Database Users

Defragging

I defragged my SD and the performance gain was considerable. Is there any program that can defrag the main memory or the Storage?

i used my cardreader, but i think that's diffrent :?

Defragmenting flash or SD memory is useless since every address on the chip has the same access time. Defragmentation only makes sense with devices like hard disks, where the relative location of data plays a role.

is there any way of defragmenting the device itself not the SD card

Dandie said:
Defragmenting flash or SD memory is useless since every address on the chip has the same access time. Defragmentation only makes sense with devices like hard disks, where the relative location of data plays a role.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quite sure I understand your response. Using Pocket Mechanic, I can format the SD card with FAT16 or FAT32. Both file systems can become fragmented...
BTW, Pocket Mechanic can defragment the internal storage memory (if you rename it to something other than "Storage" - it seems to have a problem with the default Magician file name), but NOT the main memory file system.

stevedebi said:
Dandie said:
Defragmenting flash or SD memory is useless since every address on the chip has the same access time. Defragmentation only makes sense with devices like hard disks, where the relative location of data plays a role.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quite sure I understand your response. Using Pocket Mechanic, I can format the SD card with FAT16 or FAT32. Both file systems can become fragmented...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, they can become fragmented, even NTFS can get fragmented although MS designed it not to. But that is besides the point, as pointed out before. Defragmenting can speed up (and mechanically relieve) all devices that use mechanical means to retrieve the data. On a hard disk there are tracks kind of like on an old vinyl audio media. Fragmentation in this context means you want to listen to track 1,3,7,9 and 11. So you have to lift the needle after each track and reposition it. Same happens when a hard disk wants to read a file smeared across multiple tracks on the disk platter. It reads some part, then has ro reposition the head and keep reading. Defragmenting puts the data of one file into one long track so the time needed for positioning is eiliminated. In the analogy that would be pressing a new vinyl disk that only contains the tracks desired (1,3,7,9,11) just one after another. You won't have to lift the needle anymore.
This is the theory. But for memory chips (all kinds, be it RAM, ROM, USB-Sticks, SD-Cards, ..., any storage media with NO MOVING Parts) this is not applicable. When the system wants File A it looks in the File Table where that file is located. Then it gets a list of positions and starts requesting the contents of these positions from the card device. The access time to any of these positions is exactly the same. Go back to the audio comparison. For a vinyl disk you have to lift and reposition the needle if you selectively want to hear certain songs only. If you had the same album on a MP3 player or other device you can arrange your playlist and no matter in which order or position the tracks are the time until the player starts playing them is the same.
Hope that clears it up. I am actually not too sure why the PocketMechanic author has put in Defragmentation. It does not make sense to me. Maybe on FAT devices there is a slight advantage to having the files en bloc because that way their position data is more compact (just START-END or something as opposed to START1-END1 ... START2-END2 ...) but I am not sure about this. Even if this was the case your only gain would be a few bytes of SPACE not TIME.

Takes ages too to defragment a SD-card. So if you insist in defragmenting you'd better put your SD in a card-reader & transfer the contents to your harddisk, format the card if you like (faster than deleting) or delete everything & transfer everything back.
M

STAY AWAY from defragging flash memory!!!
1.) This doesn't help anything, it won't be faster. Flash memory is adressed directly (like already said) and doesn't need to be defragged.
2.) If you want (for whatever reason) the files to be in one piece (that's what defragging does) on the flash memory, simply copy the contents of the card to the PCs harddisk, reformat the card and copy the stuff back on. This has the same result as defragging.
3.) Defragging will destroy you card! Flash memory has a limited amoung of read/write cycles before the will die someday. It's unlikely you'll ever see that in real life use because read/write cycles are used faithfully by PPCs. However defragging uses an insane amount of read/write cycles since data is read and written so often from one point to another that it will shorten the lifetime of the card noticeably.
I don't know why defragging of flash memory is offered at all, it's no good at all and only damages the cards in the long run. But maybe it's a feature that has to be "there".

Wow, I never knew that. :!: I had been faithfully defragging my SD once every few months; I am going to stop doing that.
Always learn something new around here! 8)

Well, best is to use that format method and move the contents to the PC and after formating the flash memory card copy the stuff back on. This has the same effect as defraggin, takes much less time (since defraggin flash mem in a PPC is not that fast at all) and has no negative effect on the lifetime. I tend to do that once in 2-3 month. But the speed gain is not even worth mentioning, it's basically nonexistant.

