Related
So I downloaded this app call H2testw.exe to test for legit sdcards but it also tells the read/write speed as well. I am testing my 8gb and 1gb cards. I set it to write a 300 mb files to the card and verify it.
Info about Android running on the two cards:
8gb = lags coming out of sleep, touch screen freezes, write~7.5 mb/s, read~12mb/s
1gb = no lags, no touch screen, write~4.3mb, read~13mb/s
I'm confused. The read speed is almost the same yet the 1gb microsd is more responsive running MDJ android compared to the 8gb microsd. Any thought?
UPDATE: Maybe this is what's causing the problem. Stolen from Engadget.
What we've learned from our tipsters and from documents culled from Microsoft, Samsung, and others is that the big issue is random access performance -- a figure that isn't taken into account in a card's class rating. Ironically, Microsoft discovered in its testing that cards with higher class ratings actually performed worse on Windows Phone 7 because the tweaks card manufacturers make to achieve high sequential throughput can actually hurt random access times. There's some rocket science involved here, but basically, it's a tradeoff and a bit of a gamble -- if a manufacturer tunes a card for a high class rating, it takes more time to access the first byte at a new location on the card because it's optimizing access for that area of memory, but once it does that, it can blast sequential bytes at very high speed. If you've got a lot of small reads or writes you need to make to different files at different locations in the card's memory, though, you really start to suffer. Cards with lower class ratings tend to spend less time optimizing sequential access prior to the first read / write operation, so it can move around the card (that is, access it randomly) much faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/17/windows-phone-7s-microsd-mess-the-full-story-and-how-nokia-ca/
They are probably different classes, plus it naturally takes longer with a bigger card because there's more files and more space to read and write
Sent from my HD2 Nexus One using XDA App
I get screen freezes with 8gb and up but rarely with new builds, haven't tried a card higher than class 6
Also I'm on radio 2.15
Sent from my HD2 Nexus One using XDA App
Oddly enough, I have two 8gb cards, one class 4 the other class 6, and they hiccup more than my 16gb class 2.
Now that is weird.
I'm lost myself...I'm thinking off just getting me a 4gb card and hope for the best...
I heard the 16gb class 10 is perfect but it still cost to much for nand to be around the corner
Sent from my HD2 Nexus One using XDA App
16 gb class 10 no lag cost me over 100 pounds tho
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
Cheapest 16GB - lags from time to time :/
Maybe defragmentation may help?
tomus said:
Cheapest 16GB - lags from time to time :/
Maybe defragmentation may help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Defrag wont help...scan for errors...try to have only the android folder and see if it makes a different ..
Btw, guys...
all sd cards are not created equal. all sd cards of the same CLASS are not created equal.
Check out the ongoing drama with win7 phones with SD slots....
class measures throughput, what affects the SOD and related issues is random access speed, not throughput so much.
It's just my 2 cents, but I've tested Class 2, 4, and 6 MicroSDHC cards and found very little noticeable difference once Android is fully booted up and running on the HD2. Moreover, none of the cards create screen freezes or SOD issues or high battery drain problems here. That said, I have noticed that the actual boot time and file transfer speed (from the PC to the card) can be faster on average with quality higher class rated cards of the same size. Also, I've found that the larger the card size, the longer the android boot time, no matter the class. Guess that makes sense, as the system need to read more sectors with larger size cards. Please note that I've only tested Sandisk, Toshiba, TopRam and Samsung cards to date. What's kind of strange is that the Class 2 16 & 32GB Sandisk cards run just as well or slightly better for some reason than some of my higher class rated cards. Go figure...
As far as issues go, I recommend only using quality brand name cards, no ebay fakes or cheap no name brands. Also, I've had great luck formatting all my cards with SD Formatter v2.0 and v3.0, using the quick format mode with the standard 32kb cluster size.
Best to all,
R
rhacy said:
It's just my 2 cents, but I've tested Class 2, 4, and 6 MicroSDHC cards and found very little noticeable difference once Android is fully booted up and running on the HD2. Moreover, none of the cards create screen freezes or SOD issues or high battery drain problems here. That said, I have noticed that the actual boot time and file transfer speed (from the PC to the card) can be faster on average with quality higher class rated cards of the same size. Also, I've found that the larger the card size, the longer the android boot time, no matter the class. Guess that makes sense, as the system need to read more sectors with larger size cards. Please note that I've only tested Sandisk, Toshiba, TopRam and Samsung cards to date. What's kind of strange is that the Class 2 16 & 32GB Sandisk cards run just as well or slightly better for some reason than some of my higher class rated cards. Go figure...
As far as issues go, I recommend only using quality brand name cards, no ebay fakes or cheap no name brands. Also, I've had great luck formatting all my cards with SD Formatter v2.0 and v3.0, using the quick format mode with the standard 32kb cluster size.
Best to all,
R
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great info here. I think I will just order me a new card from a reputable brand. Maybe my card is just getting old. Maybe a 16gb from Amazon will do. They aren't too expensive nowaday. ~$26.
