Related
Recently there's has been a release of Cyanogen Mod version 7 for GT-I9000
http://forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/15275-gt-i9000-cyanogenmod-7-we-love-bugs-version-20110205/
When the 6.1 beta came out for this device I remember Eugene fixed up a sweet kernel for us that fixed various issues, such as button mapping and kernel panics, which allowed us to have CM on T959 devices
Just letting everyone know it's out, and that if any nice devs would like to build a kernel to fix some issues we can have this on our devices!!!
I AM NOT ASKING FOR AN ETA OF ANY KIND. I'M SIMPLY ASKING IF THERE IS A DEV OUT THERE THAT WOULD LOOK INTO THE RECENTLY RELEASED CM7 AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT THAT CAN EASILY BE FIXED, LIKE KEY MAPPING.
Maybe someone should try the latest GT-I9000 CM7 beta with the last kernel that eugene released for CM on T959? I would try, but I don't want to reconfigure my perfect setup right now
P.S. if anyone uses CM on Vibrant, remember to use sombionix's SD mount fix so that your internal SD mounts properly!
PSP_Hacker said:
Maybe someone should try the latest GT-I9000 CM7 beta with the last kernel that eugene released for CM on T959? I would try, but I don't want to reconfigure my perfect setup right now
P.S. if anyone uses CM on Vibrant, remember to use sombionix's SD mount fix so that your internal SD mounts properly!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same I think I'll wait for a new nightly to pop up or Eugene to work his magic and create another fix, it shouldn't be that hard... just reconfigure the old fix to work with the new code?
I forgot to mention that Team Whiskey is working on an AOSP build for the Vibrant! I read it first in the OP for Bionix-v thread when it was first created:
also, as soon as we get our hands on the source code, we'll begin a full aosp build compiled from source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And right now the OP has been updated with this:
Coming Soon:
Multiple high quality themes will soon be available for Bionix-v. Team whiskey has also been working hard to bring you a stable 2.2.1 and 2.3 rom. Expect a stable 2.2.1 to drop soon...very soon. Other very exciting goodies coming in the near future. Don't worry, we haven't forgotten about you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really like that "...very soon." part.
PSP_Hacker said:
Maybe someone should try the latest GT-I9000 CM7 beta with the last kernel that eugene released for CM on T959? I would try, but I don't want to reconfigure my perfect setup right now
P.S. if anyone uses CM on Vibrant, remember to use sombionix's SD mount fix so that your internal SD mounts properly!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem with that idea is that Eugene's new kernel is a FroYo kernel, not Gingerbread (which is what CM7 is). I'm sure Eugene or TW could get a good Gingerbread build working though.
MorphiusFaydal said:
The problem with that idea is that Eugene's new kernel is a FroYo kernel, not Gingerbread (which is what CM7 is). I'm sure Eugene or TW could get a good Gingerbread build working though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So? Eugene can get access to 2.3 source just as CMod and TW have...
bobbbb said:
So? Eugene can get access to 2.3 source just as CMod and TW have...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jeez, stop demanding this and that. These are the kind of posts that developers HATE to see.
Samsung hasn't released froyo source much less gingerbread. Pretty sure krylon360 and others are using nexus s/sdk and maybe even writing drivers themselves to get ginger working.
anthonys2r said:
Jeez, stop demanding this and that. These are the kind of posts that developers HATE to see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not demanding anything kid, I was just stating initially that CM7 came out, just in case some devs hadn't noticed. And i was replying to someone who said Eugene couldn't do anything because he only works with 2.2 source? Something ridiculous like that...
I ran CM7 a couple days ago... only thing it really needed was the Vibrant modem.
new kernel isn't going to do much.
scrizz said:
I ran CM7 a couple days ago... only thing it really needed was the Vibrant modem.
new kernel isn't going to do much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WUT??????????!!!!!
How does it work?!?!?!? What's broken so far? What's working?
scrizz said:
I ran CM7 a couple days ago... only thing it really needed was the Vibrant modem.
new kernel isn't going to do much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did u just flash the i9k rom or what?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
bbm21 said:
Did u just flash the i9k rom or what?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
flash the one from the i9000 and
just extract the modem.bin from the Vibrant modem you choose
next
place it in your sdcard.
then after you have CM7 installed.
open terminal emulator and type this:
Code:
su
dd if=/sdcard/modem.bin of=/dev/block/mtdblock5
number one rule for CyanogenMod: don't ask for ETA's.