Install in Storage Card or Internal Memory?

Where do you guys usually install your apps to? Are there any benefits in installing to the Storage Card vs. installing in the internal memory of the phone?
Is the phone faster if all apps are installed on the storage card?

some apps definitely would not respond well if you install it in the storage card, especially if the app needs to 'wake up' from the power standby, due to the battery saving mode for external storage.
with X1, the phone storage is plenty that it doesn't make any difference for you to install in phone storage versus external. Upon fresh hardreset, my phone would have at least 204MB after deleting away the demo videos, etc. And this is standard ROM, not custom ROM.

Tri3Dent said:
Where do you guys usually install your apps to? Are there any benefits in installing to the Storage Card vs. installing in the internal memory of the phone?
Is the phone faster if all apps are installed on the storage card?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The truth is that it is "horses for courses"
If you regard the device as a phone with a bit of residual computer capability, then 300Mb of Storage will last a lifetime
If you regard it as a computer with a phone segment attached, then use the SD card for everything you can. The tnyynt SD tweak for speeding card access is brilliant to the point where I am unable to tell the practical difference between Storage and card use.
I use mine as a work computer with a phone attached. My 16Gb card is already 55% full (ie. just under 9Gb of data and programs) - this cannot fit in Storage.

man what kind of programs and data that you have that takes over 8 gigs on your phone.
music and videos i can understand, programs and data???? i got a 4 gig card and the only program that i have that takes up 1 gig is the maps for tomtom 7.910
hopefully the 32 gig card will be compatable with the x1 in the near future.

c_legaspi said:
man what kind of programs and data that you have that takes over 8 gigs on your phone.
music and videos i can understand, programs and data???? i got a 4 gig card and the only program that i have that takes up 1 gig is the maps for tomtom 7.910
hopefully the 32 gig card will be compatable with the x1 in the near future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, well 1) as I said, my device is used as a computer with a phone segment attached, so having >8Gb "on my phone" is not really accurate. I have >8Gb on my card (ie. HDD) and growing
2) Music and video ?? None of them, I use hifi and TV for those when I'm home
3) I use the device for geological/geotechnical mapping on a world-wide basis, together with CAD/3D modeling of collected and supplied data. So high-level topo data, drillhole data, outcrop data, survey data, engineering constraints, zillions of reference reports etc etc + the slew of large programs needed to run these data collections
So for me, smaller, faster ROM = better and better
4) you bet I'm hanging out for the 32Gb cards

problem with having too little phone storage is some program use storage as temp
currently i have about 40gb storage free but still
the comic book reader crash often because the .net program in question
unzip the whole comic to some temp dir in phone storage
when it operates and apparently the comic use more then 40gb
would be easy for the programmer to fix so it didn't unzip all or did it to
the sd card but..

I put pretty much all programs that can be installed onto the card on the card... I also have shedloads of files on there mainly for language learning (I am learning Chinese and also have some Russian stuff)... from 16gb I am down to 7.7 and thats only cos I deleted a few tv shows from China...
PS I am reposting this due to the deletion bug thing... I did have a longer post but cant remeber all my witty reply...

flip a coin

Storage Card Tweaks?

I have the TMOUSA version, but I think this question would apply to all versions, and in fact to other phones as well.
I was just re-reading the excellent guide to storage card optimization by the great Windows Mobile guru (and XDA member) who writes under the name Menneisys:
http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms/forum/topic/17921?&TOPIC_ID=17921
That article was written a few years ago, though, with older WM versions, and older storage cards.
I am wondering if the info is still relevant, to a new phone like the HD2, with WM 6.5 and Sense, and the newer storage cards?
The 16MB storage card that comes with the HD2, although the newer SDHC type, is only Class 2, therefore relatively slow, compared to Class 4 and Class 6 cards. I am wondering if using any of the tweaks suggested in the article by Menneisys would speed up the card.
For instance, changing from FAT32 to FAT16? (FAT16 is really ancient now though, don't know if it would work well at all on newer cards and devices.)
Eliminating the FAT backup?
Also, by changing to a larger cluster size? (Which of course, would reduce the storage space, by adding more slack. But would it speed up the card's performance enough to make it worth it?)
Of course defragmentation is always a good idea, with any disk or card, old or new. That part of his advice is not in question, then or now.
But I am wondering about the other stuff--like changing to FAT16, eliminating the FAT backup, and changing the cluster size?
Anyone know? (Menneisys, are you reading? Others?)
Thank you.

