recklein4428) on Pinterest\nCrochet Dress PatternsCrochet SkirtsCrochet ClothesCrochet Stitches PatternsRobes En CrochetLe CrochetCrochet FabricThread CrochetCrochet GrannyCrochet DressesCrocheting PatternsCrochet StitchesCrochet Vest PatternFreeform CrochetCrochet MotifSkirt PantsThe DressSilkLacy DressesCrochet IdeasSkirtsDress SkirtFilet Crochet Name PatternTunicsKnitting And CrochetingCrochet TopsLace CardiganCrochet YarnWire CrochetForward\nsukienka / szydełko na Stylowi.\nCrochet SummerCrochet Beach DressCrochet TunicCrochet SkirtsCrochet ClothesCrochet TopsCrochet Vest PatternCrochet RippleLace Crochet PatternsCrochet DressesCrochet StitchesCrocheting PatternsBeach KaftanBeach PlaysuitDoiliesBeach Wear DressesBeach WearingBeach FashionLearn CrochetEasy CrochetCrochet PatternsDress ShirtLadies ClothesTunicsKnitting And CrochetingMy WorldSwimwearJoyForward\nCrochet beach wraps Check templates, graphics and recipes\nCrochet CoatCrochet JacketCrochet CardiganCrochet SweatersCrochet ScarfsCrochet ClothesCrochet Granny SquaresCrochet PatternsKnitwearToddler CardiganCrochet Batwing TopsCrochet DressesCrocheting PatternsVest CoatCrew NeckRolodexBaby Girl JacketsSquaresSweater VestsKnitsSacksPonchosSandalsJacketsKaftanWoman FashionDaughtersKnitted BabyCrochet TopsLace CardiganForward\nCrochet ToddlerCrochet Baby ClothesCrochet For KidsCrochet ChildrenCrochet GirlsCrochet JacketCrochet HatsCrochet BebeFree CrochetCowlsCoast CoatsSweater HoodieCrocheting PatternsKnitsFor KidsWinterGirl ClothingGuysDoilies CrochetCrochet BabySlippersCrocheted HatsCrochet Free PatternsFree KnittingForward\nRavelry: Crochet Springtime Friends Hoodie pattern by Anji Beane\nKids CrochetCrochet AfghansCrochet ShawlCrochet CardiganCrochet TopsCrochet PatternsCrochet JacketCrochet GrannyCrochet CraftsCardigan Sweater OutfitCrochet CoatBaby Coming Home OutfitSummer ShirtsCrochet Baby DressesJacketsBaby VestBaby CardiganChild ModelsChildren DressInfant GirlsDress SkirtTunicsPetite FilleVestKnit CrochetCraftsRezepteTutorialsHand CraftsKnitted AfghansForward\nCrochet ChildrenCrochet Baby GirlsCrochet Baby DressesKids KnittingFlower PatternsCrochet PatternsCrochet DiagramCrochet DesignsKids PatternsCrochet CoatKid ModelsCinderellaCowlsWeaving For KidsBabies ClothesLace BlazerVest PatternEmbroideryKids CrochetBaby CardiganChildren DressPetite FilleDaughtersSunLaceShell TopsCurve DressesKnitting PatternsKnit CrochetHand CraftsForward\nthis might be the puffy flower pattern , is this a free pattern and would you share it with me please and thank you , xxx-ooo\nBaby CoatBaby KnittingKnitted BabyCrochet Baby SweatersKnitting Patterns BabyLoom KnittingBaby KnitsKnit CrochetCrochet JacketBaby Coming Home OutfitClothes For KidsKnit JacketCrochet CoatToddler CardiganGirl SwagBaby DressesKnitsBabies ClothesGirl ClothingLoom KnitTunicsDaughtersDwarfLace CardiganKids WearHand CraftsFor KidsFilet CrochetWeavingKnitting StitchesForward\nLove the pockets on the blue sweater, I'm going to have to improvise.\nTricot BabyKnitted CoatCrochet ChildrenBaby KnittingCrochet BabyKnitted BabyKnit CrochetBaby KnitsKnitting PatternsToddler CardiganBaby CoatBaby DressesKnitting StitchesCrocheting PatternsKnit Baby SweatersWool SweatersKnitsCrochet DressesSweater VestsScarfsGirls CoatsKnit PatternsKids CrochetLace CardiganDwarfKnitting And CrochetingFlower Pot PeopleFor KidsHand CraftsFilet CrochetForward\nknitted coat for girl - the link for this is blocked, but it's so darling I thought maybe I could make up the pattern based on it


Marriage Counseling 07933, Gillette, NJ.\nMarriage Counseling 07933. We believe in saving marriages and restoring relationships.Search Results For Marriage Counseling Near Gillette, New Jersey, 07933.\nMarriage Counseling United States New Jersey Morris County 07933\nMountain LakesFlandersFlorham ParkMorris PlainsMorristownChathamDenvilleRockawayChesterPompton PlainsRandolphMadisonMontville


Global Bratwurst Market Research Report 2018 | Mart Research\nReport ID : 065283\nThis report studies the global Bratwurst market status and forecast, categorizes the global Bratwurst market size (value & volume) by key players, type, application, and region. This report focuses on the top players in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and Middle East & Africa.\nThe global Bratwurst market is valued at  million US$ in 2017 and will reach  million US$ by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of  during 2018-2025.\nTo analyze and study the global Bratwurst sales, value, status (2013-2017) and forecast (2018-2025).\nFocuses on the key Bratwurst manufacturers, to study the sales, value, market share and development plans in future.\n2.1 Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production and Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\n2.1.1 Global Bratwurst Capacity and Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\n2.1.2 Global Bratwurst Production and Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\n2.2 Global Bratwurst Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\n2.3 Global Bratwurst Average Price by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\n3 Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2013-2018)\n3.1 Global Bratwurst Capacity and Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\n3.2 Global Bratwurst Production and Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\n3.3 Global Bratwurst Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\n3.4 Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.5 North America Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.6 Europe Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.7 China Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.8 Japan Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.9 Southeast Asia Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n3.10 India Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\n4 Global Bratwurst Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Region (2013-2018)\n4.1 Global Bratwurst Consumption by Region (2013-2018)\n4.2 North America Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n4.3 Europe Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n4.4 China Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n4.5 Japan Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n4.6 Southeast Asia Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n4.7 India Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export, Import (2013-2018)\n5.1 Global Bratwurst Production and Market Share by Type (2013-2018)\n5.2 Global Bratwurst Revenue and Market Share by Type (2013-2018)\n5.3 Global Bratwurst Price by Type (2013-2018)\n5.4 Global Bratwurst Production Growth by Type (2013-2018)\n6.1 Global Bratwurst Consumption and Market Share by Application (2013-2018)\n6.2 Global Bratwurst Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2013-2018)\n7.5.3 Usinger's Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2018)\n7.10.3 Premio Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2013-2020)\n9.3 Raw Materials Sources of Bratwurst Major Manufacturers in 2017\n12 Global Bratwurst Market Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.1 Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production, Revenue Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.1.1 Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.1.2 Global Bratwurst Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.1.3 Global Bratwurst Price and Trend Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2 Global Bratwurst Production, Consumption , Import and Export Forecast by Region (2018-2025)\n12.2.1 North America Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2.2 Europe Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2.3 China Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2.4 Japan Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2.5 Southeast Asia Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.2.6 India Bratwurst Production, Revenue, Consumption, Export and Import Forecast (2018-2025)\n12.3 Global Bratwurst Production, Revenue and Price Forecast by Type (2018-2025)\n12.4 Global Bratwurst Consumption Forecast by Application (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production () and CAGR (%) Comparison by Types (Product Category) (2013-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production Market Share by Types (Product Category) in 2017\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) by Applications (2013-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Applications in 2017\nFigure Global Bratwurst Market Size (Million USD), Comparison (K Units) and CAGR (%) by Regions (2013-2025)\nFigure North America Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2013-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) Status and Outlook (2013-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units) Status and Outlook (2013-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Major Players Product Capacity (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Capacity (K Units) of Key Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Capacity Market Share of Key Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity (K Units) of Key Manufacturers in 2017\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity (K Units) of Key Manufacturers in 2018\nFigure Global Bratwurst Major Players Product Production (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) of Key Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Bratwurst Production Share by Manufacturers\nFigure Global Bratwurst Major Players Product Revenue (Million USD) (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Revenue Share by Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nTable 2017 Global Bratwurst Revenue Share by Manufacturers\nTable 2018 Global Bratwurst Revenue Share by Manufacturers\nTable Global Market Bratwurst Average Price (USD/Unit) of Key Manufacturers (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Market Bratwurst Average Price (USD/Unit) of Key Manufacturers in 2017\nTable Manufacturers Bratwurst Product Category\nTable Global Bratwurst Capacity (K Units) by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Global Bratwurst Capacity Market Share by Region\nTable Global Bratwurst Production by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Global Bratwurst Production Market Share by Region\nTable Global Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) by Region (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Revenue Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Revenue Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nTable 2017 Global Bratwurst Revenue Market Share by Region\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units) and Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nTable North America Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nTable Europe Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nTable China Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nTable Japan Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) Market by Region (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Region (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) Market Share by Region\nTable North America Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Europe Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable China Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Japan Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Southeast Asia Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable India Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Import & Export (K Units) (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) by Type (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production Share by Type (2013-2018)\nFigure Production Market Share of Bratwurst by Type (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Production Market Share of Bratwurst by Type\nTable Global Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) by Type (2013-2018)\nFigure Production Revenue Share of Bratwurst by Type (2013-2018)\nFigure 2017 Revenue Market Share of Bratwurst by Type\nTable Global Bratwurst Price (USD/Unit) by Type (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production Growth by Type (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) by Application (2013-2018)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Application (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Applications (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share by Application in 2017\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2013-2018)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2013-2018)\nTable G & W Meat Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (G & W Meat) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure G & W Meat Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure G & W Meat Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure G & W Meat Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Bavaria Sausage Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Bavaria Sausage Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Bavaria Sausage Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Bavaria Sausage Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable GermanDeli Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure GermanDeli Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure GermanDeli Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure GermanDeli Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Hermann Wurst Haus Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Hermann Wurst Haus Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Hermann Wurst Haus Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Hermann Wurst Haus Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Usinger's Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Usinger's Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Usinger's Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Usinger's Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Schaller & Weber Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Schaller & Weber Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Schaller & Weber Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Schaller & Weber Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable The Bratwurst King Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure The Bratwurst King Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure The Bratwurst King Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure The Bratwurst King Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Johnsonville, LLC Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Its Competitors\nTable Johnsonville, LLC Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Johnsonville, LLC Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Johnsonville, LLC Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Johnsonville, LLC Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Great Value Food Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Its Competitors\nTable Great Value Food Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Great Value Food Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Great Value Food Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Great Value Food Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Premio Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Its Competitors\nTable Premio Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units), Revenue (Million USD), Price (USD/Unit) and Gross Margin (2013-2018)\nFigure Premio Bratwurst Production Growth Rate (2013-2018)\nFigure Premio Bratwurst Production Market Share (2013-2018)\nFigure Premio Bratwurst Revenue Market Share (2013-2018)\nTable Raw Materials Sources of Bratwurst Major Manufacturers in 2017\nFigure Global Bratwurst Capacity, Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Price (Million USD) and Trend Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) Forecast by Region (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production Market Share Forecast by Region (2018-2025)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) Forecast by Region (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption Market Share Forecast by Region (2018-2025)\nFigure North America Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure North America Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable North America Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure Europe Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure Europe Bratwurst Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable Europe Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure China Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable China Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure Japan Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable Japan Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure Southeast Asia Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable Southeast Asia Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nFigure India Bratwurst Production (K Units) and Growth Rate Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable India Bratwurst Production, Consumption, Export and Import (K Units) Forecast (2018-2025)\nTable Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) Forecast by Type (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Production (K Units) Forecast by Type (2018-2025)\nTable Global Bratwurst Price Forecast by Type (2018-2025)\nTable Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) Forecast by Application (2018-2025)\nFigure Global Bratwurst Consumption (K Units) Forecast by Application (2018-2025)