smackdown85146 said:
number one rule for CyanogenMod: don't ask for ETA's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think that applies since Cyanogen just started that none of the CMSGS work is "official"... Therefore, asking for ETAs aren't against the rules, just annoying
smackdown85146 said:
number one rule for CyanogenMod: don't ask for ETA's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No one is asking for ETA, i just asked if there is a dev out there willing to help with the probable key mapping problem that would occur if us vibrant users were to flash this rom...
bobbbb said:
I'm not demanding anything kid, I was just stating initially that CM7 came out, just in case some devs hadn't noticed. And i was replying to someone who said Eugene couldn't do anything because he only works with 2.2 source? Something ridiculous like that...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think if you read a little closer, I was commenting that the 2.2 source that was leaked to Eugene is about as useful to CM7/GingerBread ROM development as the 2.1 source was to 2.2 ROMs.
I can get data on JL5
Demiurgic said:
I can get data on JL5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the buttons are reversed though, correct?
no not switched only my list and back buttons work. This really should be labeled a tech demo. Of course it's full of dragons, just go read the known bugs over at the cyanogen forums. It works - fun to play with cyanogen7 but thats it - don't expect this to be a fully working daily driver.
Hi all, I'm new here, bought a GT7.7 few days ago. As i was using ICS on my GT8.9 before (I'm a member of the Galaxian-soup team who made a AOSP ICS rom for GT8.9), the HC feels very slow to me. So my question is why there is no ICS rom for GT7.7? The Galaxy Note has the same SoC as GT7.7, correct? Note has a official Samsung ICS leak, correct? So we should be able to get all needed libs from that rom to make everything work. Am i missing something? Is there some specific problem with GT7.7 that I'm not aware of or are there just no devs here who have tried?
I would try it alone, but unfortunately getting it to run needs some kernel mods and i don't have any experience with kernels. I know what needs to be done, so if there are devs here who have time and are interested, let's work together and make it happen.
Probably because the 7.7 doesn't really have a whole lot of community dev support yet, especially compared to the likes of the Note and the 8.9, both of which have been out for longer.
I would love to see you make one for us. ^^
If i would know how to cook a ICS ROM i already did it ^^
But someday that will happen
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
i think it is because da 7.7 just arrive US, and most of custom rom developers are from US, so we dont have much custom rom yet
I have to say I'm not missing ICS on this device - compared to another cheapo Chinese device (Aurora) I'm also using (where ICS is just SLOWWW!), the 7.7 is just right as it is! If ICS slows down the 7.7 then I'm sticking with HC.
sladeywadey said:
I have to say I'm not missing ICS on this device - compared to another cheapo Chinese device (Aurora) I'm also using (where ICS is just SLOWWW!), the 7.7 is just right as it is! If ICS slows down the 7.7 then I'm sticking with HC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm missing it. I've been using AOSP ICS on my GT8.9 for two months now and it is a lot faster then HC, especially the browser. The stock browser in GT7.7 is unusable for me.
I will try to build a AOSP ICS rom and see how far i get. Are there any kernel devs here?
I'd be interested in trying to help, but I've never actually done android kernel development. I have set up a build environment to compile the kernel but only to **** around for myself; I've never actually released anything on xda.
I am wondering though, is it actually possible to modify the HC kernel to run a ported ICS ROM? Over in GS2-land I'm pretty sure all the ICS ROMs are running modified, leaked kernels. Even CM9 is using mostly a leaked kernel with repacked initramfs I'm pretty sure.
teiglin said:
I'd be interested in trying to help, but I've never actually done android kernel development. I have set up a build environment to compile the kernel but only to **** around for myself; I've never actually released anything on xda.
I am wondering though, is it actually possible to modify the HC kernel to run a ported ICS ROM? Over in GS2-land I'm pretty sure all the ICS ROMs are running modified, leaked kernels. Even CM9 is using mostly a leaked kernel with repacked initramfs I'm pretty sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it is possible. For GT8.9 we are using android 3.1 kernel from Samsung (for some reason Samsung has not released android 3.2 kernel source code for GT8.9). Of course it needs to be modified to make hw acceleration, touchscreen etc work.
poisike said:
Yes, it is possible. For GT8.9 we are using android 3.1 kernel from Samsung (for some reason Samsung has not released android 3.2 kernel source code for GT8.9). Of course it needs to be modified to make hw acceleration, touchscreen etc work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like you need a better kernel dev than me, then. But as others have said, development over here is pretty limited--you could try posting in the dev section, but ezynow is the guy who has posted anything on the kernel side of things. Maybe things will pick up a bit with the VZW release, but to be honest, this is a pretty niche device--I love it and I'm sure most of the people reading this do too, but at the price point it's just never going to be that popular. Here's to hoping.
you need all the updated binary libraries for ICS in addition to the new kernel before installing ICS will be possible
Availability around the world ( aside from Asia ) might be quite low or next to non-existent, its a great device but I've got a feeling it wont get too much of a developer support as samsung just keeps on crunching out new tablets.