well, without reading the link, (i'll save that till the kids are in bed) i can say that fat16 can't address 16gb, however re the cluster size, yes, that can deff help, especially if you have lots of fairly large files. if your card is mostly music images and video, then you can deff benefit from setting the size as large as it will go. it does mean tiny files will take up a whole block, of course, but if its mostly big files then go for it.

samsamuel said:
well, without reading the link, (i'll save that till the kids are in bed) i can say that fat16 can't address 16gb, however re the cluster size, yes, that can deff help, especially if you have lots of fairly large files. if your card is mostly music images and video, then you can deff benefit from setting the size as large as it will go. it does mean tiny files will take up a whole block, of course, but if its mostly big files then go for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very interesting article. Yes, do read it when you have a chance.
Yes, probably SDHC cards did not exist at the time of the article, nothing larger than 2 GB. So, sounds like the FAT16 option is out for current cards.
Do you know if that option of formatting a card with "no FAT backup" still makes sense on current cards? Is it a risky thing to do?
Regarding the cluster size-- most of us probably have both small and large files, not only one or the other. So, it is a trade-off between speed and storage space. What cluster size do you think is a good balance between the two?

never read anything about fat backup, so i couldn't say. as for block size, i use 16k on a 2gb card, which has 1gb of music and about 300meg images.
i would say the lost space is negligible on sdcards, even if you have a thousand 1k files, you only waste 16meg, so that's maybe 1/2 an mp3 album,, its only really an issue when dealing with hundreds of gig hard disks with tens of thousands of tiny system and program files. (just checked mine, theres only 250 files smaller than 32k, and only 120 less than 5k)
course, its a matter of preference, and i'm sure there are loads of people will say i'm wasting space and should be disowned from the community,, hehe

samsamuel said:
never read anything about fat backup, so i couldn't say. as for block size, i use 16k on a 2gb card, which has 1gb of music and about 300meg images.
i would say the lost space is negligible on sdcards, even if you have a thousand 1k files, you only waste 16meg, so that's maybe 1/2 an mp3 album,, its only really an issue when dealing with hundreds of gig hard disks with tens of thousands of tiny system and program files. (just checked mine, theres only 250 files smaller than 32k, and only 120 less than 5k)
course, its a matter of preference, and i'm sure there are loads of people will say i'm wasting space and should be disowned from the community,, hehe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the Menneisys article, and he says it makes the card run a lot faster, to eliminate the FAT backup. (Something you can do with SK Tools.)
However, I would wonder if that would make the card less stable, more prone to data loss. Or, even whether a non-standard cluster size might make the card more flaky?

does wm 6.5 support exfat?
using 16G thumbdrive on win 7, exfat is wayyyy faster than ntfs.

I used the 8GB card at the beginning, switched then to a 16GB card class 6 and then to 32 GB class 2 and din´t find the slightest dfifference in speed, neither when recording videos with the cam in max resolution.

me said:
Read the Menneisys article, and he says it makes the card run a lot faster, to eliminate the FAT backup. (Something you can do with SK Tools.)
However, I would wonder if that would make the card less stable, more prone to data loss. Or, even whether a non-standard cluster size might make the card more flaky?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lets take a step back and think about what the FAT backup is. i believe it is another table that mirrors the contents of the primary table. essentially, it can be used to recover your file system table in case the primary backup is corrupted/lost. now lets think about WHEN this table is read. to the best of my knowledge, the backup is read ONLY if the primary is found to be corrupted. similarly, the backup is UPDATED/WRITTEN only when the primary is UPDATED/WRITTEN.
thus, any speed gain due to disabling the backup should be seen in WRITE operations ONLY. read speed should be not be affected by that tweak. i could be wrong though!
if i am correct, then try disabling the backup if you desire write speed. however, you will lose some of the "robustness" of the file system. and FAT (and its variants like FAT12, FAT16, FAT32) are already fairly fragile file systems.
regarding cluster sizes, a smaller cluster size means LESS wastage when having many SMALL files. a larger cluster size means MORE wastage when having many SMALL files. however, a smaller cluster size means MORE clusters to address, which means a LARGER allocation table, which means MORE TIME spent looking up/updating the table's contents. conversely, a larger cluster size means LESS clusters to address, which means a SMALLER allocation table, which means LESS TIME spent looking up/updating the table's contents. so the sweet spot would be somewhere in the middle. HOWEVER, most modern operating systems load the allocation table in MEMORY so i imagine the speed gain would be negligible. the fact that the table is managed in memory and periodically updated back to the disk is the reason behind most corruptions in a non-journaling file system like FAT.
i've over simplified things a bit, but it should give you an idea of what kind of gains to expect by such tweaking (i.e. little to none in my opinion!).

