Review Index:
Feedback

Intel Optane SSD 900P 480GB and 280GB NVMe HHHL SSD Review - Lots of 3D XPoint!

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: Intel

Introduction, Specifications and Packaging

Introduction:

It’s been two long years since we first heard about 3D XPoint Technology. Intel and Micron serenaded us with tales of ultra-low latency and very high endurance, but when would we have this new media in our hot little hands? We got a taste of things with Optane Memory (caching) back in April, and later that same month we got a much bigger, albeit remotely-tested taste in the form of the P4800X. Since April all was quiet, with all of us storage freaks waiting for a consumer version of Optane with enough capacity to act as a system drive. Sure we’ve played around with Optane Memory parts in various forms of RAID, but as we found in our testing, Optane’s strongest benefits are the very performance traits that do not effectively scale with additional drives added to an array. The preferred route is to just get a larger single SSD with more 3D XPoint memory installed on it, and we have that very thing today (and in two separate capacities)!

View Full Size

Rumor Central:

You might have seen various rumors centered around the 900P lately. The first is that the 900P was to supposedly support PCIe 4.0. This is not true, and after digging back a bit appears to be a foreign vendor mistaking / confusing PCIe X4 (4 lanes) with the recently drafted PCIe 4.0 specification. Another set of rumors centered around pre-order listings and potential pricing for the 280 and 480 GB variants of the 900P. We are happy to report that those prices (at the time of this writing) are way higher than Intel’s stated MSRP's for these new models. I’ll even go as far as to say that the 480GB model can be had for less than what the 280GB model is currently listed for! More on that later in the review.

Specifications:

Performance specs are one place where the rumors were all true, but since all the folks had to go on was a leaked Intel press deck slide listing figures identical to the P4800X, we’re not really surprised here.

View Full Size

Lots of technical stuff above, but the high points are <10us typical latency (‘regular’ SSDs run between 60-100us), 2.5/2.0 GB/s sequential reads/writes, and 550k/500k random read/write performance. Yes I know, don’t tell me, you’ve seen higher sequentials on smaller form factor devices. I agree, and we’ve even seen higher maximum performance from unreleased 3D XPoint-equipped parts from Micron, but Intel has done what they needed to do in order to make this a viable shipping retail product, which likely means sacrificing the ‘megapixel race’ figures in favor of offering the lowest possible latencies and best possible endurance at this price point.

Packaging:

View Full Size

Packaging is among the nicest we’ve seen from an Intel SSD. It actually reminds me of how the Fusion-io ioDrives used to come.

View Full Size

Also included with the 900P is a Star Citizen ship. The Sabre Raven has been a topic of gossip and speculation for months now, and it appears to be a pretty sweet looking fighter. For those unaware, Star Citizen is a space-based MMO, and with a ‘ship purchase’ also comes a license to play the game. The Sabre Raven counts as such a purchase and apparently comes with lifetime insurance, meaning it will always be tied to your account in case it gets blown up doing data runs. Long story short, you get the game for free with the purchase of a 900P.

Read on for our full review of the Intel Optane SSD 900P (in both capacities)!


October 27, 2017 | 09:48 AM - Posted by Baldrick's Trousers (not verified)

Well this is more like it. Intel finally stop dicking around trying to milk us all with Optane. Those Optane SSD prices, while not ideal, are much better than expected.

A move in the right direction.

October 27, 2017 | 10:16 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

Allyn - is TRIM simply needed on NAND because of the 'erase' step required before writing? (is that a simpler way to put it or is that wrong?)

October 27, 2017 | 12:55 PM - Posted by DavidC1

Allyn - Can I answer that question?

Yes, you got it right. The NAND devices don't have issues writing the first time. But if you want to write to the already-written cell, it needs to delete the content. That's the slow part.

TRIM, basically clears the empty cells that have been written before.

The NAND chip themselves are pretty slow. Modern SSDs use very sophisticated wear levelling algorithms and big DRAM buffers to mitigate the issue. But workloads exist when you can bog it down.

