Database Users

EXT4 File System?

Just wondering if anyone would know: my friend has a Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant through Bell. He told me he applied some sort of EXT4 file system to it which has resulted in a massive performance gain.
Anyone know anything about what this might be?
I'm wondering if something like this may be possible with the X10, especially with 2.1 on the way (as that's the version of Android he's running).
-edit-
I got some more info on what my friend was talking about:
I converted the native RFS file system (a stupid, stupid move on Samsung's part, it's a slow file system) to a more common ext4 file system, which is blazingly fast compared to RFS. There's many lag fixes out there, some use EXT2, some EXT3, some EXT4 and some NILFS2, I use the voodoo lag fix.
http://project-voodoo.org/
It's reverable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, does anyone know what file system SE is using on the X10?

saltorio said:
Just wondering if anyone would know: my friend has a Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant through Bell. He told me he applied some sort of EXT4 file system to it which has resulted in a massive performance gain.
Anyone know anything about what this might be?
I'm wondering if something like this may be possible with the X10, especially with 2.1 on the way (as that's the version of Android he's running).
-edit-
I got some more info on what my friend was talking about:
So, does anyone know what file system SE is using on the X10?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAFFS#YAFFS2
Don't think you can convert it to anything else..

i would better use btrfs(With compression enabled) then ext4
i have btrfs on my SSD and it is much faster then ext4

Now there are a lot of improved file system with good performance out there but I guess the FS doesn't make a great difference on a smartphone... The most important thing you need is journaling so you don't lose your data if the device crashes
Yup the lagfix on the galaxy S really improves the score in Quadrant benchmark.. but, talking about concrete phone use, does it really increase overall performance that much?

tuxo87 said:
Yup the lagfix on the galaxy S really improves the score in Quadrant benchmark.. but, talking about concrete phone use, does it really increase overall performance that much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No idea. I have limited experience with his Galaxy S. It seems quite fast and responsive (moreso than my X10), but then that could easily be attributed to the OS difference.

tuxo87 said:
Now there are a lot of improved file system with good performance out there but I guess the FS doesn't make a great difference on a smartphone... The most important thing you need is journaling so you don't lose your data if the device crashes
Yup the lagfix on the galaxy S really improves the score in Quadrant benchmark.. but, talking about concrete phone use, does it really increase overall performance that much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Abso-****ing-lutely. Whatever Samsung did to the Galaxy S line with respect to the RFS filesystem was used was horrible. EXT4 instantly makes the phone one of theeee fastest (if not fastest) devices out...and I'm not talking benchmarks scores, but real world use.

You don't need to change the file system on the X10. This is only useful on the Galaxy S because of the horrid filesystem Samsung chose to use. RFS is their inbred bastard child so unfortunately it looks like they're sticking with it.
The X10 doesn't use RFS so don't worry about it.

WickedStyx said:
You don't need to change the file system on the X10. This is only useful on the Galaxy S because of the horrid filesystem Samsung chose to use. RFS is their inbred bastard child so unfortunately it looks like they're sticking with it.
The X10 doesn't use RFS so don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. Thanks for all the info.

[Q]database read/write speed

Hi all,
I was doing some test with a friend of mine that have a galaxy s with ext4 lag fix.
We have noticed that in quadrant there is a huge different in time during the passages "writing database" and "reading database".
So is the desire hd filesisten not well optimized (not like the original galaxy s one ) and is there a way to speed up read/write operations?
Thank u all
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App

by default the galaxy S out of the box uses RFS which when doing IO to DB can be very very slow....because it does a lot of journalling.
I believe ext4 does not do journalling?? correct me if i am wrong...
if your friend uses the OCLF then ...believe me over a period of 1 week..or after your friend has put more than 10 apps...it will start to degrade...
RFS in the GS corrupts the FS over time...
I have had my DHD for like 2 weeks and installed over 50 apps..
quadrant scores are always...close to 2000..
using Froyo on the GS without any lag fix u get approx 1000 quadrant score..
with lag fix you get close to 2000..but then again is temporary..
if your friend had applied the voodoo lag fix..then i thing that uses a different journalling policy.and on Froyo GS gets approx around the 1500...
so DHD is indeed optimize IMO