Again, I'd suggest reading the Menneisys article.
ASCIIker said:
lets take a step back and think about what the FAT backup is. i believe it is another table that mirrors the contents of the primary table. essentially, it can be used to recover your file system table in case the primary backup is corrupted/lost. now lets think about WHEN this table is read. to the best of my knowledge, the backup is read ONLY if the primary is found to be corrupted. similarly, the backup is UPDATED/WRITTEN only when the primary is UPDATED/WRITTEN.
thus, any speed gain due to disabling the backup should be seen in WRITE operations ONLY. read speed should be not be affected by that tweak. i could be wrong though!
if i am correct, then try disabling the backup if you desire write speed. however, you will lose some of the "robustness" of the file system. and FAT (and its variants like FAT12, FAT16, FAT32) are already fairly fragile file systems.
regarding cluster sizes, a smaller cluster size means LESS wastage when having many SMALL files. a larger cluster size means MORE wastage when having many SMALL files. however, a smaller cluster size means MORE clusters to address, which means a LARGER allocation table, which means MORE TIME spent looking up/updating the table's contents. conversely, a larger cluster size means LESS clusters to address, which means a SMALLER allocation table, which means LESS TIME spent looking up/updating the table's contents. so the sweet spot would be somewhere in the middle. HOWEVER, most modern operating systems load the allocation table in MEMORY so i imagine the speed gain would be negligible. the fact that the table is managed in memory and periodically updated back to the disk is the reason behind most corruptions in a non-journaling file system like FAT.
i've over simplified things a bit, but it should give you an idea of what kind of gains to expect by such tweaking (i.e. little to none in my opinion!).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

These tests might be of some interest to you.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=756781&highlight=card+speed+test

[Q] How does the SD memory work?

Will someone please clarify for me how the SD memory gets incorporated into the Acer 's system. Is it like Linux where the discs get spanned so the storage space is seen as being continuous or do I have to deliberately open the card to use it?
I am getting warning messages saying I am running low on storage space but when I access the card it is hardly used. There is still 7+ gig left on an 8 gig stick.
Discovered there is a bug, or at least a misleading 'feature', in File Expert in that it incorrectly addresses the SD card, looks for /mnt/sdcard rather than /mnt/external_sd. The /mnt/sdcard address is to part of the internal memory.
Rog

RogerCurrier said:
Will someone please clarify for me how the SD memory gets incorporated into the Acer 's system. Is it like Linux where the discs get spanned so the storage space is seen as being continuous or do I have to deliberately open the card to use it?
I am getting warning messages saying I am running low on storage space but when I access the card it is hardly used. There is still 7+ gig left on an 8 gig stick.
Discovered there is a bug, or at least a misleading 'feature', in File Expert in that it incorrectly addresses the SD card, looks for /mnt/sdcard rather than /mnt/external_sd. The /mnt/sdcard address is to part of the internal memory.
Rog
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would probably help if you were specific on which Rom you are running.
With ICS, there are no known issues.
It's possible there are issues with CM10 (4.1x and the 4.2x builds). Storage space is always an issue with new AOSP builds. Also, that certain 3rd party apps may also influence this, They may run on ICS fine, but on JB builds, they may influence things.
MD

Moscow Desire said:
Would probably help if you were specific on which Rom you are running.
With ICS, there are no known issues.
It's possible there are issues with CM10 (4.1x and the 4.2x builds). Storage space is always an issue with new AOSP builds. Also, that certain 3rd party apps may also influence this, They may run on ICS fine, but on JB builds, they may influence things.
MD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Running A501 with ICS, machine not rooted.
Roger

