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.

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.

Does MTD/Yaffs2 perform better than BML/Rfs,Ext4?

By now maybe there are some available performance results, especially since it's possible to run the same rom with different file systems.
I haven't seen much discussion about the performance aspects even in theory.
Is yaffs2 faster? Is it more stable or less likely to corrupt files? Does it result in more disk writes? Is it harder on the storage medium?
So beyond the fact that MTD/YAFFS2 is more mainstream and will make CM easier to keep up with what, if any are the performance benefits of the filesystem itself? Especially for people who may never go to CM or won't for months.
Oh, last question: MTD allows more storage in the /data folder if I understand correctly. How much more though? What is the /data size under BML and how large can it get under MTD? And what performance benefit is there from that?

More stable, faster, less writes, easier on disk, open source, dev customizable for partition sizes (not just data)...
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

I switched over to MTD yesterday and so far my phone is running fine. The switch took half an hour and I notice a little less lag with
certain apps.
IMO, you need to try it for yourself and see if you like it.
Send from my SPH-D700 (Samsung Epic 4G)

garyf said:
By now maybe there are some available performance results, especially since it's possible to run the same rom with different file systems.
I haven't seen much discussion about the performance aspects even in theory.
Is yaffs2 faster? Is it more stable or less likely to corrupt files? Does it result in more disk writes? Is it harder on the storage medium?
So beyond the fact that MTD/YAFFS2 is more mainstream and will make CM easier to keep up with what, if any are the performance benefits of the filesystem itself? Especially for people who may never go to CM or won't for months.
Oh, last question: MTD allows more storage in the /data folder if I understand correctly. How much more though? What is the /data size under BML and how large can it get under MTD? And what performance benefit is there from that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. From my own personal experiences, yes it contains a quicker response in areas in which it is needed, more of a smooth user experience. I've not yet seen someone complain about a clunkiness due to our new partition configuration. Yes it is more than stable, data corruption on MTD/yaffs2 is unheard of, very unlikely as it doesn't just randomly occur or nowhere as often as it can on EXT4, it doesn't mean that if you do something like OC to a high frequency that it cannot happen. That's always is and always will be subject to how you run your device. And no, it is more meant for flash based devices which we in essence are. It's a ways smoother and reads and writes better to our nand.
2. To a normal user, in all honesty, it's something new. The benefits are the increase in space of data. 689 mb to be exact, although some of that space is always being used from the getgo. Being that there are now stock boot.imgs any user can go to MTD and not truly have a need to go back to BML or the constant fear of having to Odin for those who are iffy on it and not lose out on the stock feel, they've a choice between AOSP as well as StockWiz.
3. 689 mb MTD compared to about 200ish BML, or less in the data. And you've got to take space from the others to allocate it in the longer run of things. It doesn't stunt or skyrocket performance, it's independent of it.
Let me know if I answered your questions at all lol. I was vague as usual.

I've battery pulled dozens of times on yaffs2 with no data corruption. no such luck on ext4
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

I've not noticed one iota of difference between RFS, ext4 and now yaffs2 in real world usage, so all I can go on are the benchmarks I've run.
In my testing synthetic disk benchmarks have shown yaffs2 to perform about the same as RFS. ext4 is only faster when mounted with the unsafe, data-corrupting 'noauto_da_alloc' option. Without that options, it performs about the the same as RFS too.
yaffs2 is a win for all of the reasons marcusant listed aside from (IMO) performance.
---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------
starskyrob said:
I've battery pulled dozens of times on yaffs2 with no data corruption. no such luck on ext4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can thank the 'noauto_da_alloc' option for that. In all of the documentation I've found regarding ext4, it explicitly warned that if you use that option you must have battery backup for your disk devices or you will experience zero length files in the case of power loss.
Whoever first discovered that tweak on ext4 and convinced everyone to use should be smacked over the head a few times.

I think team bonsai disabled journaling
..
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

marcusant said:
I think team bonsai disabled journaling
..
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I was first making my kernel I noticed that my ROM running ext4 would only score 1700 in Quadrant while other ext4 ROMs scored 2300. It turned out to be the 'noauto_da_alloc' option that provided that instant 700 point boost. I also experimented with jourmaling and found the difference it made very small - at least in quadrant scores. The 'noauto_da_alloc' option leads to zero length files on power loss, regardless of whether or not journaling is on.
Oh, and I think I found the person who introduced this to everyone. It was supercurio.

I have to say I find this thread extremely informative.
Because of rfs/ext4, I expect there to be some form of tradeoff going between file systems. I'm a lot less worried about that now.
Thanks a lot all.
My understanding from the answers I've seen is that quadrant scores are about the same between rfs and yaffs2 and there are almost no real-world performance issues either way, except that it will take longer before you have to begin moving apps to sd storage.
If that's right, thanks for making it very easy to get that info.

marcusant said:
I think team bonsai disabled journaling
..
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch!...LOL! And as quickly as I could re-enable journaling I did. Did not notice any performance difference. Now we have MTD!