October 28, 2017 | 01:21 AM - Posted by James

It isn't specifically that the erase is slow. It is that the device can write a page at a time, but the erase is a block of many pages at once. When you delete a file on a hard drive there is nothing to tell the device that the blocks belonging to that file are no longer needed. It was not necessary for hard drives. The OS would just change some of the file systems data structures to indicate that those blocks are free. Nothing would happen to the pages until they are overwritten for another file.

For an SSD, it has to move all of the pages with valid data somewhere else (probably DRAM cache) if it wants to overwrite an existing page. If the system didn't use trim to tell the SSD which pages are invalid (part of a deleted file), the SSD could waste a lot of time (and possibly write cycles) preserving invalid data. So when you delete something, trim just sends a list of those pages to the SSD. If it wants to rewrite a block containing some of those pages, it knows it doesn't need to save them. This reduces the amount of writes necessary and also increases performance since the drive isn't busy shuffling around invalid pages.

October 27, 2017 | 04:12 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Yeah, like David said, the less 'necessary' space allocated to flash, the better it can perform since it needs to be able to shuffle stuff around due to the page/block limitations. TRIM is how the OS tells the storage device it doesn't need a given area anymore.

October 27, 2017 | 10:24 AM - Posted by mAxius

Wow i am impressed now we need to see capacity increase to beyond 1tb

October 27, 2017 | 10:30 AM - Posted by DrGuns4Hands

I got a 960 pro a few months ago, real talk does it feel a lot faster than running it on a 960 pro system or is the difference hardly noticeable. Want to know if I should jump on board or wait for micron/later generations.

October 27, 2017 | 04:14 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

The system feels faster. Not as big of a jump from HDD to SATA SSD, but still a jump. Depends on what you're doing really. If you have a bunch of background storage stuff running that would normally cause a noticeable slowdown, that pretty much won't happen with this drive.

October 27, 2017 | 07:16 PM - Posted by quest4glory

Allyn,

Not so hypothetically, if you were to switch from a Samsung 950 Pro 512GB over to the Optane SSD 900P 480GB, on an X99 based system with a Core i7-5930K, would this keep the system feeling "fresh" for a couple more years, versus an upgrade to X299 and suitable processor (assuming I stuck with the 950 Pro.)

Note, I do boot from the Samsung 950 Pro, I already have the CPU overclocked to 4.5GHz, RAM is at 2666 MHz, and I have most of my important / frequently accessed data on an Intel 750 Series SSD 1.2TB.

I need to pour through the data again, but I'm having a hard time telling if this is a compelling drive for booting Windows, or if it is more suited for storing VMWare virtual machine images (I run VMWare Workstation for proof of concept type stuff with mostly Oracle and SQL Server databases.)

October 27, 2017 | 11:48 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

You should check out that mixed burst data. The SSD 750 leans too heavily on write performance, so it suffers on read responsiveness.

October 28, 2017 | 04:42 PM - Posted by quest4glory

Thanks!

October 27, 2017 | 10:35 AM - Posted by fvbounty

Me too I've been running a 950 Pro since it came out, and to be honest I didn't see a night and day difference from my 840 evo on everyday stuff?

October 27, 2017 | 11:16 AM - Posted by extide

Anandtech is saying this is a 7-channel controller, the same one as on the P4800X, can you confirm what is correct?

Anyways, I gotta say, they really hit it out of the park with this and got the price right!

October 27, 2017 | 04:16 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

I saw that and am double checking, but the NAND parts that use the same exact board layout use a 14 channel controller.

*edit: my bad. NAND was an 18 channel controller.

October 27, 2017 | 06:10 PM - Posted by DavidC1

Review sites for P4800X say 7-channel. It makes sense this would be same, otherwise it would have to be based on a new architecture. Sequential throughput is identical.

October 27, 2017 | 06:21 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Yup, you guys are right. Fixed.

October 27, 2017 | 11:11 AM - Posted by chortbauer

Great review, but I will wait till it's 10 cents/GB!