RogerCurrier said:
Will someone please clarify for me how the SD memory gets incorporated into the Acer 's system. Is it like Linux where the discs get spanned so the storage space is seen as being continuous or do I have to deliberately open the card to use it?
I am getting warning messages saying I am running low on storage space but when I access the card it is hardly used. There is still 7+ gig left on an 8 gig stick.
Discovered there is a bug, or at least a misleading 'feature', in File Expert in that it incorrectly addresses the SD card, looks for /mnt/sdcard rather than /mnt/external_sd. The /mnt/sdcard address is to part of the internal memory.
Rog
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure it's not the internal storage running out of space?
On Android /mnt/sdcard is internal storage and /mnt/external_sd is the actual external device that users insert! So there's no bug (at least I never encountered it) just check which storage is running out of space.
Cheers

It's certainly the internal storage running out of space and its because I have been downloading videos. What I am trying to understand why it is not using the external SD memory automatically. I just want to know if it should be or should not be?
It's part of the process of understanding how the system works.
Thanks for taking the time to help.
Rog

RogerCurrier said:
It's certainly the internal storage running out of space and its because I have been downloading videos. What I am trying to understand why it is not using the external SD memory automatically. I just want to know if it should be or should not be?
It's part of the process of understanding how the system works.
Thanks for taking the time to help.
Rog
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably because the default folder for downloading is at internal storage (/mnt/sd/downloads). Anyway you can always move downloaded items manually to external storage.
Cheers

I guess the memory/storage space does not span to the external SD card which is what I originally wanted to confirm.
I went on the File Expert web site and told them the app was misleading in that it addressed the internal memory as being as SD. They have now updated the app giving an additional External SD folder tab which automatically loads on startup. Pretty good service, two day response.
Thanks for the help.
Rog

Moto E4 (Verizon) [xt1767] Move Apps to SD without root

This phone has no root and likely never will.
Is there anyway to move apps to the sdcard without formatting to internal (adopted storage)?
I don't want to do that because It encrypts the card and im fearful if the phone was ever damaged I'd never be able to pull the card and recover anything.
At the very least is there a way to shuffle off the OBB files to the sdcard without root?
Bonus question: is there a fix for this if root was possible?

Raztan said:
This phone has no root and likely never will.
Is there anyway to move apps to the sdcard without formatting to internal (adopted storage)?
I don't want to do that because It encrypts the card and im fearful if the phone was ever damaged I'd never be able to pull the card and recover anything.
At the very least is there a way to shuffle off the OBB files to the sdcard without root?
Bonus question: is there a fix for this if root was possible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I'm aware of. But you could do a hybrid sd card to put apps on the adopted partition, and keep your photos/music/other stuff on a standard unencrypted partition.

dandrumheller said:
Not that I'm aware of. But you could do a hybrid sd card to put apps on the adopted partition, and keep your photos/music/other stuff on a standard unencrypted partition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Genius, That sounds like a workable solution.
So do I need to format the card in any special way or can I just repartition the card in half and android will see both partitions?

Raztan said:
Genius, That sounds like a workable solution.
So do I need to format the card in any special way or can I just repartition the card in half and android will see both partitions?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's the guide I followed:
http://blog.sam.liddicott.com/2016/02/android-6-semi-adopted-storage.html?m=1
I got yelled at over on Reddit for suggesting this for to the potential for killing your SD card (as they're not 'designed' for this much read write action). That may be true. I've been running this way with no issues for over a year. YMMV.

dandrumheller said:
Here's the guide I followed:
http://blog.sam.liddicott.com/2016/02/android-6-semi-adopted-storage.html?m=1
I got yelled at over on Reddit for suggesting this for to the potential for killing your SD card (as they're not 'designed' for this much read write action). That may be true. I've been running this way with no issues for over a year. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been following a similar dual partition practice on a rooted Android 5.x device using symbolic links to migrate apps to the ext4 formatted partition while retaining a larger FAT32 partition for general use. I used the free version of Partition Wizard on Windows to format the SD card to my liking. To date no issues with card endurance.
I never considered this approach for adoptable storage until seeing your post! Very interested in trying this on on an unrooted Android 6 device that's getting a little snug on internal storage. I'll post outcomes if they differ from your findings.
Thanks again for sharing!