OK, i'm confused now. I've been gathering information about the gt7.7 and i have found a lot of conflicting information. Do we have a confirmed partition table information? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=21695494&postcount=5 < this looks right to me, can anyone confirm this?
The strange thing is that even the root.zip released here seems to mount the wrong partition, it mounts /dev/block/mmcblk0p4 as system?! To me it looks like the system is mmcblk0p9 or am i wrong?
Are P6800 and P6810 partition tables the same?
No they are not.
Sent from my GT-P6810 using XDA Premium App
poisike said:
OK, i'm confused now. I've been gathering information about the gt7.7 and i have found a lot of conflicting information. Do we have a confirmed partition table information? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=21695494&postcount=5 < this looks right to me, can anyone confirm this?
The strange thing is that even the root.zip released here seems to mount the wrong partition, it mounts /dev/block/mmcblk0p4 as system?! To me it looks like the system is mmcblk0p9 or am i wrong?
Are P6800 and P6810 partition tables the same?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The partition tables are different and details have been posted elsewhere.
davp has previously posted about the possible error in root.zip as you also have identified. See http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=22650451 There does not appear to be any response by JadeEyedWolf or any others. Whilst it might not be a likely critical problem, it may, at the least, be poor coding.
Sent from my GT-P6810 using XDA
I am proud to present benchmark competition between ext4 and f2fs file systems on Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini LTE (GT-I9195).
Base for this Benchmark
ROM: AICP - 11.0 - MM 6.0.1_r3 | OFFICIAL NIGHTLIES Build : aicp_serranoltexx_mm-11.0-NIGHTLY-20160202.zip
Gapps: No
Recovery: TWRP 2.8.7.0
f2fs
I was formatting 2 partitions as below to f2fs.(CM Marshmallow-Builds doesn´t support other partitions at the moment,waiting for a MM-Kernel )
/cache
/data
I was using 4 benchmark apps ( CF-Bench,RL Bench,Androbench,AnTuTu) to test performance.
CF-Bench
CF-Bench is an overall benchmark by Chainfire which measure everything except graphics.
RL Bench
RL Bench is an SQLite benchmark, it only tests database read/writes with various SQL commands in various amounts.
Androbench
Androbench is supposedly an all-around I/O benchmark.
AnTuTu
No need for an introduction, it's probably the most popular benchmark these days.
THX to somboons for his inspirating LG G2 Benchmark-Thread
PS. please excuse me, if my english not the best^^
@ssceddie
So, which one is better? Which screenshots concerns ext4 and which one concerns f2fs?
Omg,on mobiles devices you cant see the file-names,right? On Windows you can See the file-names. But I will edit the pics these days.....damn^^
On windows7 I can save each one as attachment.php.png
Maybe can you tell us according to the time which file system did u use at 19:46 and 21:10? Thanks for the comparison it was a really good idea. Im courious about how much is the difference with gapps
wolverinemaister said:
Maybe can you tell us according to the time which file system did u use at 19:46 and 21:10? Thanks for the comparison it was a really good idea. Im courious about how much is the difference with gapps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah gold idea, I'd made the test with ext4,first. But I'll edit the screens later.
Did you think the difference is signifcant with gapps? I dont think so....
@piskor @wolverinemaister
Edit: Now, on the left side on top of the screens you can see what is ext4 and f2fs
ssceddie said:
Ah gold idea, I'd made the test with ext4,first. But I'll edit the screens later.
Did you think the difference is signifcant with gapps? I dont think so....
@piskor @wolverinemaister
Edit: Now, on the left side on top of the screens you can see what is ext4 and f2fs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never been a great fan of F2FS...
But;
Option is the option... So some users is asking for it... That's why I'm tryin to provide it...
No big difference IMHO.
semdoc said:
Never been a great fan of F2FS...
But;
Option is the option... So some users is asking for it... That's why I'm tryin to provide it...