Copy paste error:
On the "Performance Focus - SSD 900P 480GB" page the first two graphs are labeled 960 EVO 500GB.

October 27, 2017 | 04:23 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Dangit! Thanks.

October 27, 2017 | 01:50 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Allyn, Great job, as usual.
Any plans to review the U.2 version?

October 27, 2017 | 02:23 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Also, you already know my bias here.
Would you expect better performance
if the add-in card had an x16 edge connector?
Wouldn't that quadruple raw bandwidth,
provided that the on-board controller
supported more parallelism?

October 27, 2017 | 04:51 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

The U.2 version is only a rearrangement of the parts. The performance will be identical.

October 27, 2017 | 10:45 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

THANKS!

October 27, 2017 | 11:50 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

BUT - less surface area and same wattage, so you may need to be a little more cautious about cooling under heavy use.

October 28, 2017 | 11:44 AM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Allyn, Based alone on your knowledge already
acquired from so many prior measurements, what would
you predict by wiring 4 x 900P U.2 SSDs to an
ASUS Hyper M.2 x16 and 4 x M.2-to-U.2 adapters?

Since the AIC and U.2 versions of this Optane 900P
are electrically identical, there is something
to be said for using only one x16 PCIe slot
to drive 4 such SSDs, rather than using four
x16 PCIe slots with only one such AIC in each slot.

From what prior measurements would you recommend
that we extrapolate, in order to predict an answer
to that question? How about the review you did
of 4 x 32GB M.2 Optanes and the Hyper M.2 x16 AIC?

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-VROC-Tested-X299-VROC-vs-Z27...

As always, keep up the good work!

October 30, 2017 | 02:30 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Random performance and latency will look like what Optane Memory did / sequential will look like what the 960 PROs did in my VROC review.

October 27, 2017 | 02:35 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Newegg shows both U.2 versions here:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167438&Tpk=N82...
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167439&Tpk=N82...

Intel's page searching for
SSDPE21D280GASX uses 2.5" Std. Cable
SSDPE21D280GASM uses M.2 to U.2 adapter:
https://ark.intel.com/products/123623/Intel-Optane-SSD-900P-Series-280GB...

October 27, 2017 | 04:18 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

They also incorrectly list it as PCIe 4.0. Silly Newegg.

October 28, 2017 | 12:05 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

4 x SSDPE21D280GASM should be plug-compatible with
1 x ASUS Hyper M.2 X16 AIC:

https://www.asus.com/Motherboard-Accessory/HYPER-M-2-X16-CARD/

I can't tell from Intel's website if a cable
also comes with this SSDPE21D280GASM version.

October 27, 2017 | 04:28 PM - Posted by Michael J. Johnson (not verified)

Isnt there going to be a special PCIE slot closest to the CPU for SSDs to bypass DMI? Will these 900P drives take advantage of this?

October 27, 2017 | 04:52 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

PCIe slots don't normally connect via DMI. Some boards will do that for the last slot, but most will switch to x8 x8 or x8 x4 x4 as you populate more slots (assuming a board with 16-lane CPU).

October 27, 2017 | 05:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous12 (not verified)

I am not clear on the PCIe lane topology and bandwidth and how it applies to this PCIe version storage device.

Will performance be different when connected to i7/i9 69xx/68xx Extreme cpus with more PCIe lanes directly wired to the CPU?

October 27, 2017 | 06:01 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

No change, this is only 4 lanes, and the controller doesn't use the full available bandwidth.

October 27, 2017 | 09:57 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

No measurable latency improvement from skipping the chipset?

October 27, 2017 | 11:55 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

My point was that the slots you use for this card most likely are not routed to the chipset in the first place. If it’s a single drive and is going through the chipset, it would be very hard to notice the difference, unless you were using RST and had a pair of them in a RAID.