Does the Radio version effects the lag of the sd card? Or the kernel?
distruct said:
Does the Radio version effects the lag of the sd card? Or the kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, not on the sd but radio does effect how the build will run, your phone calls, your battery.
Could this be the reason why class don't matter on hd2 android? I mean even some class 4 & 6 have lag and sod problem. I pulled this bit from engadget. It's an article on wp7 and memory card issues.
What we've learned from our tipsters and from documents culled from Microsoft, Samsung, and others is that the big issue is random access performance -- a figure that isn't taken into account in a card's class rating. Ironically, Microsoft discovered in its testing that cards with higher class ratings actually performed worse on Windows Phone 7 because the tweaks card manufacturers make to achieve high sequential throughput can actually hurt random access times. There's some rocket science involved here, but basically, it's a tradeoff and a bit of a gamble -- if a manufacturer tunes a card for a high class rating, it takes more time to access the first byte at a new location on the card because it's optimizing access for that area of memory, but once it does that, it can blast sequential bytes at very high speed. If you've got a lot of small reads or writes you need to make to different files at different locations in the card's memory, though, you really start to suffer. Cards with lower class ratings tend to spend less time optimizing sequential access prior to the first read / write operation, so it can move around the card (that is, access it randomly) much faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/17/windows-phone-7s-microsd-mess-the-full-story-and-how-nokia-ca/
azzzz said:
Could this be the reason why class don't matter on hd2 android? I mean even some class 4 & 6 have lag and sod problem. I pulled this bit from engadget. It's an article on wp7 and memory card issues.
Source:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/17/windows-phone-7s-microsd-mess-the-full-story-and-how-nokia-ca/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously.
Been saying this for a while, myself - I have experimented, and I get SOD every time with my 16gb class 6 card, but rarely with my class 2 8gb, and never ever (and, tbh, better responsiveness overall) with my 2gb NON-HC card
enneract said:
Obviously.
Been saying this for a while, myself - I have experimented, and I get SOD every time with my 16gb class 6 card, but rarely with my class 2 8gb, and never ever (and, tbh, better responsiveness overall) with my 2gb NON-HC card
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope so...my class 2 16gb will be here in a couple of days...i hope it's faster than my current 8gb class 4....
Update: my 16gb class 2 sandisk is here. Things have improved alot. Wake up is faster now with less lag, market download speed is faster now (10kb vs 100kb). Hopefully system performance will be better...
To All,
I did a bit of testing on Micro SD cards All claimed they were class 10 in other words they should (as claimed by the manufacturers) to read and write 10 mb per sec
The Reality is the only one that really hit that mark was the Wintec which also was cheap)
I used two of the sd card testers from the app store. One called sd card tester the other was ssd card tester (one was free one cost a buck)
I did the tests using various buffer size (2, 4 and 8 mb) did it 3 times and averaged. This is not scientific but it did show that there is alot of misrepresentation going on...........
The findings are as follows
Wintec averaged 9.3 write and 12.5 down
Patriot 7.8 write and 10 read
king max 7mb write and 8.2 read
Kingston 6 write and 8 read (what a dog)
None could really reach the 10 write threshold consistently. So, basically what I would recommend is read up and do your research and watch out for false review claims from the manufacturers.
I am now using the Wintec 16 gig and it does improve the response of the phone when writing or reading from the sd card. But this nothing compared to the awesome custom roms found in our dev forum. There is where the speed resides
It was fun doing this hope this helps some .........
That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.
mdkxtreme said:
That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
probably a file system difference. formatting in windows will make it ntfs, formatting on the phone will format it to...? rfs? fat32?
No I didn't format it in NTFS. I formatted to FAT32.
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that was my point, that if you formatted it ntfs in windows it would perform better than the phone's formatting (which is probably fat32). but looking into it, i don't think android supports ntfs.
Like I said guys, I formatted in FAT32 and it outperformed the phone's formatting scheme. I didn't know I could format it in NTFS because I didn't know if it would work or not so I formatted in FAT32
yea NTFS wont work on android
Formatting on the phone is standard fat is all it recognizes it is possible if you are on 4ext instead of 2e (stock like my phone) then you could get better speeds. The problem as one of you stated is the low quality control, all these cards rarely get the stated speeds.
Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).
N8ter said:
Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well put that is one of the reasons why I like this phone so many things are well thought out and yes san disk is real junk I never use them on my nikon they write way slow......
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.
Hey OP, thanks for the test though. Because of this I am returning my Kingston for the Wintec since it's 50 dollars cheaper. Not countering or complaining about this thread, it's just I think most people get different results when it comes to SD cards. I actually thought about it and don't even need that high of a speed for external microsd because my nand is fast enough. Thus the reason why I want the lower pricing. Thanks again for the results.
t1n0m3n said:
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's almost a 2 year old article, and it's hardly scientific.
It fails to mention a bunch of factors that affect the performance of NTFS, and doesn't really optimize the other filesystems for the media.
FAT32 is a simple file system with no security, encryption, and recoverability. FAT scaled up for larger volume sizes, basically. (using Fat32 is the reason why Android cannot encrypt SD cards).