Used boats and yachts for sale in Cornwall England - United Kingdom - 2\nUsed Boats and Yachts for sale in Cornwall England - 35 ads found\nBudock Water, Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 5EE, UK\nVessel name: Sealine 240 Senator Vessel type: motor Designer: Sealine Builder: Sealine Make: Sealine Model: 240 Senator Year construc\nSealine - 240 Senator 4 years ago\nVessel name: Bavaria 30 Vessel type: sail Designer: j&J design Builder: Bavaria Make: Bavaria Model: 30 Year constructed: 1986 B\nBavaria - 30 4 years ago\n1974 Fastnet 27\nVessel name: Fastnet 27 Vessel type: motor Designer: Westerly Marine Builder: Fastnet Make: Fastnet Model: 27 Year constructed: 197\nFastnet - 27 4 years ago\n2010 Crownline 19SS\nBuilder: Crownline Make: Crownline Model: 190 SS Year constructed: 2010 Fuel type: Other Drive type: Other Length over all: 19' 7"\nCrownline - 190 SS 4 years ago\nHonda TRX350 Fourtrax Big Red ATV Quad 4x4 REPAIR or SPARES\nHonda 350 4x4 Fourtrax, For Repair or spares, Year Unknown, No Reserve, No VAT Re listed again due to another time waster sjf 37 If you can't afford it don't bother\nHonda - TRX 350 4x4 Fourtrax 4 years ago\nVessel name: Memory 19 Vessel type: sail Designer: Tony Robinson Builder: Memory Make: Memory Model: 19 Year constructed: 1977 B\nMemory - 19 4 years ago\nCatalac 8M with twin diesels\nDesigner: Tom Lack and John Winterbotham Make: Catalac Model: 8M Year constructed: 1977 Year refitted: 2010 No. of engines: 2 Engine\nCatalac - 8M 4 years ago\nKAWASAKI KVF 360 4WD QUAD BIKE 2008\nKAWASAKI KVF 360 2008 2wd/4wd IN GREAT CONDITION AND LOW HOURS HAS FULL CAMOUFLAGE BODYWORK ALL LIGHTS ETC WORKING WINCH AT THE FRONT TOW BAR 12 VOLT OUTPUT WINTER H\nKAWASAKI - KVF 360 4 years ago\n1980 RELIANT ROBIN MAUVE/PURPLE\nSt Issey, Wadebridge, Cornwall PL27, UK\nFor sale is my Reliant 850 hard tail trike, i have owned this trike for 2 years & have had hours of fun on her.She is mot`d until july 2016, she starts first time &\nRELIANT - ROBIN 4 years ago\nHonda TRX350 Fourtrax Big Red ATV Quad 4x4 SPARES AND REPAIRS\nFor spares or Repair. Year Unknown, Barn Find, Honda 350 4x4 Fourtrax,Re listed due to time waster keviuk -eydoi Starts 1st time. Engine and gearbox seem good no smo


OpenBenchmarking.orgIOPS, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Random Read - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 4KB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630K60K90K120K150KSE +/- 333.33, N = 3110000133000129667107000109000108000122000109000-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma1. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgIOPS, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Random Read - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 4KB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.620K40K60K80K100KMin: 129000 / Avg: 129666.67 / Max: 1300001. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMB/s, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Sequential Read - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 2MB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630060090012001500SE +/- 0.33, N = 3SE +/- 5.86, N = 3SE +/- 1.33, N = 35585585605585581555558-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma1. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMB/s, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Sequential Read - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 2MB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630060090012001500Min: 558 / Avg: 558.33 / Max: 559Min: 1546 / Avg: 1555 / Max: 1566Min: 557 / Avg: 558.33 / Max: 5611. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMB/s, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Sequential Write - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 2MB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630060090012001500SE +/- 0.33, N = 3SE +/- 0.33, N = 3SE +/- 0.33, N = 3SE +/- 0.33, N = 31469146714671468146814681469-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma -libverbs-lnuma1. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMB/s, More Is BetterFlexible IO Tester 3.1Type: Sequential Write - IO Engine: AIO - Buffered: No - Direct: Yes - Block Size: 2MB - Disk Target: Default Test DirectoryopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630060090012001500Min: 1468 / Avg: 1468.67 / Max: 1469Min: 1466 / Avg: 1466.67 / Max: 1467Min: 1467 / Avg: 1467.67 / Max: 1468Min: 1468 / Avg: 1468.67 / Max: 14691. (CC) gcc options: -rdynamic -std=gnu99 -ffast-math -include -O3 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -lrt -laio -lz -lm -lpthread -ldl\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: jsonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850900K1800K2700K3600K4500KSE +/- 31559.22, N = 3SE +/- 66406.21, N = 3SE +/- 15679.53, N = 3SE +/- 45327.37, N = 3SE +/- 45392.49, N = 3SE +/- 54911.87, N = 3SE +/- 19611.07, N = 3SE +/- 26541.77, N = 3SE +/- 42880.69, N = 3SE +/- 20709.45, N = 3SE +/- 27188.17, N = 330317694235566439780443499132478529317973532555013299666271413226734702839813\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x Core, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Core - Test: jsonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685060M120M180M240M300M121270760169422640175912160173996520991411602543788002604400802639732801085652801069388001135925201. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x GHz, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Clock - Test: jsonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268502M4M6M8M10M11217545.38471132.08795608.08699826.09170557.36359470.06511002.06599332.010042288.49891839.010507308.11. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: jsonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850800K1600K2400K3200K4000KMin: 2992480 / Avg: 3031769.33 / Max: 3094195Min: 4161150 / Avg: 4235565.67 / Max: 4368042Min: 4371574 / Avg: 4397804 / Max: 4425803Min: 4301069 / Avg: 4349912.67 / Max: 4440474Min: 2387776 / Avg: 2478529 / Max: 2525992Min: 3069999 / Avg: 3179735 / Max: 3238404Min: 3235086 / Avg: 3255501 / Max: 3294712Min: 3264706 / Avg: 3299666 / Max: 3351740Min: 2635112 / Avg: 2714132.33 / Max: 2782506Min: 2633359 / Avg: 2673469.67 / Max: 2702469Min: 2788888 / Avg: 2839813.33 / Max: 2881785\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: buildopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685012000M24000M36000M48000M60000MSE +/- 145296370.99, N = 3SE +/- 419881292.84, N = 4SE +/- 943892303.89, N = 12SE +/- 711581716.65, N = 3SE +/- 109440495.24, N = 3SE +/- 113251032.47, N = 3SE +/- 81287548.13, N = 3SE +/- 489071383.52, N = 3SE +/- 93959433.34, N = 3SE +/- 46016016.34, N = 3SE +/- 35571787.20, N = 32231152383126859902400360340927333664173600020889441138375298158833747584889154289399267247053020451384622583619090320266\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x Core, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Core - Test: buildopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850900000M1800000M2700000M3600000M4500000M8924609532401074396096000144136370932014656694400008355776455203002385270640299806791128043431519413609882120818005538490334407636128106401. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x GHz, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Clock - Test: buildopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685020000M40000M60000M80000M100000M82552638174.753719804800.072068185466.073283472000.077290932210.675059631766.074951697782.0108578798534.091409617566.551231035593.270634184984.21. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: buildopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268509000M18000M27000M36000M45000MMin: 22021134498 / Avg: 22311523831.33 / Max: 22466132986Min: 26368663800 / Avg: 26859902400 / Max: 28109631800Min: 34665806800 / Avg: 36034092733.33 / Max: 46324768600Min: 35874806800 / Avg: 36641736000 / Max: 38063425200Min: 20679176337 / Avg: 20889441138 / Max: 21047234730Min: 37325346608 / Avg: 37529815882.67 / Max: 37716440246Min: 37326935681 / Avg: 37475848891 / Max: 37606800083Min: 53312462637 / Avg: 54289399266.67 / Max: 54819921960Min: 24584458030 / Avg: 24705302045.33 / Max: 24890354179Min: 13758793267 / Avg: 13846225835.67 / Max: 13914823453Min: 19027940524 / Avg: 19090320266 / Max: 19151134991\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: garbageopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850300K600K900K1200K1500KSE +/- 5550.64, N = 3SE +/- 11206.53, N = 3SE +/- 3836.82, N = 3SE +/- 4712.77, N = 3SE +/- 5252.01, N = 3SE +/- 12405.11, N = 3SE +/- 11182.63, N = 3SE +/- 7872.06, N = 3SE +/- 7280.02, N = 3SE +/- 4850.79, N = 3SE +/- 9094.00, N = 31115094101808491209093220285981593094494149196480187286411900181171475\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x Core, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Core - Test: garbageopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685017M34M51M68M85M44603760407233603648360037288080343926007447552075319280771840803491456047600720468590001. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation x GHz, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksPerformance Per Clock - Test: garbageopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850900K1800K2700K3600K4500K4125847.82036168.01824180.01864404.03181315.51861888.01882982.01929602.03229596.84403066.64334457.51. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNanoseconds/Operation, Fewer Is BetterGo BenchmarksTest: garbageopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850200K400K600K800K1000KMin: 1104017 / Avg: 1115094 / Max: 1121268Min: 1003075 / Avg: 1018084 / Max: 1040004Min: 904437 / Avg: 912089.67 / Max: 916407Min: 923476 / Avg: 932202 / Max: 939651Min: 851549 / Avg: 859815 / Max: 869561Min: 911363 / Avg: 930943.67 / Max: 953929Min: 924027 / Avg: 941491 / Max: 962323Min: 953936 / Avg: 964800.67 / Max: 980101Min: 864640 / Avg: 872863.67 / Max: 887381Min: 1180812 / Avg: 1190018 / Max: 1197272Min: 1153289 / Avg: 1171475 / Max: 1180801\nOpenBenchmarking.orgmsec, Fewer Is BetterDaCapo Benchmark 9.12-MR1Java Test: JythonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.62K4K6K8K10KSE +/- 118.13, N = 10SE +/- 133.58, N = 16SE +/- 33.53, N = 4SE +/- 48.54, N = 4SE +/- 85.12, N = 4SE +/- 59.93, N = 4SE +/- 76.21, N = 4SE +/- 20.89, N = 4SE +/- 40.86, N = 4SE +/- 12.48, N = 4SE +/- 37.91, N = 41099944824609467739226350634270344443378435674415\nOpenBenchmarking.orgmsec, Fewer Is BetterDaCapo Benchmark 9.12-MR1Java Test: JythonopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.62K4K6K8K10KMin: 10704 / Avg: 10998.9 / Max: 11917Min: 4320 / Avg: 4482.13 / Max: 6482Min: 4594 / Avg: 4676.5 / Max: 4751Min: 3789 / Avg: 3921.75 / Max: 4011Min: 6211 / Avg: 6349.5 / Max: 6575Min: 6177 / Avg: 6342.25 / Max: 6461Min: 6939 / Avg: 7033.5 / Max: 7261Min: 4387 / Avg: 4443.25 / Max: 4488Min: 3701 / Avg: 3784 / Max: 3888Min: 3530 / Avg: 3567 / Max: 3582Min: 4316 / Avg: 4414.75 / Max: 4487\nOpenBenchmarking.orgmsec, Fewer Is BetterDaCapo Benchmark 9.12-MR1Java Test: TradebeansWindows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.63K6K9K12K15KSE +/- 37.78, N = 4SE +/- 16.67, N = 4SE +/- 74.78, N = 4SE +/- 168.54, N = 6SE +/- 33.18, N = 4SE +/- 24.07, N = 4SE +/- 76.84, N = 4SE +/- 125.40, N = 4SE +/- 80.90, N = 4SE +/- 166.90, N = 16428640151029912693703570209342133019090333712005\nOpenBenchmarking.orgmsec, Fewer Is BetterDaCapo Benchmark 9.12-MR1Java Test: TradebeansWindows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.62K4K6K8K10KMin: 4203 / Avg: 4286.25 / Max: 4373Min: 3984 / Avg: 4014.75 / Max: 4061Min: 10189 / Avg: 10299 / Max: 10518Min: 11964 / Avg: 12692.5 / Max: 13066Min: 6947 / Avg: 7035.25 / Max: 7093Min: 6983 / Avg: 7019.75 / Max: 7088Min: 9134 / Avg: 9342 / Max: 9465Min: 13090 / Avg: 13300.75 / Max: 13658Min: 8888 / Avg: 9090 / Max: 9237Min: 10298 / Avg: 12005.25 / Max: 12497\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMflops, More Is BetterSciMark 2.0Computational Test: CompositeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6400800120016002000SE +/- 4.78, N = 3SE +/- 0.51, N = 3SE +/- 0.22, N = 3SE +/- 1.09, N = 3SE +/- 0.16, N = 3SE +/- 1.19, N = 3SE +/- 2.89, N = 3SE +/- 0.67, N = 3SE +/- 0.24, N = 3SE +/- 0.14, N = 3SE +/- 6.43, N = 3SE +/- 0.67, N = 35295845795755883243613615916102085610\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMflops Per Core, More Is BetterSciMark 2.0Performance Per Core - Computational Test: CompositeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6122436486013.2314.6014.4814.3814.704.054.514.5114.7815.2552.1315.251. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 4012. CentOS 7.6: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMflops Per GHz, More Is BetterSciMark 2.0Performance Per Clock - Computational Test: CompositeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6120240360480600142.97292.00289.50287.50158.92162.00180.50180.50159.73164.86563.51164.861. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 12. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMflops, More Is BetterSciMark 2.0Computational Test: CompositeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6400800120016002000Min: 522.19 / Avg: 529 / Max: 538.21Min: 583.01 / Avg: 583.72 / Max: 584.7Min: 578.85 / Avg: 579.28 / Max: 579.54Min: 573.41 / Avg: 575.46 / Max: 577.14Min: 587.54 / Avg: 587.83 / Max: 588.11Min: 321.55 / Avg: 323.91 / Max: 325.31Min: 355.61 / Avg: 361.3 / Max: 365.05Min: 360.17 / Avg: 361.38 / Max: 362.49Min: 590.28 / Avg: 590.64 / Max: 591.1Min: 609.78 / Avg: 610.05 / Max: 610.23Min: 2072.29 / Avg: 2084.87 / Max: 2093.44Min: 608.84 / Avg: 609.9 / Max: 611.14\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNodes Per Second, More Is BetterCrafty 25.2Elapsed TimeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.62M4M6M8M10MSE +/- 15400.17, N = 3SE +/- 11913.26, N = 3SE +/- 4639.48, N = 3SE +/- 5643.53, N = 3SE +/- 4504.27, N = 3SE +/- 18491.42, N = 3SE +/- 19931.80, N = 3SE +/- 25143.06, N = 3SE +/- 9976.25, N = 36351901728712772426167143491739209777105827359965785239175256801. (CC) gcc options: -pthread -lstdc++ -fprofile-use -lm\nOpenBenchmarking.orgNodes Per Second, More Is BetterCrafty 25.2Elapsed TimeopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.61.4M2.8M4.2M5.6M7MMin: 6321190 / Avg: 6351900.67 / Max: 6369290Min: 7264179 / Avg: 7287127.33 / Max: 7304152Min: 7236745 / Avg: 7242615.67 / Max: 7251774Min: 7132449 / Avg: 7143491.33 / Max: 7151037Min: 7383094 / Avg: 7392097 / Max: 7396872Min: 7686579 / Avg: 7710581.67 / Max: 7746949Min: 7324599 / Avg: 7359965 / Max: 7393578Min: 7813437 / Avg: 7852390.67 / Max: 7899408Min: 7505923 / Avg: 7525679.67 / Max: 75379731. (CC) gcc options: -pthread -lstdc++ -fprofile-use -lm\nOpenBenchmarking.orgFrames Per Second, More Is Betterx264 2018-09-25H.264 Video EncodingopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850306090120150SE +/- 0.22, N = 3SE +/- 0.11, N = 3SE +/- 0.24, N = 3SE +/- 1.31, N = 7SE +/- 1.26, N = 3SE +/- 1.99, N = 12SE +/- 2.88, N = 11SE +/- 2.03, N = 3SE +/- 1.11, N = 398.0096.58116.86106.80113.36119.65117.42124.38117.43-ldl-ldl-ldl-mstack-alignment=64-mstack-alignment=64-ldl-ldl -pipe -fexceptions -fstack-protector -ffat-lto-objects -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math -fassociative-math -mtune=skylake1. (CC) gcc options: -m64 -lm -lpthread -O3 -ffast-math -std=gnu99 -fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-tree-vectorize\nOpenBenchmarking.orgFrames Per Second Per Core, More Is Betterx264 2018-09-25Performance Per Core - H.264 Video EncodingopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268500.69981.39962.09942.79923.4992.452.412.922.672.831.501.473.112.941. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 808. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 409. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgFrames Per Second Per GHz, More Is Betterx264 2018-09-25Performance Per Clock - H.264 Video EncodingopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850132639526526.4948.2958.4353.4030.6459.8358.7133.6231.741. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.709. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgFrames Per Second, More Is Betterx264 2018-09-25H.264 Video EncodingopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685020406080100Min: 97.57 / Avg: 98 / Max: 98.24Min: 96.47 / Avg: 96.58 / Max: 96.8Min: 116.37 / Avg: 116.86 / Max: 117.1Min: 99.21 / Avg: 106.8 / Max: 109.39Min: 111.76 / Avg: 113.36 / Max: 115.84Min: 98.45 / Avg: 119.65 / Max: 124.44Min: 89.05 / Avg: 117.42 / Max: 122.91Min: 120.56 / Avg: 124.38 / Max: 127.47Min: 115.52 / Avg: 117.43 / Max: 119.381. (CC) gcc options: -m64 -lm -lpthread -O3 -ffast-math -std=gnu99 -fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-tree-vectorize\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore, More Is BetterNode.js Octane BenchmarkopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Clear Linux 268508K16K24K32K40KSE +/- 133.89, N = 3SE +/- 143.00, N = 3SE +/- 110.42, N = 3SE +/- 367.10, N = 3SE +/- 104.76, N = 3SE +/- 78.44, N = 3SE +/- 154.98, N = 3SE +/- 294.60, N = 3SE +/- 102.31, N = 3SE +/- 377.95, N = 3224343690639622369943676022017219932037739502386491. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Nodejs2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Nodejs v8.10.03. Windows Server 2019: Nodejs v11.5.04. Windows Server 2016: Nodejs v11.5.05. Ubuntu 18.10: Nodejs v8.11.46. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Nodejs7. FreeBSD 12.0: Nodejs8. FreeBSD 11.2: Nodejs9. Fedora Server 29: Nodejs10. Clear Linux 26850: Nodejs\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore Per Core, More Is BetterNode.js Octane BenchmarkPerformance Per CoreopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Clear Linux 268502004006008001000560.85922.65990.55924.85919.00275.21274.91254.71987.55966.231. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore Per GHz, More Is BetterNode.js Octane BenchmarkPerformance Per ClockopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Clear Linux 268504K8K12K16K20K6063.2418453.0019811.0018497.009935.1411008.5010996.5010188.5010676.2210445.681. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore, More Is BetterNode.js Octane BenchmarkopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Clear Linux 268507K14K21K28K35KMin: 22195 / Avg: 22434.33 / Max: 22658Min: 36632 / Avg: 36906 / Max: 37114Min: 39405 / Avg: 39622 / Max: 39766Min: 36265 / Avg: 36994 / Max: 37434Min: 36600 / Avg: 36759.67 / Max: 36957Min: 21900 / Avg: 22017 / Max: 22166Min: 21699 / Avg: 21993 / Max: 22225Min: 19909 / Avg: 20377 / Max: 20921Min: 39298 / Avg: 39502.33 / Max: 39614Min: 37926 / Avg: 38648.67 / Max: 392021. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Nodejs2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Nodejs v8.10.03. Windows Server 2019: Nodejs v11.5.04. Windows Server 2016: Nodejs v11.5.05. Ubuntu 18.10: Nodejs v8.11.46. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Nodejs7. FreeBSD 12.0: Nodejs8. FreeBSD 11.2: Nodejs9. Fedora Server 29: Nodejs10. Clear Linux 26850: Nodejs\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterFLAC Audio Encoding 1.3.2WAV To FLACopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6510152025SE +/- 0.01, N = 5SE +/- 0.01, N = 5SE +/- 0.02, N = 5SE +/- 0.06, N = 5SE +/- 0.01, N = 5SE +/- 0.02, N = 5SE +/- 0.02, N = 5SE +/- 0.08, N = 5SE +/- 0.02, N = 5SE +/- 0.01, N = 5SE +/- 0.02, N = 5SE +/- 0.10, N = 510.5110.539.9110.3010.2717.9021.9822.5810.229.559.9911.82-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O2-O2-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O2 -fvisibility=hidden-O3 -pipe -fexceptions -fstack-protector -m64 -ffat-lto-objects -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math -fassociative-math -mtune=skylake -fvisibility=hidden -logg-O2 -fvisibility=hidden1. (CXX) g++ options: -lm\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterFLAC Audio Encoding 1.3.2WAV To FLACopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6510152025Min: 10.47 / Avg: 10.51 / Max: 10.54Min: 10.5 / Avg: 10.53 / Max: 10.59Min: 9.86 / Avg: 9.91 / Max: 9.99Min: 10.19 / Avg: 10.3 / Max: 10.5Min: 10.25 / Avg: 10.27 / Max: 10.29Min: 17.85 / Avg: 17.9 / Max: 17.94Min: 21.94 / Avg: 21.98 / Max: 22.04Min: 22.38 / Avg: 22.58 / Max: 22.78Min: 10.15 / Avg: 10.22 / Max: 10.26Min: 9.52 / Avg: 9.55 / Max: 9.59Min: 9.93 / Avg: 9.99 / Max: 10.06Min: 11.69 / Avg: 11.82 / Max: 12.221. (CXX) g++ options: -lm\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is Betterm-queens 1.2Time To SolveopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.61224364860SE +/- 0.07, N = 3SE +/- 0.03, N = 3SE +/- 0.04, N = 3SE +/- 0.04, N = 3SE +/- 0.16, N = 3SE +/- 0.04, N = 3SE +/- 0.07, N = 3SE +/- 0.02, N = 3SE +/- 0.08, N = 3SE +/- 0.05, N = 328.2555.1255.3655.4128.1838.3927.9727.6828.1328.14-O3 -pipe -fexceptions -fstack-protector -m64 -ffat-lto-objects -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math -fassociative-math -mtune=skylake1. (CXX) g++ options: -fopenmp -O2 -march=native\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x Core, Fewer Is Betterm-queens 1.2Performance Per Core - Time To SolveopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.670014002100280035001130.02204.82214.42216.41127.23071.21118.81107.21125.21125.61. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 408. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 409. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 4010. CentOS 7.6: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x GHz, Fewer Is Betterm-queens 1.2Performance Per Clock - Time To SolveopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.620406080100104.53110.24110.72110.82104.2776.78103.49102.42104.08104.121. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 8. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.709. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is Betterm-queens 1.2Time To SolveopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.61122334455Min: 28.15 / Avg: 28.25 / Max: 28.38Min: 55.09 / Avg: 55.12 / Max: 55.18Min: 55.29 / Avg: 55.36 / Max: 55.43Min: 55.35 / Avg: 55.41 / Max: 55.49Min: 27.97 / Avg: 28.18 / Max: 28.48Min: 38.31 / Avg: 38.39 / Max: 38.44Min: 27.89 / Avg: 27.97 / Max: 28.11Min: 27.65 / Avg: 27.68 / Max: 27.71Min: 28.01 / Avg: 28.13 / Max: 28.27Min: 28.09 / Avg: 28.14 / Max: 28.251. (CXX) g++ options: -fopenmp -O2 -march=native\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMegapixels/sec, More Is Betterlibjpeg-turbo tjbench 1.5.3Test: Decompression ThroughputopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268504080120160200SE +/- 0.11, N = 3SE +/- 0.26, N = 3SE +/- 0.18, N = 3SE +/- 0.08, N = 3SE +/- 0.39, N = 3SE +/- 0.02, N = 3SE +/- 0.03, N = 3SE +/- 0.10, N = 3SE +/- 0.33, N = 3SE +/- 0.07, N = 3SE +/- 0.44, N = 3144.00152.00152.00151.00159.0086.2883.1379.35160.00160.00160.00\nOpenBenchmarking.orgMegapixels/sec, More Is Betterlibjpeg-turbo tjbench 1.5.3Test: Decompression ThroughputopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850306090120150Min: 144.06 / Avg: 144.28 / Max: 144.41Min: 151.65 / Avg: 152.07 / Max: 152.55Min: 151.94 / Avg: 152.29 / Max: 152.56Min: 150.5 / Avg: 150.62 / Max: 150.77Min: 158.89 / Avg: 159.4 / Max: 160.17Min: 86.24 / Avg: 86.28 / Max: 86.32Min: 83.09 / Avg: 83.13 / Max: 83.19Min: 79.15 / Avg: 79.35 / Max: 79.47Min: 159.08 / Avg: 159.59 / Max: 160.19Min: 160 / Avg: 160.14 / Max: 160.22Min: 159.15 / Avg: 160.03 / Max: 160.54\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aBlend File: BMW27 - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630609012015080.91144.1493.0593.1377.2478.4376.9975.7377.22\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x Core, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aPerformance Per Core - Blend File: BMW27 - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6120024003600480060003236.45765.63722.03725.23089.63137.23079.63029.23088.81. Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x GHz, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aPerformance Per Clock - Blend File: BMW27 - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.670140210280350299.37288.28186.10186.26285.79290.19284.86280.20285.711. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 7. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.708. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 9. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aBlend File: Fishy Cat - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.650100150200250120213139141118119117116118\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x Core, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aPerformance Per Core - Blend File: Fishy Cat - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.62K4K6K8K10K4800852055605640472047604680464047201. Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x GHz, Fewer Is BetterBlender 2.79aPerformance Per Clock - Blend File: Fishy Cat - Compute: CPU-OnlyopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6100200300400500444.0426.0278.0282.0436.6440.3432.9429.2436.61. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 7. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.708. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 9. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore, More Is BetterPHPBench 0.8.1PHP Benchmark SuiteopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6150K300K450K600K750KSE +/- 1032.09, N = 3SE +/- 408.66, N = 3SE +/- 2111.65, N = 3SE +/- 3084.71, N = 3SE +/- 80.08, N = 3SE +/- 136.65, N = 3SE +/- 48.43, N = 3SE +/- 2252.04, N = 3SE +/- 361.19, N = 3SE +/- 1272.87, N = 3SE +/- 1742.35, N = 3SE +/- 2433.87, N = 3158619579683309413301934593052241691238699194244584986481688720713204006\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore Per Core, More Is BetterPHPBench 0.8.1Performance Per Core - PHP Benchmark SuiteopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.64K8K12K16K20K3965.4814492.087735.337548.3514826.303021.142978.562428.0514624.6512042.2018017.835100.151. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 4012. CentOS 7.6: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore Per GHz, More Is BetterPHPBench 0.8.1Performance Per Clock - PHP Benchmark SuiteopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.660K120K180K240K300K42870.00289841.50154706.50150967.00160284.32120845.50119142.5097122.00158104.32130185.95194787.3055136.761. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 12. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgScore, More Is BetterPHPBench 0.8.1PHP Benchmark SuiteopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.6120K240K360K480K600KMin: 157355 / Avg: 158618.67 / Max: 160664Min: 578916 / Avg: 579683 / Max: 580311Min: 305193 / Avg: 309412.67 / Max: 311674Min: 295958 / Avg: 301933.67 / Max: 306250Min: 592958 / Avg: 593051.67 / Max: 593211Min: 241438 / Avg: 241691 / Max: 241907Min: 238609 / Avg: 238699 / Max: 238775Min: 189795 / Avg: 194243.67 / Max: 197078Min: 584315 / Avg: 584986.33 / Max: 585553Min: 479847 / Avg: 481687.67 / Max: 484131Min: 717472 / Avg: 720713.33 / Max: 723442Min: 199775 / Avg: 204006 / Max: 208206\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterGitTime To Complete Common Git CommandsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.648121620SE +/- 0.12, N = 3SE +/- 0.04, N = 3SE +/- 0.23, N = 12SE +/- 0.16, N = 3SE +/- 0.01, N = 3SE +/- 0.22, N = 3SE +/- 0.19, N = 3SE +/- 0.20, N = 3SE +/- 0.10, N = 3SE +/- 0.01, N = 3SE +/- 0.00, N = 3SE +/- 0.05, N = 38.4617.2913.7912.016.2811.8312.1215.136.456.106.006.471. openSUSE Leap 15.0: git version 2.16.42. Windows Server 2019 WSL: git version 2.17.13. Windows Server 2019: git version 2.20.1.windows.14. Windows Server 2016: git version 2.20.1.windows.15. Ubuntu 18.10: git version 2.19.16. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: git version 2.19.17. FreeBSD 12.0: git version 2.19.18. FreeBSD 11.2: git version 2.19.19. Fedora Server 29: git version 2.20.110. Debian 9.6: git version 2.11.011. Clear Linux 26850: git version 2.20.012. CentOS 7.6: git version 1.8.3.1\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x Core, Fewer Is BetterGitPerformance Per Core - Time To Complete Common Git CommandsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.630060090012001500338.4691.6551.6480.4251.2946.4969.61210.4258.0244.0240.0258.81. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 4012. CentOS 7.6: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds x GHz, Fewer Is BetterGitPerformance Per Clock - Time To Complete Common Git CommandsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.681624324031.3034.5827.5824.0223.2423.6624.2430.2623.8722.5722.2023.941. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 12. CentOS 7.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgSeconds, Fewer Is BetterGitTime To Complete Common Git CommandsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850CentOS 7.648121620Min: 8.26 / Avg: 8.46 / Max: 8.69Min: 17.21 / Avg: 17.29 / Max: 17.33Min: 12.65 / Avg: 13.79 / Max: 14.87Min: 11.74 / Avg: 12.01 / Max: 12.3Min: 6.27 / Avg: 6.28 / Max: 6.29Min: 11.57 / Avg: 11.83 / Max: 12.27Min: 11.74 / Avg: 12.12 / Max: 12.35Min: 14.73 / Avg: 15.13 / Max: 15.34Min: 6.26 / Avg: 6.45 / Max: 6.59Min: 6.07 / Avg: 6.1 / Max: 6.11Min: 6 / Avg: 6 / Max: 6.01Min: 6.36 / Avg: 6.47 / Max: 6.531. openSUSE Leap 15.0: git version 2.16.42. Windows Server 2019 WSL: git version 2.17.13. Windows Server 2019: git version 2.20.1.windows.14. Windows Server 2016: git version 2.20.1.windows.15. Ubuntu 18.10: git version 2.19.16. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: git version 2.19.17. FreeBSD 12.0: git version 2.19.18. FreeBSD 11.2: git version 2.19.19. Fedora Server 29: git version 2.20.110. Debian 9.6: git version 2.11.011. Clear Linux 26850: git version 2.20.012. CentOS 7.6: git version 1.8.3.1\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchTest: Create FilesopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685030060090012001500SE +/- 0.44, N = 12SE +/- 8.44, N = 3SE +/- 3.76, N = 3SE +/- 4.46, N = 3SE +/- 0.02, N = 3SE +/- 0.37, N = 3SE +/- 0.46, N = 3SE +/- 0.47, N = 3SE +/- 0.64, N = 3SE +/- 0.08, N = 3SE +/- 0.02, N = 344.461230.001234.00262.0015.5984.0680.2076.5746.6115.6715.91\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event x Core, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchPerformance Per Core - Test: Create FilesopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685011K22K33K44K55K1778.449200.049360.010480.0623.66724.86416.06125.61864.4626.8636.41. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event x GHz, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchPerformance Per Clock - Test: Create FilesopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268505001000150020002500164.502460.002468.00524.0057.68168.12160.40153.14172.4657.9858.871. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchTest: Create FilesopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268502004006008001000Min: 41.69 / Avg: 44.46 / Max: 46.33Min: 1213.52 / Avg: 1229.83 / Max: 1241.77Min: 1226.88 / Avg: 1234.38 / Max: 1238.53Min: 252.9 / Avg: 261.71 / Max: 267.37Min: 15.56 / Avg: 15.59 / Max: 15.62Min: 83.59 / Avg: 84.06 / Max: 84.8Min: 79.33 / Avg: 80.2 / Max: 80.88Min: 75.71 / Avg: 76.57 / Max: 77.34Min: 45.34 / Avg: 46.61 / Max: 47.31Min: 15.52 / Avg: 15.67 / Max: 15.8Min: 15.88 / Avg: 15.91 / Max: 15.93\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchTest: Create ThreadsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268507K14K21K28K35KSE +/- 0.23, N = 3SE +/- 0.16, N = 3SE +/- 0.28, N = 3SE +/- 2.23, N = 12SE +/- 0.01, N = 3SE +/- 0.91, N = 3SE +/- 0.75, N = 3SE +/- 126.30, N = 3SE +/- 0.16, N = 3SE +/- 0.21, N = 3SE +/- 0.27, N = 1220.0083.2334.8681.1426.1851.8151.4931619.8022.9018.0618.57\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event x Core, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchPerformance Per Core - Test: Create ThreadsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 26850500K1000K1500K2000K2500K800.03329.21394.43245.61047.24144.84119.22529584.0916.0722.4742.81. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected core count of 402. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected core count of 403. Windows Server 2019: Detected core count of 404. Windows Server 2016: Detected core count of 405. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected core count of 406. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected core count of 807. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected core count of 808. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected core count of 809. Fedora Server 29: Detected core count of 4010. Debian 9.6: Detected core count of 4011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected core count of 40\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event x GHz, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchPerformance Per Clock - Test: Create ThreadsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 2685014K28K42K56K70K74.00166.4669.72162.2896.87103.62102.9863239.6084.7366.8268.711. openSUSE Leap 15.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 2. Windows Server 2019 WSL: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 3. Windows Server 2019: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 4. Windows Server 2016: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 5. Ubuntu 18.10: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 6. FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 7. FreeBSD 12.0: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 8. FreeBSD 11.2: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 2.00 9. Fedora Server 29: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70 10. Debian 9.6: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.7011. Clear Linux 26850: Detected GHz base clock speed (use PTS sensors for real-time frequency/sensor reporting) count of 3.70\nOpenBenchmarking.orgus Per Event, Fewer Is BetterOSBenchTest: Create ThreadsopenSUSE Leap 15.0Windows Server 2019 WSLWindows Server 2019Windows Server 2016Ubuntu 18.10FreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.2Fedora Server 29Debian 9.6Clear Linux 268505K10K15K20K25KMin: 19.68 / Avg: 20 / Max: 20.44Min: 82.99 / Avg: 83.23 / Max: 83.53Min: 34.57 / Avg: 34.86 / Max: 35.41Min: 63.49 / Avg: 81.14 / Max: 87.33Min: 26.17 / Avg: 26.18 / Max: 26.21Min: 50.13 / Avg: 51.81 / Max: 53.27Min: 50.01 / Avg: 51.49 / Max: 52.46Min: 31449.74 / Avg: 31619.8 / Max: 31866.59Min: 22.58 / Avg: 22.9 / Max: 23.1Min: 17.7 / Avg: 18.06 / Max: 18.44Min: 17.73 / Avg: 18.57 / Max: 21.4\nOpenBenchmarking.orgBogo Ops/s, More Is BetterStress-NG 0.07.26Test: CPU StressFreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.22K4K6K8K10KSE +/- 3.97, N = 3SE +/- 1.83, N = 3SE +/- 1.78, N = 3953896459646gccclangclang\nOpenBenchmarking.orgBogo Ops/s, More Is BetterStress-NG 0.07.26Test: CPU StressFreeBSD 12.0 - GCC8FreeBSD 12.0FreeBSD 11.22K4K6K8K10K


Daenerys Targaryen Woman Dragons Game Thrones Wallpapers\nDaenerys Targaryen Woman Dragons Game Thrones Wallpapers is an HD wallpaper posted in tv-shows category. You can download Daenerys Targaryen Woman Dragons Game Thrones Wallpapers HD wallpaper for your desktop, notebook, tablet or phone or you can edit the image, resize, crop, frame it so that will fit on your device.\nTagovi: Daenerys Dragons Game Targaryen Thrones


Winktv Korean Webcom Girl - PornFun\nWinktv Korean Webcom Girl\nYou are watching winktv korean webcom girl porn video uploaded to Winktv porn category.\nKorean Girl 78% Likes\nKorean Girl 94% Likes\nKorean Girl 82% Likes\nKorean Girl 81% Likes\nRecent trends similar to Winktv Korean Webcom Girl:\nWelcome to Winktv Korean Webcom Girl porn tube videos page at PornFun5.com, as you see we have many videos that looks similat to Winktv Korean Webcom Girl which you watch online or even download this porn to your phone or PC. So don`t be shy search for more porn tube videos you like and watch them free and PornFun5.com porn site, also you may share Winktv Korean Webcom Girl page with your friends or may be bookmark it both will be nice for us.