October 27, 2017 | 10:55 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

You might be referring to the ASUS DIMM.2 socket
and the matching DIMM.2 riser card. That card
supports 2 x M.2 NVMe SSDs. As such, it should
be possible to install 2 M.2-to-U.2 adapters
and cable them to this new Optane 900P with U.2
connector. Consult with Allyn to prove or
disprove my comment here :) Also, there is
already a lot of information on the Internet
about the ASUS DIMM.2 socket:
Google "ASUS DIMM.2" finds 1.13 million results today.

October 27, 2017 | 11:56 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Yes that would work. You can also go x4 on a Hyper M.2 x16 card. 

October 27, 2017 | 05:06 PM - Posted by James

"Intel's 14-channel controller may limit the maximum straight-line throughput"

So RAID a few of them?

October 27, 2017 | 05:23 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

That may actually add too much latency for Optane - Take a look at Allyn's other Optane review (the 16/32GB units) and in RAID certain latencies actually increased.

October 27, 2017 | 09:10 PM - Posted by James

I would assume that it is still probably lower latency than flash based SSDs. We aren't going to see the true potential of it until they make modules that can be used in a memory slot.

October 27, 2017 | 11:04 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

A really interesting calculation is to compute
the transmission time of a 4K IOP e.g. exact
time to transmit 4,096 bytes over different
edge connectors with x4, x8 and x16 lanes,
8 GHz clock speed and 128b/130b jumbo frame.

Then, as Allyn has taught us some months ago,
compare that transmission time to the latency
required to access each 4K record.

Thus, if we add that transmission time to
the measured latency, the latency is a
large percentage of that sum.

October 28, 2017 | 12:56 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

To finish the math out here:

(brace yourself)

  • 1 byte takes 1.02 nanoseconds to be clocked out on PCIe 3.0 x1.
    • In that same nanosecond, the speed of light only travels 11.8 inches.
  • ...so that's 254 ps for PCIe 3.0 x4.
    • In 254 picoseconds, the speed of light travels 2.9972".
  • 254 picoseconds * 4096 = 1.04 microseconds.
    • 4KB going one direction comes to ~10% of the 10us response time of the 900P 
  • Fun facts:
    • The typical motherboard circuit path length to a PCIe card is ~3-6"
    • Not including bus negotiation and setup time, the time to transit 1 byte across 3" of PCIe 3.0 x4 is ~508 picoseconds.
    • The 900P is done transmitting each byte to the CPU before the CPU has seen the first bit of that data at its input. If you could freeze time at just the right moment and observe the electrons in the PCIe lanes across the motherboard, you could literally read the full byte of data, as all of it would be sitting only on the motherboard lanes at that time.

Edited to correct previous math error :)

October 28, 2017 | 06:44 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

And how much latency for the chipset to relay that pcie data to the CPU ? :)

October 30, 2017 | 02:33 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Assuming you were somehow connected to chipset (unlikely for PCIe), and if you were not using RAID, it would be almost unmeasurable.

October 27, 2017 | 05:30 PM - Posted by vorpal (not verified)

hey, this is my first time commenting on a tech review site, but i just wanted to say it's really cool how much detail yall went into with the new test suite. the bit about which queue depth users would likely operate under answered a lot of questions in particular. thanks for doing a good job.

and to clarify something: if a user were to, say, screencapture and save uncompressed or lossless full-resolution game footage, that would be a close analog to a large file copy and would likely operate under varying low-to-medium-level queue depths, if I understand correctly?

unfortunately, it wouldn't be a tech review comment without a request attached. while i would expect most ramdisk software to behave basically the same (they use the same ram, after all), i did manage to find one roundup that did nothing more than run crystaldiskmark on a bunch of free ramdisk software, and still found pretty significant differences. i'd love to see a more indepth look at that. :>

October 27, 2017 | 06:07 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Thanks. We put a lot of work into that suite!

Raw screen uncompressed screen capture does a lot of writing, so the higher endurance would certainly help. Some capture methods are finicky and may drop frames if the storage is inconsistent, and the 900P will certainly help there as well.