NTFS performace scales up (i.e. gets better) the larger the volume gets. FAT32 performance scales down (i.e. gets worse) the larger the volume gets. Typically above 8GB it's better to use NTFS, if you can. The largest size in that article is 8GB and the disks weren't used in a way to really show how the filesystems perform in common scenarios (i.e. searching for files on a disk with lots of files that's 75% full, where NTFS would best FAT easily).
Testing NTFS vs. FAT32 on a bunch of 4GB and 8GB memory sticks proves nothing.
It's not January 2009 anymore. Lots of people have 32 GB+ memory cards/thumb drives and FAT32 performance simply does not scale up at all to those volume levels (not to mention it doesn't support volumes over 32GB without a modified version) compared to NTFS, which gain in performance as the volume size grows larger.
In addition to that, formatting as FAT32 wastes lots of space compared to NTFS. It has HUGE cluster sizes on large volumes (i.e. 16-32GB microSD cards).
exFAT is a pretty good middle road between the two, but NTFS will probably outperform it on large volumes. Its performance is more consistent than FAT32, though.
SD and Thumb drive filesystems corrupt more when formatted as FAT, compared to NTFS, as well.
That article you linked is useless.
N8ter said:
That article you linked is useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A link to a test performed would do nicely.
I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.
mrxela said:
I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would be very interested in seeing these results, I have yet to see a card faster than a SanDisk Class 6 8GB. However, I would like to start seeing some Class 10 16GB cards that step up to compete with the SanDisk in terms of raw speed.
t1n0m3n said:
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone with any knowledge about filesystems knows that FAT32 performance degrades when the size of the volume increases. That is why FAT32 has a maximum volume size of 32GB (without workarounds) and even a low maximum file threshold on the volume. It can also hold a low maximum number of files on the volume, because a FAT32 volume with as much files as NTFS supports would probably crash and burn.
When you a volume with a lot of files on it, NTFS will outperform FAT.
If that wasn't the case, Microsoft would have simply added the security and fault tolerate features (among other things) on top of FAT instead of developing NTFS for Windows NT.
FAT lived long because:
1. It's simple to implement, which makes it a great system for inter-OS compatibility.
2. Consumer disk sizes did not grow at a rate proportional to server storage sizes during the reign of pre-NT consumer Winodws OS.
3. Reliability and Security on consumer OSes (including Macs and PCs) simply wasn't taken all that seriously back in the day.
4. Hardly anyone with a PC had a volumes with a ridiculous amount of files on them.
Performance is more than just raw speed. NTFS is faster at searching for files on large volumes than FAT32 - why do you think Media scanner takes forever when you have tons of files on the SD card? It stores small files in the MFT if they can fit there, which makes accessing them monumentally faster than FAT, etc.
The robustness of a filesystem is a component of its performance.
Look at any HD2 thread and one thing you always see is "make sure to format your SD card before installing Android to it, to avoid constant FC's."
The only three advantages over NTFS that FAT32 has is that it is very fast on small volumes (and by volume I mean Capacity as well as the amount of data on the disk), it's relatively cross platform, and it doesn't fragment as much, due to larger cluster sizes (but fragmentation is not much of an issue on flash disks, unless they have very bad random I/O performance).
No links to back you up... Most of what you are talking about doesn't apply in context of this thread. Were this a thread about a pc you would have some valid points.
I am done.
Eat at Joe's
I'm not talking about a PC. I'm talking about storage cards. Load up a 32 GB card with 20GB of music and Albulm Art/Meta Data, Documents, etc. and then compare the FS performance.
I'm sorry you have no idea what you're talking about, that you want me to scour the internet to "back up" something any decent developer/IT professional can agree with.
LOL @ Troll. Were you not the one who responded with a one liner of inconsequential info in an article from almost 2 years ago (Microsoft improved NTFS. NTFS in Win7 isn't the same as NTFS in Windows XP, 2000, or NT 3.1).
At least you got fed.
Like I said, that article you linked is not a "test" in any serious use of the word. I'm not going buy SD cards/thumbdrives to do any sort of test, and I'm certainly not Googling for you. If you want to verify, you can do that yourself. Ad hominems, do not help your point.
Ciao!
Can the 32GB SDHC card be left in the Elocity A7?
Or must it be removed after every use?
You can keep it in
esemelis said:
You can keep it in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. Do you know what the different classes mean?
Class 4; Class 6; etc.?
Grandson just wants to use for "normal stuff."
There are different speeds of SD card available. The official unit of measurement is the Speed Class Rating; an older unit of measurement is the × rating.
[edit] Speed Class Rating
The Speed Class Rating is the official unit of speed measurement for SD Cards, defined by the SD Association. The Class number represents a multiple of 8 Mb/s (1 MB/s), and meets the least sustained write speeds for a card in a fragmented state.[16] These are the ratings of some currently available cards:[16]
* Class 0 cards do not specify performance, which includes all legacy cards prior to class specifications.
* Class 2, 2 MB/s, slowest for SDHC cards.