I came from the galaxy s. Wich i loved, after much work and tweaking. Straight out of the box it was useless. But back to topic. Of course it would be possible but i dont really see the need. Itryed all the diffrent lagfixes for SGS, OCLF wich uses EXT2, Voodoo EXT4, and Ztupys kernel with ddiferent options and on Android 2.1 they aall really boosted the Quadrant scores was getting 2200+. But on Android 2.2 it didnt have same effect quadrant about 1500-1700 still good fix. But when i run Quadrant on DHD, in I/O section it stops a little while r/w data but it did that with lagfix on SGS also. Only lagfix that made it run thru with out pauseing was OCLF wich uses EXT2, and Ext2 gets corrupted or something after a while and performance slows down.
I think we have a good stable device and i dont see the need.

nandihno said:
I believe ext4 does not do journalling?? correct me if i am wrong...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am afraid not, ext4 is basically ext3 with journalling c.f Wikipedia

thank u all for replies. Mine was just curiosity more than need because DHD in every day use is really fast and responsive (not like my old iphone 3g....)
I think i has applied the OCLF so it will be degraded in some times, and he said also that he reboot the phone once a day..
Sorry to mod if i posted in the wrong section
muffy

What's the big deal about EXT4?

Ok can someone explain the difference between EXT4 and the regular software the I'm running..... right now I'm using roto jmi firmware version 2, my tab feels fast, quadrant score of 1006 but I hear everyone saying converting to EXT4 will make it that much faster......
......basically is it worth me doing it?
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

EXT4 is a filesystem, not software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4
Its faster than the rfs filesystem the galaxy tab uses by default because of the way it manages **** writes.
So yeah, if you experience random lagging, this will fix it and should make it generally more fluid

KingofXings said:
Ok can someone explain the difference between EXT4 and the regular software the I'm running..... right now I'm using roto jmi firmware version 2, my tab feels fast, quadrant score of 1006 but I hear everyone saying converting to EXT4 will make it that much faster......
......basically is it worth me doing it?
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think you see more performance gains going from stock to a JMI ROM, than you will going to EXT4 from RFS on a JMI ROM.
Yes, quadrant appears much faster, but in real world usage there isn't as much difference.
So my advice is, if you're happy with what you've got, leave it alone for now.
Regards,
Dave

I disagree, I ran on a JMI rom with the original file system for about 2 weeks and then upgraded to EXT4 and I definitely noticed a speed improvement. Well worth the conversion since it only took about 10 minutes and went very smoothly.

this is my point exactly, my tab runs smooths, feels fast enough so i wonder how much faster can EXT4 make it??
i suppose theres a part of me inside thats never satisfied and even knowing that there is a possibility that i could potentially make my tab faster makes me wanna switch to EXT4.....
but i have 3 questions..
1) what does quadrant scores actually mean in real life?
2) does using EXT4 over the standard RFS effect or improve battery life?
3) and will samsung revert back to RFS if i ever decided to change roms?

KingofXings said:
this is my point exactly, my tab runs smooths, feels fast enough so i wonder how much faster can EXT4 make it??
i suppose theres a part of me inside thats never satisfied and even knowing that there is a possibility that i could potentially make my tab faster makes me wanna switch to EXT4.....
but i have 3 questions..
1) what does quadrant scores actually mean in real life?
2) does using EXT4 over the standard RFS effect or improve battery life?
3) and will samsung revert back to RFS if i ever decided to change roms?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my experience, converting to EXT4 (first) made a remarkable improvement even on the stock ROM, then installing the Overcome ROM was icing on the cake.
1) quadrant scores don't mean squat (IMHO)
2) possibly -- due to more efficient I/O
3) doesn't matter -- once you do change ROMs, you will never go back to any "Samsung" (oem) ROM.