If you go back and look at that ramdisk review, you'll probably notice that the fastest ones also did not scale with queue depth. That was because they (the faster ones) do not use a queue.

October 27, 2017 | 05:34 PM - Posted by agello24 (not verified)

what is the difference between optane and and someone putting their page swap file on a 32gig m.2 drive?

October 27, 2017 | 06:10 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Not everything is paged to swap, especially cache. It may help with some things, especially those that require more RAM than is installed in the system, but you won't get the same raw performance, faster boots, greater overall responsiveness as you would with a larger single Optane drive.

Side note - the 32GB part is probably better used with the Intel Optane Memory driver / caching software installed as opposed to just as a pagefile store.

October 28, 2017 | 01:40 PM - Posted by PageFaultsAboundForLarge3DMeshes (not verified)

Blender 3D with working on large single multi-million polygon count mesh models can really use up 8/16 GB of system memory and cause the system to begin thrashing about doing page fault swapping.

So I'd love to see some Optane testing of that in Blender's 3D edit mode and not necessarily the renderer. I can easily overwhelm my laptop's 8GB of memory when trying to edit a very large high polygon count single mesh model. As when running an editing function like a vertex smooth on an entire million+ polygon mesh model/object and Blender has to inerate through the entire mesh object's data-set of vertex points. This can easily cause my system to become unuseable for 5-10 minutes sometimes as the entire mesh object's data set has to be loaded/swapped into RAM, worked on, and paged to disk, before it's done all over again until the editing operation is complete. And this will cause OS/Application paging faluts and system page file thrashing with my hard drive(spinning rust) unable to meet the page fault demands.

Blender 3d can fill up system RAM and then ask for more via memory allowcation calls to the OS and can tax the OS/Hardware page file subsystems. Blender will easily eat all 8GB of my laptop's memory and spill out onto paged memory to the point of taxing the OS/Laptop's hardware with page faults/paging requests when I'm Editing very large single high polygon count mesh models.

I'm very interested in Optane/XPoint's durability above any NAND based drive's durability under very large OS/Application paging/page fault request loads as 3D graphics software can really fill that physical memory and overflow out into virtual memory in the normal 3D workloads that make use of large polygon count meshes and whole scenes that can be much larger.

October 27, 2017 | 09:50 PM - Posted by Caldeio (not verified)

Is this an Intel only thing, or can I use this on Ryzen?

October 27, 2017 | 10:01 PM - Posted by Allonymous (not verified)

To be fair, people who buy into the Ryzen platform are often due to price. Optane's pricing is going to be another barrier for them anyway.

October 28, 2017 | 01:31 AM - Posted by James

I am not very price sensitive and I am still planning on building a Ryzen system. For what I do, more cores is much better than slightly faster cores. Also, more cores will win in the long run.

October 28, 2017 | 01:01 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

It's a standard NVMe SSD, so no reason it wouldn't. The lower latency of the storage may highlight the extra fabric hops the data may have to take on that platform though.

October 27, 2017 | 09:56 PM - Posted by CNote

Allyn do you think they will create any SSHDs with optane instead of nand? Or would that require a new connection since optane only works in a x4 pcie or m.2 slot?

October 28, 2017 | 01:02 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Funny you mention that. The Optane Memory (cache) SSD is only PCIe 3.0 x2, and coincidentally so is SATA Express. Perhaps there's a use for that interface after all :).

October 27, 2017 | 10:44 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Again, Allyn: many thanks for staying on top of the latest announcements in this field of storage technology. Your insights are accurate and timely, and your measurement software is excellent too. We also appreciate your willingness to answer questions here.

October 28, 2017 | 03:33 AM - Posted by Dark_wizzie

Allyn, trace based testing of Skyrim!!! :D Ok, just kidding.

But yeah, it makes me wonder what could make my Skyrim load times faster. I know game startup is limited by my CPU for quite a bit of the time. Loading a new save in a different cell hits the drive hard, but if it's on the same cell it seems to be CPU bound. In the case of the latter, the fade in and out animation (just animation, or there to hide loading time?) takes up a decent chunk of the load time.