* Class 4, 4 MB/s.
* Class 6, 6 MB/s.
* Class 10, 10 MB/s.
Even though the class ratings are defined by a governing body, like × speed ratings, class speed ratings are quoted by the manufacturers and not verified by any independent evaluation process. In applications that require sustained write throughput, such as video recording, the device may not perform satisfactorily if the SD card's class rating falls below a particular speed. For example, a camcorder that is designed to record to class 6 media may suffer dropouts or corrupted video on slower media. On slower class cards, digital cameras may experience a lag of several seconds between photo-taking, whilst the camera writes the picture to the card.
Important differences between the Speed Class and the traditional CD-ROM drive speed measurement ("×" speed ratings) are that speed class:[16]
1. may be queried by the host device;
2. defines the minimum transfer speed.
Since the class rating is readable by devices, they can issue a warning to the user if the inserted card's reported rating falls below the application's minimum requirement.[16]
On 21 May 2009, Panasonic announced new class 10 SDHC cards, claiming that this new class is "part of SD Card Specification Ver.3.0".[17] Toshiba also announced cards based on the new 3.0 spec.[1
ninetoes49 said:
There are different speeds of SD card available. The official unit of measurement is the Speed Class Rating; an older unit of measurement is the × rating.
[edit] Speed Class Rating
The Speed Class Rating is the official unit of speed measurement for SD Cards, defined by the SD Association. The Class number represents a multiple of 8 Mb/s (1 MB/s), and meets the least sustained write speeds for a card in a fragmented state.[16] These are the ratings of some currently available cards:[16]
* Class 0 cards do not specify performance, which includes all legacy cards prior to class specifications.
* Class 2, 2 MB/s, slowest for SDHC cards.
* Class 4, 4 MB/s.
* Class 6, 6 MB/s.
* Class 10, 10 MB/s.
Even though the class ratings are defined by a governing body, like × speed ratings, class speed ratings are quoted by the manufacturers and not verified by any independent evaluation process. In applications that require sustained write throughput, such as video recording, the device may not perform satisfactorily if the SD card's class rating falls below a particular speed. For example, a camcorder that is designed to record to class 6 media may suffer dropouts or corrupted video on slower media. On slower class cards, digital cameras may experience a lag of several seconds between photo-taking, whilst the camera writes the picture to the card.
Important differences between the Speed Class and the traditional CD-ROM drive speed measurement ("×" speed ratings) are that speed class:[16]
1. may be queried by the host device;
2. defines the minimum transfer speed.
Since the class rating is readable by devices, they can issue a warning to the user if the inserted card's reported rating falls below the application's minimum requirement.[16]
On 21 May 2009, Panasonic announced new class 10 SDHC cards, claiming that this new class is "part of SD Card Specification Ver.3.0".[17] Toshiba also announced cards based on the new 3.0 spec.[1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
#1- Since we are new to all of this, which one (best) should we pick for our Elocity A7? Would Class 2; Class 4 and Class 6 work with the Elocity A7? Class 2 being the slowest, etc.?
#2- I put a 4GB SD card into SD slot and when I looked in the Storage section, it said on 2GB free memory. The card is empty. Wonder why it did not say 4GB empty?
alicez said:
Thank you.
#1- Since we are new to all of this, which one (best) should we pick for our Elocity A7? Would Class 2; Class 4 and Class 6 work with the Elocity A7? Class 2 being the slowest, etc.?
#2- I put a 4GB SD card into SD slot and when I looked in the Storage section, it said on 2GB free memory. The card is empty. Wonder why it did not say 4GB empty?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.
sagggas said:
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
Would you have an answer to #1?
I chose a 16GB Class 10 SDHC card and moved all my Apps to the card thus preserving the internal memory of the A7. Search XDA for moving apps to SD if you choose that route.
sagggas said:
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Class 4 should be fine. Faster cards (6 -10) will cost you more and give you little to no benefit, as the internal is likely a class 4.
Thank you. My grandson just bought the following:
==========
Kingston 16GB Micro SDHC Flash Memory Card Kingston Part Number SDC4/16GB Brand New in Retail Package
Features/Benefits:
Compliant — with the SD Specification Version 2.00
Versatile — when combined with the adapter, can be used as a full-size SDHC card
Compatible — with microSDHC host devices; not compatible with standard microSD-enabled device/readers
File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard
Reliable — lifetime warranty
Specifications:
Capacity* — 16GB
Dimensions — 0.43 x 0.59 x 0.039 ( 11mm x 15mm x 1mm)
High-Speed Class Rating — Class 4: 4MB/sec. minimum data transfer rate
Operating temperatures — -13°F to 185°F (-25°C to 85°C)
Storage temperatures — -40°F to 185°F (-40°C to 85°C)
Weight — .05 oz (1.4g)
============
Would that be okay to use. He always does things quickly without checking with anybody. But I guess that is a part of being young. The only thing that perturbs me is the part about:
***File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard ***
Should that concern me (or him)?
Thanks again for all your valuable help and assistance.