No big difference IMHO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree im sticking with what i trust.
semdoc said:
No big difference IMHO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes my opinion,too. But it were interesting to know, if the difference bigger if /system could be format to f2fs too , sometime if that possible^^
ssceddie said:
Yes my opinion,too. But it were interesting to know, if the difference bigger if /system could be format to f2fs too , sometime if that possible^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to @bon_bon
Formating /system to f2fs is going to make it SLOW, i never tried to format it but it's better to keep /system to ext4
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
As we know f2fs is the new optimized filesystem with 12 new patch ported by sources
it could improve performance by 2x as arter97 said.... But the problem is that there isnt a recovery with f2fs option
anyone can create one?
Watch the speed video of one plus 3 with ext4 and f2fs when opening asphalt 8 !!
Alessandro999 said:
As we know f2fs is the new optimized filesystem with 12 new patch ported by sources
it could improve performance by 2x as arter97 said.... But the problem is that there isnt a recovery with f2fs option
anyone can create one?
Watch the speed video of one plus 3 with ext4 and f2fs when opening asphalt 8 !!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The newest version of the official TWRP has the f2fs option, but as far as I know, all ROMs are still require/recommend ext4.
Alessandro999 said:
As we know f2fs is the new optimized filesystem with 12 new patch ported by sources
it could improve performance by 2x as arter97 said.... But the problem is that there isnt a recovery with f2fs option
anyone can create one?
Watch the speed video of one plus 3 with ext4 and f2fs when opening asphalt 8 !!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@arter97 also said this
https://twitter.com/arter97/status/884846437556604928
david19au said:
@arter97 also said this
https://twitter.com/arter97/status/884846437556604928
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
s
yes its true but i have used f2fs for long time and i never had a performance issue
i can say that performance increase with f2fs , especcially when opening games!
so i only want the OPTION TO SWITCH YO F2FS, nothing more!
anyone is responsible for everything that do on our phone!
I only had troubles with f2fs. yes the performance is nice, but don't be surprised when your system doesn't boot up anymore after a few months (happened to me twice, once on vacation without access to a laptop ) never happend with ext4. can be coincidence but I don't trust f2fs anymore
maikvitesse said:
I only had troubles with f2fs. yes the performance is nice, but don't be surprised when your system doesn't boot up anymore after a few months (happened to me twice, once on vacation without access to a laptop ) never happend with ext4. can be coincidence but I don't trust f2fs anymore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This exactly happened to me too while I was with F2FS on my older Galaxy S4, and also exactly while I was on vacation, F2FS can't be trusted anymore to either. But I got to admit, the performance boost is nice
Hi,
I'm using a rom based on OOS (xXx). I'd like to test F2FS for my system partition, is this possible with OOS? Each time I flash a ROM, system is coming back to EXT4.
Thanks a lot.
F2fs on system is not supported with oos ROMs I believe. I'm not sure about los based roms
furious.builder said:
system is coming back to EXT4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and it's doing the right thing :good:
Hitman478™ said:
...and it's doing the right thing :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is indeed. Tried F2FS to many times and it's always causing issues after a few months. EXT4 is rock solid and the way to go
maikvitesse said:
It is indeed. Tried F2FS to many times and it's always causing issues after a few months. EXT4 is rock solid and the way to go
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i can absolutely confirm this.. I came from a bad experience with f2fs as for now, ext4 is 10 way the best
Op3t has f2fs and it gave me no problems. I don't understand why they dropped it with the 5! Using f2fs on system partition is quite useless, no files are being written to that partition, ext4 is better in this case
I try use F2FS partition on my OnePlus 3T and everything smooth, no issue.
But when i use on OnePlus 5, got some little problem, such like cannot choose picture to upload on Instagram.
Honestly F2FS faster than EXT4 but F2FS still buggy, unstable i think and EXT4 stable hahaha
Wonder why on 3T, OnePlus using F2FS and on 5 using EXT4 -_-
There is still hope for f2fs. As arter97 from aospa team has a possible fix for the f2fs performance issues we might see later this year. But as for now its recommended to use ext4 on all partitions as it is more stable and doesnt get laggy after long usage.
Thanks a lot for your answers! I'm on f2fs only on data, I'll see if I have any trouble due to instability. For now I'm really happy w/ it 784.62 MB/s and 220.08 MB/s for reading and writing speed
furious.builder said:
Thanks a lot for your answers! I'm on f2fs only on data, I'll see if I have any trouble due to instability. For now I'm really happy w/ it 784.62 MB/s and 220.08 MB/s for reading and writing speed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Want to try the last beta with f2fs and just want to know if it still enough stable and fonctional ? And if I switch only for data or other partition ? I have see somewhere that with Oreo f2fs had a better support and I don't know if I need a special kernel or no ?