gwbard said:
In my experience, converting to EXT4 (first) made a remarkable improvement even on the stock ROM, then installing the Overcome ROM was icing on the cake.
1) quadrant scores don't mean squat (IMHO)
2) possibly -- due to more efficient I/O
3) doesn't matter -- once you do change ROMs, you will never go back to any "Samsung" (oem) ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok ur making me wanna make the switch but does it matter that my tab is already running the roto jmi firmwire v2 b4 i make the conversion to EXT4?
plus is overcome that much more better suited to EXT4 than roto jmi?

KingofXings said:
ok ur making me wanna make the switch but does it matter that my tab is already running the roto jmi firmwire v2 b4 i make the conversion to EXT4?
plus is overcome that much more better suited to EXT4 than roto jmi?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't really answer about Roto's for sure -- I started with the stock (JJB) ROM and first applied MoDaCo's r3 kernel
(+ext4 conversion +clockwork recovery).
The MoDaCo conversion was very easy & I rebooted back to the stock ROM with no problem -- then flashed Overcome via CWM a day or so later.
The Overcome (and MoDaCo) ROMs were meant for EXT4 specifically -- not sure about Roto's, maybe someone else can answer that. If I were you I would have the Overcome zip ready to go on the sdcard, so you can easily get back to CWM and flash it if Roto's doesn't work out.

If I switch to EXT4, will this cause a compatibility problem with my PC which runs windows vista? More specifically, can my windows vista laptop read the EXT4 formatted microSD in my gtab ?

Converting to EXT4 only converts the OS partition. It does nothing to your SD cards, which I believe are in the FAT32 file system.

....So while we are talking about EXT4...Has anyone considered EXT4 on android with consideration of read/write cycles?
Some background: I've had several netbook and still have a dell mini 9. They have always run linux (specifically fedora). All have had SSDs. SSD have (and I guess newer SSDs still have) and number of read/write cycles that are finite (before you should expect failure). This is somewhat like the mean time to failure for spinny/mechnical HDs.
There was mild concern in the netbook forums that journalling filesystems would 'encourage' premature failure of SSDs. By 'premature', I mean happen sooner than expected as journalling FSs do all sorts of read/writes for the journal maintenance....For many, my self included, it was felt that this is not a huge issue as the number of read/writes was pretty big and that you would 'grow out' of the device before the time it takes to get to the number (or the device is obsoluted).
So, SSDs are flashed based. Is the android file system devices like an SSD? No idea and I think not. I bet many internal android storage devices, including SGT's, are flash based. I suspect the read/write cycles are a characteristice of flash memory and not an SSD thing.
So are journalling filesystems (specifically ext4) a concern on andorid for this reason? For me, probably not (i'll want something new in a year anyway...)
FWIW: ext4 and probably other journalling FSs have a way to turn off the journal features. The idea is that you'd get the other good stuff of ext4, but not the excessive read/writes (i.e. wear and tear on HD or SSD). Some netbookers, opted to do this while using EXT4; I never did. I wonder if the android ext4 'stuff' has this on or off?

Well, the Samsung RFS stands for Robust FAT File System, and it is basically FAT with Journaling slapped on top for protection, so I am guessing the journaling isn't too big a problem
But, this is exactly where the problems with RFS come in, it is a rather slapped together filesystem, and the drivers are none too great either. Whereas, EXT4 is a filesystem made for linux, and all the drivers etc are a heck of a lot better.
To the OP, the major benefits come in when writing files, such as installing programs etc, which is a LOT quicker. One of the main problems with the RFS setup is it takes comparatively forever to sync/write each file to the flash because of the slapped on journaling on a filesystem not really meant for it. There is a slight increase in speed/responsiveness all around because of the more efficient I/O, but yeah that is the major benefit.
Personally, I have gone to Overcome's v1.2.0 rom and kernel, ext4 filesystem etc, and will not be looking back. I also have the good fortune of being in a household with 2 tabs, the other being my father's which he does not want to even root let alone flash, so I will be doing a video comparison between stock and mine in the next few days, for all those interested in seeing the benefits compared to stock.