Iisklup Foarút (Akkrum) - Wikipedy\nIisklup Foarút (Akkrum)\nIisklup Foarút fan Akkrum is oprjochte yn 1862 oprjochte ûnder de namme Voaruwt. Neidat der yn 1861 en 1862 winters west hiene dat skippen ynferzen sieten en in soad kastleins hurdriderijen organisearren kaam deer in iisklup. Dit om hurdriderijen better en earlijker ferride te litten.. By de oprjochten wienen der 18 leden mei W. Osinga as foarsitter. Der binne sûnttiids in soad koartebaanriderijen hâlden. Yn de mande mei de iisklup fan Grou waard twa kear in Skatetoertocht hâlden. Op de Jierfergadering wurdt nei it saaklike gedielte in sprekker útnoege. Sa kamen iis-VIP's as Henk Kroes, Jeen van der Berg, Jan Charisius, Jan Ykema, Sake Santema, Johannes Lolkema, Atje Keulen-Deelstra en Rein Zwart nei Akkrum.\nLokaasjes [bewurkje seksje]\nYn it eartoan waarden de wedstriden ferriden op de Meinesleat, dêrnei op de âlde iisbaan foar it plak dêr't no graazje Fennema sit, oan it spoar, en sûnt 1968 op de nije baan oan de UT-wei. Dizze baan is destiids troch boargemaster Anker iepene. Yn 1975 is der mei de fuotbalklup in mienskiplike kantine en klaaigelegenheid boud. Yn it jier 2000 kaam der in nije moderne baanferljochting.\nSûkelarjewedstriden [bewurkje seksje]\nFoar de skoalbern waard yn 1885 Lyts Voaruwt oprjochte. It findel hjirfan hinget no yn de kantine fan sportkompleks De Meine. De tradysje om –by genôch iis- earst in riderij foar de skoalbern ofwol de sûkelarjewedstryd te hâlden bestiet noch. Wa't ferlern hat krijt in sûkelarjereep.\nHichtepunten [bewurkje seksje]\nYn de rin fan de tiid binne meardere Fryske Kampioenskippen hâlden, it Jeugd Kampioenskip fan Boarnsterhim, twa prachtige “belslidewedstriden” yn 1964, 1997. Fierders de iismaraton troch Akkrum ofwol de Lus fan Akkrum yn 1986 en 1997 dy't yn gearwurking mei Sport Real en de Iiswegensintrale organisearre binne. Ynwenners dy 't de Alvestêdetochten folbrocht hawwe yn 1963,1985,1986 en 1997 waarden troch Foarút huldige. Yn 1987 ferskynde it Jubileumboek fan Foarút.\nWebstee iisklup Foarút\nUntfongen fan "http://fy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iisklup_Foarút_(Akkrum)&oldid=336109"\tKategoryen: AkkrumIisklup\tNavigation menu\nLêste kear bewurke op 17.27, 6 jun 2010.


ХІІІІ. KRITERIJ Foar fermelding fan CURSE WORKS - Studios\nХІІІІ. KRITERIJ Foar fermelding fan kursussen\nDe beskerming fan kursussen hat beide mienskiplike posysjes en bepaalde ferskillen. De mienskiplike funksjes beskiede de tige beskerming fan beskerming: de yntroduktuele wurden fan 'e auteur, fertroulingen fan' e leden fan 'e kommisje mei feedback en evaluaasje, fragen en antwurden, kollegialiteit yn' e definysje fan 'e beoardieling. De beskerming is iepen, alle be>\nCoursework is in eigen resultaat fan alle spesjalistyske opliedingen fan in takomstige spesjalist, sadat elke fragen dy't de ynhâld fan kursus mei oare profesjonele disiplinen gearwurkje kinne yn behanneling behannele wurde.\nKommissarissen moatte begelaat wurde troch de neifolgjende evaluaasjekritearia:\nDe beoardieling is "poerbêst" troch in studint dy't krektens en korrekt foltôge hat, dy't in doelrjochting hat, in praktysk resultaat en yndiaan analysearje fan 'e problemen fan it keazen tema en de hjoeddeistige wetjouwing, konklúzjes oer de positive mominten en neidielen fan wetlike regeling fan dizze problemen, útstellen om de tekoartingen fan' e aktuele wetjouwing.\nDe beoardieling fan "goeie" wurdt ûntfongen troch de studint foar wurk, dêr't alle fan dizze easken foldien wurde, mar der binne inkele neidielen fan in metodologyske aard, ûnfoldwaande fersterkingen en foarstellen. Dit wurk moat goed en krekt dien wurde.\n"Seldsum" beoardielet in wurk wêryn't in tangbere ûnfoldwaande stúdzje fan it ûnderwerp is, jout in koarte analyze fan 'e praktyk fan it tapassen fan hjoeddeistige wetjouwing, it doel fan' e stúdzje is net folslein realisearre. De konklúzjes jouwe net folslein oerien mei de ynhâld fan it wurk. Der binne ferwûningen yn 'e ûntwerpnormen.\nDe evaluaasje is "ûnfrede" as it wurk fan in eksplisyt kompilative aard is of de skriuwer net nei it ûndersyksmateriaal is, wit net de wetjouwing dy't dit probleem regelet, der is plagiaat. De lêzer rjochtet it gebrûk fan gedachten fan oare minsken sûnder referinsjes nei har auteur. In unbefredigjende skoare wurdt beskreaun as it wurk yntsjinne is foar beskerming yn 'e gefolch fan' e termen dy't troch de fysyske kommisje set binne.\nXIV. LIEN fan 'e kursus fan' e stúdzjes.\nDe kwaliteit fan it kursuswurkjen is foar in grut part ôfhinklik fan 'e faire hâlding fan' e learling en de kwaliteit fan wittenskiplike begelieding. De wittenskiplike lieder stimulearret en ûntwikkelet positive eigenskippen yn it wurk fan 'e studint, syn fermogen om selsstannich problemen te finen en te lieden yn' e studearre problemen.\nYn 'e tiid fan it skriuwen draacht de saakkundige konsultaasjes neffens it skema. It besjen fan konsultaasjes is ferplicht foar de studint. Op 'e oerlis moat hy klear wêze, ferklearje oan' e holle ûnbegryplike problemen, útdrukking fan har gedachten oer it probleemjen fan problemen, en om de tekoart te ferwêzentlikjen dy't de goedkarring en goedkarring fan 'e wittenskiplike saakkundiger freegje.\n; Datum tafoege: 2018-01-08 ; ; Views: 152 ; Is it publisearre materiaal ferrifeljende koprinners? | | | Beskerming fan persoanlike gegevens | ORDER WORK\nBêste wurdingen: Foar learlingen fan 'e wike binne der even, enerzjy, en toane. 8499 - | | 6809 - of alles lêze ...


Card Albums--Ultra Pro - Colour Pro Binder Purple\nCard Albums--Ultra Pro - Colour Pro Binder Pink\nCard Albums--Ultra Pro - Colour Pro Binder Red\nCard Albums--Ultra Pro - Colour Pro Binder Purple is available to buy in increments of 1\nYou're reviewing:Card Albums--Ultra Pro - Colour Pro Binder Purple\n1:6 Scale Figures--Hellboy (2019) - Hellboy 12" 1:6 Scale Action Figure\nConstruction Sets--Maserati - Gran Carrio\nPop! Vinyl--Evolve - Markov Pop! Vinyl\nNRL Coffee Mug Parramatta Eels\nBoard Games--Firefly - The Game Pirate & Bounty Hunters Board Game\nBrowning--Shooters Flex Shooting Glasses


(Trochferwiisd fan PvdA)\nPartijlieder Attje Kuiken\nPartijfoarsitter Esther-Mirjam Sent\n6.3 Boargemasters (2022)\nLodewijk Asscher luts him op 14 jannewaris 2021 werom as listlûker en fraksjefoarsitter. Hy wie yn opspraak kaam nei de sanneamde taslagge-affêre. Lilianne Ploumen folge him op as fraksjefoarsitter en listlûker. Attje Kuiken folge Ploumen op as fraksjefoarsitter op 22 april 2022.\nEsther-Mirjam Sent - foarsitter\nHélène Oppatja – fise-foarsitter\nKati Piri - ynternasjonaal skriuwer\nArd van der Tuuk - ponghâlder\nAttje Kuiken - fraksjefoarsitter Twadde Keamer\nMei Li Vos – fraksjefoarsitter Earste Keamer\nAgnes Jongerius – foarsitter Nederlânske delegaasje Jeropeesk Parlemint\nKlara Boonstra - direkteur Wiardi Beckman Stifting\nAndrej van Hout – foarsitter Jonge Sosjalisten\nLilianne Ploumen 14 jannewaris - 12 april 2022\nAttje Kuiken 22 april 2022 - no\n2017-2021 Nelleke Vedelaar\n2021-no Esther-Mirjam Sent\nLikernôch 70 boargemasters yn Nederlân binne fan PvdA-komôf. Inkele bekende nammen binne:\nArnhim - Achmed Marcouch\nBreda - Paul Depla\nHilfertsom - Pieter Broertjes\nRotterdam - Ahmed Aboutaleb\nSaanstêd - Jan Hamming\nUtert - Sharon Dijksma\nHarns - Ina Sjerps\nIt Hearrenfean - Tjeerd van der Zwan\nSúdwest-Fryslân - Jannewietske de Vries\nDe Waadhoeke - Marga Waanders\nWeststellingwerf - André van de Nadort\nJouke de Vries, bestjoerskundige\nOpfrege fan "https://fy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partij_fan_de_Arbeid&oldid=1073042"\nLêst bewurke op 25 apr 2022 om 11.27\nDizze side is it lêst bewurke op 25 apr 2022 om 11.27.