Confirm, Works on Verizon Moto E4
I tried to be clever about it and repartitioned with Gparted, Then aligned the fat under linux mint.
I popped the SDcard back in teh phone and it detected 2 SDcards.. great I thought.. I went into the smaller partition 48gb / 10gb
Hit internal memory format.. to my horror it took over the entire card..
I tried the guide and it worked fine, although you're sort of at it's mercy on how it formats.. it's a fairly simple procedure.
I am somewhat confused though after I did it before I moved anything to the card it says 5.5gb of space is being taken by "system" on the internal portion of the sdcard, It says total internal memory is 32gb but actually it should be more like 26gb (16 onboard + 10gb sdcard)
Im seriously confused on how to tell what files are stored on the sdcard and what's stored on the onboard memory.. it shows them separate under "storage" but ES explorer just shows the 48gb fat partition and the 10gb.. does not seem to be able to separate the internal and the sdcard, but it shows total space as 10gb so something really wrong there.
Maybe cause Im using a old version of ES before it went to hell.. 4.0.3 I think.
Im not sure now when I select sdcard if im getting the 48gb portion the SDCard or the 10gb "adopted storage" sdcard..
Very confusing.
EDIT: Ok I think I see what's going on.
The 10gb Im seeing is actual internal memory.. So it does not appear I can access the 10gb I set aside on the sdcard at all.. is that how it's suppose to work?
I installed a few large games, If I go into storage and click on the 10GB partition it says each game is saving about 50mb out of about 700mb /ea on the card.. whoa what a savings, I don't what that 50mb is but it sure ain't the huge ass obb file sitting in internal memory.
If I go into the app's data storage list it says it's storing to the adopted 10gb but obviously that's a lie since only a fraction is actually making it to the card...
if this is the best I can hope for out of adopted storage I'd be better off just going full portable.
Am I missing something?

Raztan said:
Confirm, Works on Verizon Moto E4
I tried to be clever about it and repartitioned with Gparted, Then aligned the fat under linux mint.
I popped the SDcard back in teh phone and it detected 2 SDcards.. great I thought.. I went into the smaller partition 48gb / 10gb
Hit internal memory format.. to my horror it took over the entire card..
I tried the guide and it worked fine, although you're sort of at it's mercy on how it formats.. it's a fairly simple procedure.
I am somewhat confused though after I did it before I moved anything to the card it says 5.5gb of space is being taken by "system" on the internal portion of the sdcard, It says total internal memory is 32gb but actually it should be more like 26gb (16 onboard + 10gb sdcard)
Im seriously confused on how to tell what files are stored on the sdcard and what's stored on the onboard memory.. it shows them separate under "storage" but ES explorer just shows the 48gb fat partition and the 10gb.. does not seem to be able to separate the internal and the sdcard, but it shows total space as 10gb so something really wrong there.
Maybe cause Im using a old version of ES before it went to hell.. 4.0.3 I think.
Im not sure now when I select sdcard if im getting the 48gb portion the SDCard or the 10gb "adopted storage" sdcard..
Very confusing.
EDIT: Ok I think I see what's going on.
The 10gb Im seeing is actual internal memory.. So it does not appear I can access the 10gb I set aside on the sdcard at all.. is that how it's suppose to work?
I installed a few large games, If I go into storage and click on the 10GB partition it says each game is saving about 50mb out of about 700mb /ea on the card.. whoa what a savings, I don't what that 50mb is but it sure ain't the huge ass obb file sitting in internal memory.
If I go into the app's data storage list it says it's storing to the adopted 10gb but obviously that's a lie since only a fraction is actually making it to the card...
if this is the best I can hope for out of adopted storage I'd be better off just going full portable.
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what the method is for determining where a specific app lands when installed. Maybe up to the developer? But going into settings > storage shows me what's below. Drill down to the apps section, and you can manually choose what storage you want for each app.
This is my setup with a 128gb card with 32gb used as adopted storage.

Your's looks similar to mine.
Are you able to actually access the adopted storage partition... browse for files? see I can't.. I can see internal storage and the public portion of the sdcard..
The adopted storage is not accessible via file manager.
It does not look like it will switch over once internal is full either.. I filled up the internal memory and then tried to install a app and it is telling me im out of space.
If this is the the way adopted storage is suppose to work it's fairly useless imo.