Best Lagfix for SGS Android 2.3.3/2.3.4

What is Best Lagfix for SGS Android 2.3.3/2.3.4

I dont think you need lagfix anymore on 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. It is already fast, smooth and stable. Though there are some bugs that are not related to lags

Modern lagfixes are mostly just kernels supporting an ext-4 conversion - they all will do more or less the same job. Pick one you like the features of, install and convert.
However as has been mentioned lag has been reduced a lot without it so the improvement is a lot less noticeable than it used to be.

since the GB roms there is no real need for "lagfix"
If you want you can still convert to ext4, just flash any kernel supporting it

Actually there is no noticeable difference between ext4 and rfs fs on gb roms in terms of UI smoothness and speed. And yeah I am using ext4 right now so that is just my personal observation.

jbdroid said:
Actually there is no noticeable difference between ext4 and rfs fs on gb roms in terms of UI smoothness and speed. And yeah I am using ext4 right now so that is just my personal observation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I second this. Lately I've just been using RFS, and I feel it's just as fast as when I ran ext4.

EXT 4 Voodoo lagfix

ext4 rules!
I think ext4 conversion still matters.
I use feedR to follow my google reader feeds. With rfs I can't open posts smoothly and fast as it is with ext4. Actually with rfs it's annoyingly laggy that I can't catch up with all the posts in the feeds.

I'm using feedr to follow 15 websites with rfs, and there is no problem with smoothness or feeds.
Sent from HAL-I9000 using Tapatalk

between rfs n ext4, in GB , yes they r not laggy.
but , how about battery consumption? rfs or ext4 that use alot of battery?

syamsoul said:
between rfs n ext4, in GB , yes they r not laggy.
but , how about battery consumption? rfs or ext4 that use alot of battery?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didnt notice any difference in battery consumption. RFS or EXT4, i usually get 2-3 days of mild usage, 1-2 days of heavy usage, on both.

K0v4L said:
I'm using feedr to follow 15 websites with rfs, and there is no problem with smoothness or feeds.
Sent from HAL-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try opening post one after other immediately.

i've been on ext4 ever since eclair, never complained. I keep it like this

Try voodoo lagfix,but on gingerbread i think you don't have to use any lagfix.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Well, my JVH lags as hell...

I don't think you will notice any real difference with different lagfixes. I tried most types and didn't even notice real difference with rfs.
Most devs think ext4 is better so I do apply a lagfix, but not really sure why (better quadrant score? doesn't say anything but still)

I used couple of ROMs from XDA (F1, F1 SGS2, Ficeto, MIUI..) without lagfix... I am using phone a lot (battery lasts max 15-20hrs)... So, There is small diferences between them... I used them without lagfixes... Now, I installed JVP 2.3.4 Stock, Galaxian Kernel, and Converted to EXT4...
Personal opinion:
1. STOCK 2.3.4 JPV - Not bad, Fast, Works fine
2. +Galaxian Kernel - Faster 20-25% at least (using CPU Master because of OC 1.4GHz)
3. EXT4 Convert -> This speeded up my system by 20-30% more...
Explanation.. RFS file system is better with small files (under 5KBytes), and EXT4 is faster and a lot better with larger files... So, when you work with pictures, videos, and applications that uses bigger files then text, EXT4 shows its best side...
Now, my device is focused on Bigger apps, Pictures and HD Videos, so EXT4 is much faster for me...
Use FS that is better for your use...
P.S. EXT4 has faster R/W rate, so when recording, copying and similar, you will see difference...

can't wait until someone gets ubifs file system working, by all accounts should be awesome
Sent using geek power

Am on gb but i use ext4 lagfix because after number of apps increases, it lags!!