Alice
The A7 ( most Anroid devices) do not recognize ntfs. The only way to break the 4gb barrier is to format the card as ext2 and manually mount it. That is not trivial.
dburckh said:
The A7 ( most Anroid devices) do not recognize ntfs. The only way to break the 4gb barrier is to format the card as ext2 and manually mount it. That is not trivial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can my grandson use this SD card with the Elocity A7?
Yes, the card will work for most applications. It sounds like if he is trying to put a file larger than 4GB on the card he may have problems
I'm a bit confused here. Can someone help?
I notice the SD card my grandson used to download the recent version update to the A7 is labeled = "SanDisk 2GB Micro SD." And it worked fine.
Isn't the A7 supposed to accept only Micro SDHC cards? Why then did our A7 accept the Micro SanDisk 2GB SD card?
Can anyone explain? Does the A7 accept both - SD and SDHC?
Please advise and thank you.
Alice
Yes, they are essentially the same and both will work
I have a 32gb card and it is very flakey. The only thing that seems to work well with it is Windows. I can't seem to install anything from it. Videos do play. I have not tried music.
I was trying to format it as ext2 with PartedMagic and it kept failing. I ended up formatting it as fat32 in windows. I may try another live cd.
alicez said:
Thank you. My grandson just bought the following:
==========
Kingston 16GB Micro SDHC Flash Memory Card Kingston Part Number SDC4/16GB Brand New in Retail Package
Features/Benefits:
Compliant — with the SD Specification Version 2.00
Versatile — when combined with the adapter, can be used as a full-size SDHC card
Compatible — with microSDHC host devices; not compatible with standard microSD-enabled device/readers
File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard
Reliable — lifetime warranty
Specifications:
Capacity* — 16GB
Dimensions — 0.43 x 0.59 x 0.039 ( 11mm x 15mm x 1mm)
High-Speed Class Rating — Class 4: 4MB/sec. minimum data transfer rate
Operating temperatures — -13°F to 185°F (-25°C to 85°C)
Storage temperatures — -40°F to 185°F (-40°C to 85°C)
Weight — .05 oz (1.4g)
============
Would that be okay to use. He always does things quickly without checking with anybody. But I guess that is a part of being young. The only thing that perturbs me is the part about:
***File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard ***
Should that concern me (or him)?
Thanks again for all your valuable help and assistance.
Alice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm kind of unclear about what you're concerned about?
That 4gb limitation for file size is a Fat32 limitation, I.e., if the card is formatted Fat32, the largest size for any single file on it will be limited to 4gb. That's for any single file, not for the whole card. For example, for that 16gb, you can put 3 4gb file plus as many <4gb files to fill up the 16gb.
NTFS formatting would allow larger single files, but not sure if the A7 supports NTFS.
Jim
jimcpl said:
I'm kind of unclear about what you're concerned about?
That 4gb limitation for file size is a Fat32 limitation, I.e., if the card is formatted Fat32, the largest size for any single file on it will be limited to 4gb. That's for any single file, not for the whole card. For example, for that 16gb, you can put 3 4gb file plus as many <4gb files to fill up the 16gb.
NTFS formatting would allow larger single files, but not sure if the A7 supports NTFS.
Jim
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The a7 does NOT support NTFS format. I have tried several different types of formatting on SDHC cards in order to help "alicez", who has posted this same issue on various forums, in multiple threads. Not sure what the continuing confusion is about.
mskitty76 said:
The a7 does NOT support NTFS format. I have tried several different types of formatting on SDHC cards in order to help "alicez", who has posted this same issue on various forums, in multiple threads. Not sure what the continuing confusion is about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The confusion comes from many different answers to my original question. I just wanted to know if I could/should use FAT, FAT32 or NTFS formatted SD cards with our A7. That is all. But several responses gave different answers. I was confused as I am sure any novice would be.
Why should it be a problem if I posted the question on other forums? Forums are for questions and in order to get a definitive answer I sometimes have to post in a few places. Sorry if I upset anyone.
Thanks to everyone who tried to help.
Alice (and grandsons)
Can someone provide some insight about this total mess? I got this Huawei P8lite (or P8 Lite? damn hipster names!) and no idea about what faster and bigger capacity microsd card supports!
Android Pit, CNET, Car Phonehouse and XDA says 128GB.
Ubergizmo says 144 GB (16GB+128GB?)
Notebook Check says the specifications are 32GB, but it worked with a 64GB SDXC card.
Phone Scoop says "up to 32GB".
GSM Arena says it supports 256GB.
256GB can be too much space, but I find convenient to use the phone as some kind of HDD and use some syncing tool (Syncthing, Dropbox) to have all files on all my systems and backup online. I'm worried about those slim microusb connectors, something I need to solve
What's the maximum speed this device is able to support? I'm unable to locate it too? Why isn't specified? How to locate it? Sandisk Xtreme PRO has U3 (UHS 3) and supports reads up to 275MB/s* and writtings up to 100MB/s, for example. Can this mobile support it?
timofonic said:
Can someone provide some insight about this total mess? I got this Huawei P8lite (or P8 Lite? damn hipster names!) and no idea about what faster and bigger capacity microsd card supports!