Raztan said:
Your's looks similar to mine.
Are you able to actually access the adopted storage partition... browse for files? see I can't.. I can see internal storage and the public portion of the sdcard..
The adopted storage is not accessible via file manager.
It does not look like it will switch over once internal is full either.. I filled up the internal memory and then tried to install a app and it is telling me im out of space.
If this is the the way adopted storage is suppose to work it's fairly useless imo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not aware of any file manager that can see the adopted storage. Haven't filled up internal to know if it will "spill over".
Some apps cannot be moved to adopted. Some install there by default.
My use case is to dump my low use or less resource demanding apps to the adopted storage, freeing internal faster storage for high use apps.
It's certainly not an ideal solution, but it at least provides an option for reducing limited internal storage...

I gotcha, I can only seem to get about 50mb's to transfer over, dead trigger 2 and hitman sniper
the bulk of it (the OBB files) stick around on internal whether or not I tell it to "change" to the sdcard or not..
Oh well Im just gonna reformat to portable and just limit what I install.. Why does google do this crap to us.
I lived without root on some of my previous phones but from here on out if it don't have root I got no use for it

Raztan said:
I gotcha, I can only seem to get about 50mb's to transfer over, dead trigger 2 and hitman sniper
the bulk of it (the OBB files) stick around on internal whether or not I tell it to "change" to the sdcard or not..
Oh well Im just gonna reformat to portable and just limit what I install.. Why does google do this crap to us.
I lived without root on some of my previous phones but from here on out if it don't have root I got no use for it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NVM, forgot you said no root. My apologies

Raztan said:
I gotcha, I can only seem to get about 50mb's to transfer over, dead trigger 2 and hitman sniper
the bulk of it (the OBB files) stick around on internal whether or not I tell it to "change" to the sdcard or not..
Oh well Im just gonna reformat to portable and just limit what I install.. Why does google do this crap to us.
I lived without root on some of my previous phones but from here on out if it don't have root I got no use for it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I messed around with this for a bit. Was able to partition the card to my liking using the simple sm command outlined in this post (manual method). Much easier and more understandable than the previously linked approach IMO. Installed and moved a few things; everything worked as expected although the feedback from Google's storage panel is less than reassuring. They really want to make the process transparent and in doing so dilute the detail that enthusiasts appreciate.
Someone asked if you could see inside adopted storage with a standard file manager. Nope, as the contents are encrypted and Google does not provide an API TTBOMK.
There are random posts mentioning lost of home screen icons on reboots and other 'weirdness' when using adopted storage. I didn't experience any of that but also didn't spend much time testing.
In the end I stepped away and returned the entire SD card to portable storage as the benefit wasn't worth the potential hassles. That said, I could see this as a potential solution for those who are bumping up against the limits of internal storage AND need/want to reserve part of the SD card for general purpose storage.

Davey126 said:
I messed around with this for a bit. Was able to partition the card to my liking using the simple sm command outlined in this post (manual method). Much easier and more understandable than the previously linked approach IMO. Installed and moved a few things; everything worked as expected although the feedback from Google's storage panel is less than reassuring. They really want to make the process transparent and in doing so dilute the detail that enthusiasts appreciate.
Someone asked if you could see inside adopted storage with a standard file manager. Nope, as the contents are encrypted and Google does not provide an API TTBOMK.
There are random posts mentioning lost of home screen icons on reboots and other 'weirdness' when using adopted storage. I didn't experience any of that but also didn't spend much time testing.
In the end I stepped away and returned the entire SD card to portable storage as the benefit wasn't work the potential hassles. That said, I could see this as a potential solution for those who are bumping up against the limits of internal storage AND need/want to reserve part of the SD card for general purpose storage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any icons on home screens for apps that are in adopted storage will vanish after reboot until the device has time to re read adopted storage. Size and speed of card, and amount of data there all impact this. Pretty sure widgets are unavailable to apps on adopted storage as well.
It pretty much works about the same as the old apps2sd / link2sd options that we had to use back in the days of tiny on device storage sizes.

dandrumheller said:
Any icons on home screens for apps that are in adopted storage will vanish after reboot until the device has time to re read adopted storage. Size and speed of card, and amount of data there all impact this. Pretty sure widgets are unavailable to apps on adopted storage as well.
It pretty much works about the same as the old apps2sd / link2sd options that we had to use back in the days of tiny on device storage sizes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have used symbolic linking (Apps2SD/Link2SD/etc) for sometime on rooted devices and never ran into such issues. I am also able to migrate apps and all associated data w/o limitation.
As you pointed out hardware/card speed and quantity of data likely are likely factors when using adopted storage. There is less setup and boot verification with symbolic linking; much of that takes place before the device is ready for user input. It's not a perfect solution as the mount scripts sometimes get borked and have to be rebuilt but supervisory apps detect/correct that with minimal intervention.
The biggest benefit of adoptable storage is it can be used on stock/unrooted devices. It's also relatively transparent for noobs. Beyond that it's more of a PiTA IMHO.