Hmmmm.

October 30, 2017 | 09:36 PM - Posted by HectorO

If Skyrim is anything like FO4's engine, it constantly hits the disk on every new area and entering a building. It doesn't matter that I have 64GB of RAM, it doesn't cache in RAM but instead pages from disk.

Why? I don't know. Poor optimization.

So here's what I did with FO4; I created a 40GB RAM/SSD disk (RAM cache first then spillover into SSD) and I could see with the software (primocache) that FO4 was constantly loading the from the disk even if I had just visited that area. It really did help with load times.

Now i've since got a 960 evo NVME drive and just put F04 on that and it still streams, just much faster.

October 28, 2017 | 09:35 AM - Posted by Bo B (not verified)

Does the Optane 900P have support for hardware based Bitlocker encryption?

Currently I have a motherboard with a TPM, and an SSD with Microsoft eDrive/TCG Opal/IEEE 1667 support, and thus support for hardware based(not software) Bitlocker.

Would the optane work in a similar maner, if I use it as a boot drive?

October 28, 2017 | 12:29 PM - Posted by six_tymes (not verified)

does anyone know if these are using native NVMe 1.3 Specification??

October 28, 2017 | 02:48 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

The link to Intel's Data Sheet is not working,
and I've notified Intel of that error here:

https://ark.intel.com/products/123623/Intel-Optane-SSD-900P-Series-280GB...

October 28, 2017 | 03:12 PM - Posted by Paul A. Mitchell (not verified)

Interesting comments at the anandtech review:

"Meanwhile, if you reach 8.7PB on the 900P, Intel will forcibly move your drive into read-only mode. ... It is actually worse than locking in read-only mode - on the next boot cycle the drive gets bricked. So if you didn't manage to get that data in time, it is gone forever. Great feature. ... I have seen this with Intel consumer SSDs. It's amazing - it doesn't even tell you that it's failing and that you have one (yes, one) chance to backup your data before it goes forever. Usually the drive just throws an error, so your average user reboots the system and bam, the drive's not even in the BIOS anymore. Their drive failure behaviour is criminal."

??

October 30, 2017 | 02:39 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Not sure where they got that, but I’m fairly certain that’s not how it works. Read-only at EOL yes, but not bricked upon reboot. OS might not play nicely mounting a read-only partition but the data should still be there.

October 29, 2017 | 11:35 AM - Posted by Iskeen (not verified)

If someone picks up one of these and doesn't play games or just doesn't want the Star Citizen code, would you mind sending it to me?4shrovetide@gmail.com Thank you in advance to anyone who helps out!

October 30, 2017 | 04:59 AM - Posted by JohnGR

The prices in Europe are ridiculous at best. Over 550 euros for the 280, over 1000 for the 480.
Can these SSDs mine coins too, faster and more efficient than a Vega64?

https://www.mindfactory.de/search_result.php?select_search=0&search_quer...

October 30, 2017 | 04:24 PM - Posted by Anonymous999925925 (not verified)

550k/500k random read/write

FOR WHAT IS GOOD ?

October 30, 2017 | 10:43 PM - Posted by Godrilla

I wish techsites test how long it takes to setup games especially with bigger and bigger game files. As well as game patches ( in some moba games it's literally a few gigs a week). I have a sata 6 SSD with a gigabit FiOS connection the sata 6 SSD is the rate limiting step.
If you want to convince people for the next big upgrade to nvme from sata 6. Loading times for games made compelling argument from hd to SSds.

I personally would love an SSds that will get me game ready faster and not just in load times but in installing the games and the daily weekly patches as well.
If you can somehow test this and show the time saved I would appreciate it.
This test would actually be useful real world data gamers can use.

November 2, 2017 | 11:40 PM - Posted by imrazor (not verified)

What about backwards compatibility? Does it require NVMe support in UEFI? Will it work in an older BIOS motherboard? Does Intel put an option ROM in the firmware to support booting in older systems?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.