Android Pit, CNET, Car Phonehouse and XDA says 128GB.
Ubergizmo says 144 GB (16GB+128GB?)
Notebook Check says the specifications are 32GB, but it worked with a 64GB SDXC card.
Phone Scoop says "up to 32GB".
GSM Arena says it supports 256GB.
256GB can be too much space, but I find convenient to use the phone as some kind of HDD and use some syncing tool (Syncthing, Dropbox) to have all files on all my systems and backup online. I'm worried about those slim microusb connectors, something I need to solve
What's the maximum speed this device is able to support? I'm unable to locate it too? Why isn't specified? How to locate it? Sandisk Xtreme PRO has U3 (UHS 3) and supports reads up to 275MB/s* and writtings up to 100MB/s, for example. Can this mobile support it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can support class 10 and above sdcard(I inserted a slow sdcard so it showed a notification that use class 10 or above sdcard(on emui 3.1) . I think 128 GB the max capacity.
Suleiman01 said:
It can support class 10 and above sdcard(I inserted a slow sdcard so it showed a notification that use class 10 or above sdcard(on emui 3.1) . I think 128 GB the max capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your input, it's greatly appreciated. What capacity that SD card had?
Yes, it said the same here. I know that's going to be an issue, as I want a massive SD card for different stuff.
Are there someone that casually has big SD cards (128GB+?) and wants to do some tests? What about speed tests?
timofonic said:
Thanks for your input, it's greatly appreciated. What capacity that SD card had?
Yes, it said the same here. I know that's going to be an issue, as I want a massive SD card for different stuff.
Are there someone that casually has big SD cards (128GB+?) and wants to do some tests? What about speed tests?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't really use that space. I am fine with 16GB class 10 external SD card(the slow one was class 4 8GB). I don't think this phone can handle 128GB sdcard well since it's a midrange phone. However I can ask Huawei care center about this.
@Suleiman01 i think it should, i have the G play/ Honor 4x (same hardware specs than p8 lite, except internal storage, battery and screen size), and it says max support 64gb, but a 128GB sdcard works too
panchovix said:
@Suleiman01 i think it should, i have the G play/ Honor 4x (same hardware specs than p8 lite, except internal storage, battery and screen size), and it says max support 64gb, but a 128GB sdcard works too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you are right. But it might not be able to handle 128GB+ sdcard. I have emailed Huawei lets see what they say.
Basically it can support all sizes but depends on the file system used. I have a Sony 32GB Class 10 which by default was formatted in FAT32 and i have formatted it to exFAT and it works great on my P8. If the phone supports officially at least 64GB cards then it'll support bigger sized ones because SD cards with capacity of 64GB and up by default come in exFAT file format so this means that it can support higher capacities. Here's the proof
If you are going to buy one then go for the fastest possible or you will have stutters while listening to music and doing some file transfers at the same time. ????
I have a Sandisk 128GB (Obviously formated to FAT32) and works good as hell. All SD cards formatted to FAT32 should work.
pilililo2 said:
I have a Sandisk 128GB (Obviously formated to FAT32) and works good as hell. All SD cards formatted to FAT32 should work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about using EXT4 instead? I use Linux.
Ive never seen a microsd card formatted to ext4. Bigger cards are formatted to exFat which is the formatting that a lot of phones dont support and thats why they say thay they dont support sdcards over xxxGB, but what they actually dont support is exfat. Thats why if you format any size card to FAT32 it will work on any phone regardless of what the manufacturer specifies as the maximum sdcard size. Also ive heard EXT4 is not very nice on flash memories since it wears them out very quickly because of indexing, but I might be going way far here.
Edit: Anyhow linux will support FAT32 so i dont think that makes a problem
@pilililo2
It would be very interesting to know. I know EXT4 provides extensions for SSDs and such since years, but not sure about flash drives (that it seems to use some kind of "HDD emulation in them", right?).
There's this 2010 article about what's the fastest filesystem for cheap flash devices
Arnd Bergmann replied on August 2015 the following in the "ext2 vs ext4 vs exFAT for XO content SD cards?" forum thread:
arnd at arndb.de
Thu Aug 20 16:55:07 EDT 2015
SDXC cards are mandated to be using exFAT (just like SDHC cards have to use VFAT, and indeed this is the only difference between the two) by the SD card standard. If you don't use this, you are strictly speaking
in violation of the standard and the cards might not behave as designed.
In particular, the card is allowed to only do efficient garbage collection for the access patterns that you get with a single exFAT partition that spans the entire card and has all its metadata aligned exactly in the way that the spec defines.
In practice, things tend to work mostly ok with other file systems, but if you use NTFS or ext3 (rather than ext4), you are usually asking for
trouble.
The best longevity would be provided by f2fs, which is designed to work fine on most SD cards. The downside is that it only works on relatively modern Linux kernels (3.x or higher).