I've tried out 2.2 with lagfix and 2.3 without lagfix, but I find that now 2.3 is slower than 2.2 with lagfix. Not sure why this is true, but I noticed that starting apps was slower.

RFS is faster than ext4 (or is it?)

Please refer to my post yesterday when comparing I/O schedulers on Galaxian V1.8 running at 1Ghz using the Androbench storage benchmark tool.
I came to the conclusion that there is actually not much in it and that I would use the noop I/O scheduler.
I decided (whilst on the train) to compare these results to RFS mountred file systems using the Androbench storage benchmarking tool.
Androbench runs sequential reads, sequential writes, random reads and random writes and displays MB/s throughput for sequential I/O operations, and IOPS for random IO opertions.
Typical average I/O benchmark results using /data mounted as EXT4 (noop)
Sequential Reads: 19 MB/s
Sequential Writes: 9 MB/s
Random Reads: 1161 IOPS
Random writes: 45 IOPS
I then converted all file systems to rfs and re-ran Androbench @1Ghz
Typical average I/O benchmark results using /data mounted as RFS (noop)
Sequential Reads: 19 MB/s
Sequential Writes: 9 MB/s
Random Reads: 1150 IOPS
Random writes: 91 IOPS
The results are the same except random writes are at least twice as fast on RFS than they are on EXT4 - WTF!!!
I then ran some Quadrant tests and guess what, I got a score of approx
1750 on RFS against a score of 2200+ on EXT4 - WTF!
Hang on, the only thing I have changed is the file system and I've changed it for a faster file system, yet Quadrant returns a lower score??????
Guess I could run the tests using a different benchmark but I've stuck with Quadrant as this is the standard test everyone uses....
If RFS is faster, why does quadrant return lower scores?
Is ext4 only needed to get a reasonable quadrant score?
Comments Folks !!!!!

Try a benchmark for database operations - as quadrant also measures this and they depend on the filesystem too - maybe the difference pops up there ...
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

RFS IS Faster then EXT4 !!
Used RL benchmark which uses SQLite database to perform :-
1000 inserts
25000 inserts within transaction
25000 inserts into indexed table in a transaction
100 selects with no index
1000 selects on string comparison
create index
5000 selecsts with index
1000 updates without index
drop table
This obviously uses CPU and RAM but the greatest influence will be I/O.
Note that RFS and EXT4 tests were both performed after a fresh file system conversion.
RFS RESULTS (1Ghz CFQ I/O scheduler)
=============================
Run #1 42.171 secs
Run #2 55.54 secs
Run #3 53.417 secs
EXT4 RESULTS (1Ghz CFQ I/O scheduler)
===============================
1Ghz CFQ scheduler
Run #1 64.981
Run #2 74.136
Run #3 73.441
Well, there we have it, RFS is faster than EXT4 (at least after a fresh install), I did find an article stating that Quadrant doesn't cope very well with Samsung RFS file system which is why Quadrant results look lower than what they really are.
I think the logical thing to do is simply run with the RFS file system, and check the results of Androbench say weekly so see if results get worse as the FS fragments. Beats having to convert to EXT4 and proves that Quadrant is producing dodgy results when running on the Samsung RFS file system.

amazing but I had the stock firmware with RFS and now I have the lagfix with ext4, now is much faster... that's just a benchmark I think...

Would be very interesting if someone checked it after being on rfs for a while. I'm always on ext4 since i thought rfs would be slower after some time. And i think most people are on ext4 for this reason
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Why not use both fs? I have my system partition on rfs (as is should be read only anyway) and have data/dbdata on ext4 and cache on ext4nj. Latest speedmod here. Absolutely smooth.