Another thing, the extra space on the /data partition only comes for roms built for MTD, correct?
Until TW roms are built from the ground up with MTD, rather than porting them across, that benefit will not apply?
Also can someone explain in more detail where this extra memory is coming from? Do BML filesystems just waste 400 megs or so of storage space, or is something being compressed or removed to get this extra storage?

garyf said:
Another thing, the extra space on the /data partition only comes for roms built for MTD, correct?
Until TW roms are built from the ground up with MTD, rather than porting them across, that benefit will not apply?
Also can someone explain in more detail where this extra memory is coming from? Do BML filesystems just waste 400 megs or so of storage space, or is something being compressed or removed to get this extra storage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This extra space is on every MTD ROM out. The space won't change whether the ROM is intentionaly built on MTD or not. The extra space on BML is taken by /cache which is reduced to 25MB or so. /cache is really only used by market(for large app downloads) and by OTA updates(which we'll only see 1 more).
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

ac16313 said:
This extra space is on every MTD ROM out
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WOW! I went and checked, and I have 267mb used and 409mb free now!
....and thats with NO apps on SD card!!!
Dammmmmmmmmmmm!
edit: 193mb used with 483mb free after moving apps to SD WOOHOO!
ac16313 said:
The extra space on BML is taken by /cache which is reduced to 25MB or so. /cache is really only used by market(for large app downloads)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would this affect extra large app downloads, as in when the app is 50+mb or some such?

DCRocks said:
Would this affect extra large app downloads, as in when the app is 50+mb or some such?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not if the market is fixed to cache to sdcard
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

ac16313 said:
Not if the market is fixed to cache to sdcard
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks, gonna have to keep an eye on that the next time I dl a large app

ac16313 said:
Not if the market is fixed to cache to sdcard
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is an init script in my rom and cm7 that downloads large apps to data.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

marcusant said:
There is an init script in my rom and cm7 that downloads large apps to data.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you make a flashable for the rest of us ROM hoppers?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

2nd system from webtop partition

I have noticed that the Atrix 2 is capable of running 2nd system from the webtop partition as a form of dual boot, I was wondering if there is any chance of a DEV implementing this into a recovery image, The Atrix 2 uses safestrap that has 2nd system support, was just wondering if it was possible to do this on the Atrix.
Many thanks

kyler084 said:
I have noticed that the Atrix 2 is capable of running 2nd system from the webtop partition as a form of dual boot, I was wondering if there is any chance of a DEV implementing this into a recovery image, The Atrix 2 uses safestrap that has 2nd system support, was just wondering if it was possible to do this on the Atrix.
Many thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would be awesome... I don't even have anything in the webtop partition at the moment... and the stupid hardware reserves 200mb of the ram for it anyways... might as well get SOME use out of it!

I'm going to look into it , I have seen it being done on the Razr , I imagine it works in a similar way to the sdcard dualboot just with the mount points pointed at the osh partition.
Sent from my MB860 using xda premium

rossbeck said:
This would be awesome... I don't even have anything in the webtop partition at the moment... and the stupid hardware reserves 200mb of the ram for it anyways... might as well get SOME use out of it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Call me crazy but If the hardware is reserving 200mb of ram for webtop, Wouldnt that be a matter of just editing memory reference.. or would that require the kernel source?
I recall when I had a galaxy 7500GT it had 98 MB of ram and some dev had tailored a kernel to use the 4 mb of video ram for system memory ( at the cost of 3d acceleration) to bump the phone to 102 .. not a huge difference but it helped.
being able to use /osh to boot maybe a super stripped down blur rom for camera/camcorder ect stuff would be nice though.

rossbeck;[URL="tel:31074258" said:
31074258[/URL]]This would be awesome... I don't even have anything in the webtop partition at the moment... and the stupid hardware reserves 200mb of the ram for it anyways... might as well get SOME use out of it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was under the impression that the 200mb of ram is reserved for the graphics and frame buffers, technically no webtop processes that consume RAM are started unless the device has been docked.

tomh235 said:
I was under the impression that the 200mb of ram is reserved for the graphics and frame buffers, technically no webtop processes that consume RAM are started unless the device has been docked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are right, he might be thinking on the /osh part.

Imo left the system as it is would be better, we all can dual boot from sd and thats good enough. If u want to use use webtop left over space cos of cm7-9-10 then best thing would be to decrease the sise of partition as much as possible. No partition table change no sydtem level mofigications required and u dont have to do any thing especial every time u flash. Correct me if i am wrong
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app

If I didn't need my phone for work, I'd try the sdcard method and symlink to stuff I've flashed into the webtop partition.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2