I would expect that cards today use only dynamic wear leveling, not static wear leveling as real SSDs do. This means that content on a read-only partition will decay with the normal life of the card (several years, but depending on the quality of the card and the environmental conditions, e.g. not too hot), independent of the presence of partitions you write to.
Dynamic wear leveling works best if you have a lot of unused blocks, so a good strategy for long life would be to leave a whole partition (e.g. 20% of the size of the writable partition, the more you have, the longer the card will survive) that never gets written after manufacturing, or at least gets erased using the fitrim ioctl command after the initial imaging.
For a 128 GB card with 115GB of actual space, you could then use something like:
* 80GB zisofs/cramfs/squashfs for static data
* 30GB f2fs/ext4 for writable data
* 5GB unused space for wear leveling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You very probably already know that exFAT is totally owned by Microsoft and that there's a leaked GPL-based.exFAT driver for Linux kernel, but this filesystem it's patent encumbered and not merged into mainline.
Why do I mention this?
Because it's a pain in the butt to use it across operating systems and needing to use a custom kernel on your Linux box makes things harder.
I know many custom ROMs with custom kernels use exFAT and very probably even official kernels too, but that's a gray area. Phone manufacturers are able to pay the Microsoft's Android Tax if they want to.
Sooo, what about the bus speed? Is p8 lite compatible with UHC 3 even?
Hi all,
I know Samsung states the max capacity card for the S8 is 256GB but with the prices falling I'm strongly considering a 512GB card.
My current one is a Samsung Evo Plus 256GB card (red and grey version).
The new 512GB Evo Plus (grey one) looks to be faster and has A2 support and under £40 now. Mymemory also suggests it is compatible but unsure if they have actually tested it themselves.
As the S8 supports SDXC and exfat and believed to be UHS-1 bus it looks like the new Samsung Evo Plus 512GB might be good?
I did consider a newer model but not a fan that newer phones don't tend to support storage expansion and it's all cloud now. I like the files on the phone as I back them up at home.
Just wanted to post that out to see whether the 512gb samsung evo may be a good idea?
Many thanks
Not sure if that will work or not. I've read about people using larger than speced memory and it working on other phones.
I use the Sandisk Extreme .5 and 1tb V30 rated cards with my N10+'s. Zero issues. Get write speeds of [email protected] going from internal to card.
Consider upgrading to a N10+, these are fast, capable phones with one one the best displays out there. After this flagship Samsung starts losing it.
blackhawk said:
Not sure if that will work or not. I've read about people using larger than speced memory and it working on other phones.
I use the Sandisk Extreme .5 and 1tb V30 rated cards with my N10+'s. Zero issues. Get write speeds of [email protected] going from internal to card.
Consider upgrading to a N10+, these are fast, capable phones with one one the best displays out there. After this flagship Samsung starts losing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so). I know at some point I'll definitely need to move on when the OS becomes really obsolete, the battery isn't holding charge for long, I have to take power banks with me to get through a day!
I'll check out the N10+ as I think if I wanted a Galaxy with micro SD support the best I'd be looking at is an A53?
martyp78 said:
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume it depends on the default cluster size for exFAT:
7 MB-256 MB4 KB256 MB-32 GB32 KB32 GB-256 TB128 KB
https://support.microsoft.com/topic...nd-exfat-9772e6f1-e31a-00d7-e18f-73169155af95
I think for that reason Android formats sd cards up to 32GB in FAT32 while sd cards 64GB+ are formatted in exFAT. So - in theory - every Android should accept sd cards up to 256TB (cluster size 128KB) as long as min. 64GB is compatible according to the manufacturer.
Excellent thanks, I did wonder if there could be any limitations if it supports exfat and sdxc. I'll hold off from 1tb but might be intrigued if anyone does try that size.
sd card sizes are mostly just recomendations,
i run a 400gb sandisk ultra in my s3 wich oficially supports up to 64gb, only downside is that it takes 15mins to recognize the card, after that everything works as it should, get about 12mb/s out of the card
also run a 512gb samsung card in my a5(2017) wich is specified with up to 256gb supported with no problems
Great, thanks for confirming. Useful also as my other half has an A5(2017) and I also have an S3 and an S5.
martyp78 said:
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so). I know at some point I'll definitely need to move on when the OS becomes really obsolete, the battery isn't holding charge for long, I have to take power banks with me to get through a day!
I'll check out the N10+ as I think if I wanted a Galaxy with micro SD support the best I'd be looking at is an A53?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could replace the battery, not that big a deal.
Not sure about which of the midrange Samsung's is top of the lot.
The N10+ trumps the new midrange Samsungs except no variable refresh rate display and no 5G (probably should avoid the 5G variant). New N10+'s N975U1 (Android 10) can still be had new from a reliable vendor for $700. PM me if you want his site link. Used used ones for half that price. You may need to replace the battery but it's not a big deal.
The Snapdragon variants (N975U, N975U1) have the best hardware but can't be rooted. They run the fastest and coolest.
Most used ones will be loaded with Android 11 or 12 with the scoped storage nonsense. I prefer Android 9. I have two N10+'s; one running on 9, the newest is running on 10. Android 10 runs ok and scoped storage isn't fully implemented. I bought the second one new in part to avoid Android 11/12.