Hi Spec Billet 4 Pot M16 Front Brake Kit - 300x22mm Rotor £CALL\nSPARCO: Motorsport Inspired Styling Items......... Avanti Rally Map Lights Black Diamond Discs, Pads & Hoses Green Air Filters Revotec Gauge Mounts ARP Bolts TEIN Suspension Savage Back Boxes Out of Tank Fuel Injection Fuel Pumps Corbeau GMAX Suspension RGM Gauge Mounts MOMO: Quality you'd expect from the Italian Giant. E-Tech Quick Align Wheel Tool Team Dynamics Alloys MicroDynamics Ignition Technology BK Alloy Wheels E-TECH: Interior & Exterior Styling products...... Wheel Bolts Harnesses AP Suspension Black Diamond Clutches EBC Brake Discs, Pads, Calipers etc. FSE Power Boost Valves Redbourne Alloys (Land / Range Rover) Forge Motorsport LOCKWOOD: Dials, Racegrilles & Sill Plates........ Splitfire Revotec Electronic Cooling Fans Cobra Exhausts Foliatec Car Styling Sale Wheel Spacers Magnecor Ignition Leads Lumenition Ultra Power Bulbs & Xenon Conversions Trillogy Koni Suspension Calibre Alloys Piper Exhausts Pipercross Air Filters E-Tech Alloy Wheel Repair Kits BC Racing Coilovers OMP Racewear & Accessories MSW Alloys by OZ Piper Cams Revotec Cold Air Feed Hoses & Ducting MAK Alloys Carburettor Service Kits Supersprint Exhausts Evans Waterless Engine Coolants


Alibris ID: 15407580332\nAlibris ID: 15446198404\nAlibris ID: 15445931312\nVery Good. 0553524550 Little edge wear.\nAlibris ID: 15445838063\nAlibris ID: 15445930719


Alrisco Women Velvet Velvet by Over The Knee Toe Pointy Toe Block Heel Boot - HG09 by Farenheit Collection Burgundy Velvet 2e943f8 - imum.info\nAlrisco Women Velvet Velvet by Over The Knee Toe Pointy Toe Block Heel Boot - HG09 by Farenheit Collection Burgundy Velvet 2e943f8\nAlrisco Women Velvet Velvet by Over The Knee Toe Pointy Toe Block Heel Boot - HG09 by Farenheit Collection Burgundy Velvet 2e943f8 - imum.info Welcome Guru’s!\nStuart Weitzman Women s Tieland Over The Knee Boot Snow Plonge Stretch Report Women s Fisher Riding Boot Black , Shoe Dezigns Rider 33 Womens Thigh High Lace Up Combat Boots Tan , Marc Fisher Women s Nella Over The Knee Boot Red Calvin Klein Women s Priya Over The Knee Boot Slate/Black Suede/Stretch , Essex Glam Womens Synthetic Over The Knee Thigh High Stiletto Heel Stretch Boots Grey Faux Suede , Ellie Shoes Women s 426-Grace Boot Black Style & Co. Womens Alaisi Closed Toe Ankle Fashion Boots Black Charm Foot Fashion Womens High Heel Over the Knee Riding Boots Brown , AmoonyFashion Women s Solid Round Closed Toe Soft Materials PU Above-The-Knee Boots White Forever Link Dasia-h1 Women s Fashion Sexy Pull Up Almond Toe Over The Knee Chunky Heel Boots Shoes Taupe Wild Diva Lounge Women Over The Knee Thigh High Flat Slouchy Boots Faux Leather Slip On KALISA-112 Cognac , Sbicca Women s Oboe Boot Brown , SNJ Womens Knee-High Fashion Sexy Comfort Over The Knee Pointy Toe Chunky Mid Heel Boots Camel , Mofri Women s Sexy Faux Suede Drawstring Pointed Toe Stiletto High Heel Platform Side Zipper Thigh High Boots Black JOJONUNU Women Boots Zipper Over Knee Black , Shoe N Tale Women Faux Suede Low Flat Heel Stretch Over The Knee High Thigh high Snow Boots Black , Shoe Dezigns Travis 05 Women Military Lace Up Thigh High Combat Boot Brown WeiPoot Women s Solid Round Closed Toe Frosted PU Mid Top Boots Armygreen RF ROOM OF FASHION Women s Over The Knee Block Chunky Heel Stretch Boots – Available in Medium and Wide Calf Royal Blue Velvet - Medium Calf Mofri Women s Sexy Faux Suede Drawstring Round Toe Stiletto Super High Heel Platform Over The Knee Boots Side Zipper Apricot , Chinese Laundry Women s Krush Winter Boot Pink Suede , Cape Robbin Womens Pointy Toe Over The Knee Cage Cutout High Heel Gladiator Chunky Heel Boot Denim , Breckelle s Beverly-16 Women Faux Suede Pointy Toe Stiletto Heel Thigh High Boot Tan Pu Premier Standard Women s Lace Thigh High Over The Knee Riding Boots - Side Zipper Comfy Vegan Suede Premier Taupe , Aisun Women s Glitter Sequins Faux Suede Slim Round Toe Lace Up Chunky High Heel Stretchy Over The Knee High Boots Black , Soda Ride-H Riding Boot Black , Women Over The Knee Flat Boots Snap Cuff Back Zipper Fashion Long Boots Wine , RF ROOM OF FASHION Women s Lace up Sexy High Heel Over The Knee Thigh High Boots Washed Denim\nOperation modes Calvin Klein Women s Dalana Slide Sandal Crimson Red Calvin Klein Men s Lyric Slide Sandal Cyber Yellow Cyiecw Unisex Garden Clogs Walking Sandals Lightweight Breathable Slippers Non Slip Quick Drying Beach Shoes Blue FLORENCE IISA Mens Womens Water Shoes Quick Dry Barefoot Water Sports Shoes Aqua Socks Unisex Beach Swim Shoes US 4-13.5 Skyblue Danner Men s Trakwelt NMT Work Boot Brown , KORAMAN Mens Womens Stretchy Water Shoes Quick-dry Barefoot Anti-slip Aqua Socks for Swim Beach Yoga Yellow , Abby 7132 Professional Rhinestone Latin Dance Shoes for Women Tango Cha-Cha Swing Ballroom Party Wedding Sudue Sole Custom Heel Ankle Straps Peep Toe Satin , Sperry Top-Sider Women s Saltwater Misty Thinsulate Rain Boot Navy/Brown Beckett Mens Black Chelsea Style Boot Black Amoji Unisex Camouflage Slippers Clogs Sandals Blue Pleaser Women s Seduce-3010 Thigh High Boot Red Patent Women Carmen Fashion Slouchy Faux Suede Round Toe Chunky Heel Over Knee Boots Taupe_top , New Balance Women s WID626v2 Work Training Shoe White , Reebok Women s Esoterra DMX Lite Track Shoe Smoky Orchid/Sour Melon/Whisper Grey Dr. Martens Vegan 1460 Boot Black Fleix Rub FootJoy Contour Casual Shoe Charcoal (Pick Size) Tan , Anna Home Collection Anna Dana-20 Women s Classic Ballerina Flats Elastic Crossing Straps Taupe Nubuck , Diadora Men s B. Original Sneaker Green Olivina , Fila Men s Original Fitness Lea Classic Sneaker White/Navy-red Walking Cradles Women s Bronwyn Flat White Vans Womens Foil Metallic Sk8-Hi Slim Sneaker Black Supra Scissor Skate Shoe Black-white-black Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress Ikoma Mumei Cosplay Shoes Canvas Shoes Sneakers Black/White White 5 STQ Women Suede Slip On Velcro Oxfords Dress Shoes Platform Hook and Loop Comfort Sneakers Apricot , ZXD Round Toe High Top Sports Sneakers Lace up Fashion Skateboard Flats Studded Trainers Shoes Blue , New Balance Men s Nm288ssg White/Blac , DVS Skateboard Shoes Cinch CT Chamois Suede Chamois Suede DC Men s Kalis Lite Skate Shoe Light Blue Vans Unisex Old Skool Classic Skate Shoes (C&l) Black/Material Mix , Vision Street Wear Women s Canvas Lo Sneaker Black/White Cheetah 8 June 2018