Davey126 said:
I have used symbolic linking (Apps2SD/Link2SD/etc) for sometime on rooted devices and never ran into such issues. I am also able to migrate apps and all associated data w/o limitation.
As you pointed out hardware/card speed and quantity of data likely are likely factors when using adopted storage. There is less setup and boot verification with symbolic linking; much of that takes place before the device is ready for user input. It's not a perfect solution as the mount scripts sometimes get borked and have to be rebuilt but supervisory apps detect/correct that with minimal intervention.
The biggest benefit of adoptable storage is it can be used on stock/unrooted devices. It's also relatively transparent for noobs. Beyond that it's more of a PiTA IMHO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's been a long time since I've played with symbolic linking. At the time it felt pretty cumbersome to me, relative to my current experience with adopted storage. Definitely less user control and fine tuning with adopted though. Also, as you mention, no root required.

Davey126 said:
Someone asked if you could see inside adopted storage with a standard file manager. Nope, as the contents are encrypted and Google does not provide an API TTBOMK.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya that sucks, It wouldn't be so bad if it would just move the largest chunk of an app over which on games is the OBB file(s)
Im sure google thinks this is better than the old move to sdcard option but imo they took a big step back.
I read their reasoning is how "wild west" the sdcard access was.. ya well if they're so worried about security maybe crack down on the overly abusive permissions on apps.. you can control some access, but some permissions they just treat like it's no big deal.
I guess google knows best right? /sarcasm.
Davey126 said:
In the end I stepped away and returned the entire SD card to portable storage as the benefit wasn't work the potential hassles. That said, I could see this as a potential solution for those who are bumping up against the limits of internal storage AND need/want to reserve part of the SD card for general purpose storage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya that's where Im at, Im just gonna be real selective about what I install, with only 16gb's about 5 of which is the system (that's crazy imo that android needs that much space) leaving only around 10-11gb of user space a few large games can really eat it up on top of cache, and other apps.
I think GTA SA for example takes like 2-3 gb (iirc, been a while)
madbat99 said:
NVM, forgot you said no root. My apologies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not at all, Im also interested in root solutions it won't help me on this phone but it would be good to know what other options are out there..
Next phone has to have root.. no two ways about it.

Raztan said:
Ya that sucks, It wouldn't be so bad if it would just move the largest chunk of an app over which on games is the OBB file(s)
Im sure google thinks this is better than the old move to sdcard option but imo they took a big step back.
I read their reasoning is how "wild west" the sdcard access was.. ya well if they're so worried about security maybe crack down on the overly abusive permissions on apps.. you can control some access, but some permissions they just treat like it's no big deal.
I guess google knows best right? /sarcasm.
Ya that's where Im at, Im just gonna be real selective about what I install, with only 16gb's about 5 of which is the system (that's crazy imo that android needs that much space) leaving only around 10-11gb of user space a few large games can really eat it up on top of cache, and other apps.
I think GTA SA for example takes like 2-3 gb (iirc, been a while)
Not at all, Im also interested in root solutions it won't help me on this phone but it would be good to know what other options are out there..
Next phone has to have root.. no two ways about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was going to say the Xposed module obb on SD looks promising. But then I remembered that no root was mentioned.
https://labs.xda-developers.com/store/xposed/com.smartmadsoft.xposed.obbonsd

madbat99 said:
I was going to say the Xposed module obb on SD looks promising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya exposed framework is one of my favorite things on a rooted device, although someone told me it's semi broken on a lot of newer devices?

Raztan said:
Ya exposed framework is one of my favorite things on a rooted device, although someone told me it's semi broken on a lot of newer devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Works great on my moto e4 sprint (virgin mobile). And rovo89 just updated it for Oreo (beta of course), so it should be good. I'm using it with greenify, amplify, and gravitybox.

Raztan said:
Ya exposed framework is one of my favorite things on a rooted device, although someone told me it's semi broken on a lot of newer devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Outdated info; works fine on Marshmallow, Nougat and (very soon) Oreo.