If you buy used beware of scammers. Use known good vendors only. Test the display with ScreenTest as soon as you get recieve it. The display should be perfect. Then test the cams, spen, connectivity, card slot and so on.
Use a Sandisk Extreme V30 rated card; they're fast and are very reliable.
Use a Zizo Bolt case to protect it otherwise it will get damaged; these are heavy, corner hitting phones.
Excellent, thanks.
martyp78 said:
Excellent, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome. Check out the N10+ forum. There's lots of information there. Also Android 10 no rollback to 9, Android 11 no rollback to 10, however Android 12 probably can be rolled back to 11.
These work horses are just a joy to use. Once optimized they run very well stock, are extremely stable and long lived. The N10+ is exponentially faster than the N9 but the flagships that followed to N10+ don't see that leapfrog speed increase in most real time usage.
I just wanted to report back that I have now replaced the 256GB Samsung Evo Plus in my Galaxy S8 with the 2021 newer 512GB Samsung Evo Plus which is V30.
The tests and details are attached. It seemed to have no problem at all and have recorded Ultra 4K video to it perfectly so pleased with my £32.99 purchase as I was going to pay £42 then the price suddenly dropped by £10 last week...
martyp78 said:
I just wanted to report back that I have now replaced the 256GB Samsung Evo Plus in my Galaxy S8 with the 2021 newer 512GB Samsung Evo Plus which is V30.
The tests and details are attached. It seemed to have no problem at all and have recorded Ultra 4K video to it perfectly so pleased with my £32.99 purchase as I was going to pay £42 then the price suddenly dropped by £10 last week...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.
WoKoschekk said:
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Must admit I'm not too sure, could be an oddity with the app there. It detected it and made it usable straight away although I formatted it in the phone anyway. Then the apps on my phone filled up 7GB of space without me doing anything.
I bought from a well known trusted supplier as I know are loads of fake cards on the market these days.
I'll do some checks and see if I can determine the size correctly.
WoKoschekk said:
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
samsung makes it so the internal storage always shows up with the next "full" capacity so 32gb 64gb 128gb etc
size for external media is taken from usable size so after filesystem and all so that may explain the difference there
NigrumTredecim said:
samsung makes it so the internal storage always shows up with the next "full" capacity so 32gb 64gb 128gb etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every storage size on every mobile phone is a multiple of 2, e.g. 2^5 (32GB) or 2^9 (512GB). And a storage overview shows always total/free. Also non-Samsung devices.
NigrumTredecim said:
size for external media is taken from usable size so after filesystem and all so that may explain the difference there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A GUID partition table (gpt) has a header size of 32 blocks (block size = 512). The default start block of the first partition is 2048 (0x100000). This is 1MiB (2048*512=1048576 Byte) unallocated space. No existing file system takes 34,5GB for its partition table.
WoKoschekk said:
Every storage size on every mobile phone is a multiple of 2, e.g. 2^5 (32GB) or 2^9 (512GB). And a storage overview shows always total/free. Also non-Samsung devices.
A GUID partition table (gpt) has a header size of 32 blocks (block size = 512). The default start block of the first partition is 2048 (0x100000). This is 1MiB (2048*512=1048576 Byte) unallocated space. No existing file system takes 34,5GB for its partition table.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes the physical storage is 32GB but samsung shows 32GiB (at least on android 8)
moreso the stock data partition on my phone is only 24gib big
it will also show 512 gb while the /data partition is on an 400gb sd-card (will show 100+gb used even though that storage doesnt exist)
most other phones i had just showed the capacity of /data instead of the full flash memory (so 398gb on that 400gb sd card for example)
sd card in question https://www.amazon.de/SanDisk-Ultra-microSDXC-Speicherkarte-Adapter/dp/B074RNRM2B
conclusion: samsung appears to not read the full flash capacity but appears to just extrapolate the size of /data to the next full capacity instead just showing the missing amount as system storage.
It seems nearly every android has that stupid bug mixing up GB with GiB in storage calculation, that's not only Samsungs failure. the discrepancy is hidden in occupied space for System, as we recently discussed here.
Why is the OS (System) size different for different storage variants of the same device model?
I have seen that the space occupied by 'System' is different for different storage sizes of the same device. My Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra shows space occupied by system as over 50 GB. Mine is the 512 GB variant (Snapdragon). While I don't...
forum.xda-developers.com
NigrumTredecim said:
moreso the stock data partition on my phone is only 24gib big
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is correct since /data is one of many partitions on your storage chip. The size of /data in your internal storage is
32GB - (all other partitions except /data) = /data
The meta data on a sd card occupies not more than a few MB. So the system should always show 512GB of 512GB free storage.
It's quite unusual showing both, GB and GiB in one overview. Apart from that 477,5GiB ≠ 512GB. That's too much.
depends on the person that calculates it. in the two articles in other thread former one mentioned 494 GiB the latter one 476 GiB. 2023 at it's best