Bavaria85 said:
Would be very interesting if someone checked it after being on rfs for a while. I'm always on ext4 since i thought rfs would be slower after some time. And i think most people are on ext4 for this reason
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
even i thought et4 is fast but i saw afta installin plenty apps its the same as stock ,no diff....so i am on rfs ,no lagfix anything,only rooted thts it...well the benchmark is less compard to et4 but i think rfs works fine for me on gb....

I don't know if it's just me but I do find RFS faster than EXT4.
Used to be on speedmod ext4 but I found apps such as worms, PvsZ ran considerably laggy on EXT4.
Converted back to RFS and lagging seems to be gone.
(sometimes still lags a bit but not as bad as on EXT4)
In my experience, RFS has come a long way and it is just as good as EXT4 now.
From now I'm going to stay with stock RFS.

Will check out speed in a week to see how well rfs is running to see if fragmentation slows it down. Perhaps we need to look at a new file system like btrfs which ubuntu are thinking about using as new default!
Sent using geek power

gsw5700 said:
Will check out speed in a week to see how well rfs is running to see if fragmentation slows it down. Perhaps we need to look at a new file system like btrfs which ubuntu are thinking about using as new default!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RFS is a FAT based filesystem, right? Fragmentation will definitely slow it down with the time. And that is something that does not happen with more advanced filesystems like xfs, ext4 or btrfs.
Using btrfs is a very good idea. This is especially true, as it also has some enhancements for flash based storage. But not as long as it is still not considered stable by kernel developers....
BTW. don't trust any benchmark that you have not falsified yourself

Try damiens latest ext4 and no jounals. I'm getting quadrant score 3300+.
Sent via ET and he phoned it in

me_ashman said:
Try damiens latest ext4 and no jounals. I'm getting quadrant score 3300+.
Sent via ET and he phoned it in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This thread is actually exactly NOT about quadrant scores because they don't tell anything. I hear people getting 5000+ by just setting up things that quadrant likes. This doesn't tell you anything about the actual performance of your phone.
The only reason I use quadrant or other benchmarks is to see 2d/3d performance. Although this doesn't tell you everything since framerate is often capped at 56/67 hz.

Is this possible with SGS stock-based ROMs?
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/enter-godmode/

No idea if it is possible but i think it is since partition is not that much device related.
Would be cool if some Dev took a look at this...
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Hybrid Core said:
amazing but I had the stock firmware with RFS and now I have the lagfix with ext4, now is much faster... that's just a benchmark I think...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 my sgs is definitely faster with ext4 than with stock RFS.
Inviato dal mio GT-I9000 usando Tapatalk

Been using rfs for a while now and can't really feel any difference.
Sent using geek power

Bavaria85 said:
This thread is actually exactly NOT about quadrant scores because they don't tell anything. I hear people getting 5000+ by just setting up things that quadrant likes. This doesn't tell you anything about the actual performance of your phone.
The only reason I use quadrant or other benchmarks is to see 2d/3d performance. Although this doesn't tell you everything since framerate is often capped at 56/67 hz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool no probs
Sent via ET and he phoned it in

Found it!
Usefull thread...thanks!!
Subscribing
Posted you some questions on the Galaxian thread
You can answer them here if you like
Thanks again!

elhennig said:
.............knip............
BTW. don't trust any benchmark that you have not falsified yourself
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RIGHT! :
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
My quadrant is bigger than yours:::
http://androidspin.com/2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/

The only filesystem that I've felt significantly faster than rfs is ext2. ext 4 feels a tad SLOWER than rfs and can fragmentation affect flash devices? I believe fragmentation is only an issue with magnetic drives...
Anyway, ext2 should be great since you rarely have a power outage (even if the battery runs out, the phone shuts down...) I used all ext2 with damian's kernel (back a while ago when I used it) and you could tell apps were snappier and started much faster, while on ext4 I even felt that the phone slowed down. I blame journaling (which imho isn't really needed)