Hey guys, what are you runnign your read-ahead kb for both internal and external? i have a class 4 sd card and i believe the best read ahead is about 2048 kb but im not so sure whats best for the internal Note II memory. any thoughts?
themichael said:
Hey guys, what are you runnign your read-ahead kb for both internal and external? i have a class 4 sd card and i believe the best read ahead is about 2048 kb but im not so sure whats best for the internal Note II memory. any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that playing with buffers merely masks slowness, but doesn't fix it. Leave it as default and get a faster card imo.
adrynalyne said:
I think that playing with buffers merely masks slowness, but doesn't fix it. Leave it as default and get a faster card imo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
masks as in a placebo effect?
themichael said:
masks as in a placebo effect?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As in fills the buffer and then the buffer transfers quickly. However the time to fill the buffer or cache is slow so you didn't really gain anything.
Make sense? It did in my head when I thought it but maybe not so much when I typed it.
I only see it useful if video or audio streaming is stuttering.
Ahh now that makes sense, thanks for the explanation, Adrynalyme. Since I know your a kernel master, what are your takes on the best io scheduler for the note II?
themichael said:
Ahh now that makes sense, thanks for the explanation, Adrynalyme. Since I know your a kernel master, what are your takes on the best io scheduler for the note II?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've always considered myself an amateur
I've always been preferential to sio or a tweaked deadline.
you cut yourself short!
sorry this is getting slightly off topic but are any io schedulers better suited for micro sds than the internal mem? also whats your take on the new row scheduler?
themichael said:
you cut yourself short!
sorry this is getting slightly off topic but are any io schedulers better suited for micro sds than the internal mem? also whats your take on the new row scheduler?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know, and I don't have any experience with it.
See? I am amateur
My opinion is that with most I/O schedulers, you won't notice a difference in day to day usage unless you mess around with settings and really screw them up. The only time you'd really notice is if you're transferring large files, and even then, you may not realize a difference. Yes, some are better and faster than others, but are you going to notice a difference moving a 5 MB file around if it takes 10 sec rather than 9?
Related
In general:
The problem with app2SD, in general, is slow SD card speeds.
Solution:
Hybrid storage pools, using the inbuilt applicaiton directory as the cache and the microSD directory as the main storage.
blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/shadow_of_hsp explains some of the conceptual stuff
Issues:
ZFS is only available via FUSE
...
Thoughts?
.milFox said:
In general:
The problem with app2SD, in general, is slow SD card speeds.
Solution:
Hybrid storage pools, using the inbuilt applicaiton directory as the cache and the microSD directory as the main storage.
blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/shadow_of_hsp explains some of the conceptual stuff
Issues:
ZFS is only available via FUSE
...
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I think having snapshot, replication, 100% consistency, and dedup capability would be the coolest thing on a phone, I think the ZIL would burn up the sd quicker and the resource utilization would eat battery and memory for the transactional caches to make it practical
.milFox said:
In general:
The problem with app2SD, in general, is slow SD card speeds.
Solution:
Hybrid storage pools, using the inbuilt applicaiton directory as the cache and the microSD directory as the main storage.
blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/shadow_of_hsp explains some of the conceptual stuff
Issues:
ZFS is only available via FUSE
...
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My only thought is: "why?". I have every app I want installed and still have 102MB available. Given just how much more memory this has than the G1's of yore, I don't really see much of a reason for AppstoSD, especially since Google is releasing their own implementation *soon*.
I was already down to 29 Meg on my internal memory.
I'll be happy when Google implements a2sd. I can't see it being any different than what a2sd us doing though.
Just make sure you have a class 6 card.
Down to fairly minimal memory as well, here.
as to 'why' over conventional a2sd ... the in-built memory is faster than even a class 6 card. A hybrid zpool will allow the faster memory to cache the slower memory (normally, a hybrid zpool combines a SSD with a hard drive pool).
Ah, didn't realize people were having problems with it. Even so, Google has announced that they're working on it themselves and since it will be an actual part of the Android OS, rather than something hacked on, I imagine it'll be a better implementation that whatever we can do. I'll be waiting for that up and coming android release.
People who are running out of memory have way too many apps installed.
Anyway, I think you will find it very difficult to use the MTD block for this purpose.
miketaylor00 said:
People who are running out of memory have way too many apps installed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree, I only have 50 apps in total but have used 107Mb of my 196Mb used.
I lost 33Mb just flashing a theme.
Does anyone know if TA utility will work on the Nexus to move all the Caches?
Which memory are we talking about, primary or storage memory? If memory serves me correctly, the current os can only 256MB of primary memory but that will be increased to the full 512 in a later OTA update. I thought I saw some thread flying around here about that.
Amdathlonuk said:
I disagree, I only have 50 apps in total but have used 107Mb of my 196Mb used.
I lost 33Mb just flashing a theme.
Does anyone know if TA utility will work on the Nexus to move all the Caches?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You almost proved his point. 33MB is a ****ty size for a theme - get a better Themerto follow. Hell, most themes for Windows aren't that big.
-bZj
miketaylor00 said:
People who are running out of memory have way too many apps installed.
Anyway, I think you will find it very difficult to use the MTD block for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How on earth can you possibly make this judgment? Have you ever hear of cache? What about app data? Not to tout my own app (see sig), but the reason I created it was because my myTouch, with all of its storage, would run very low the regular basis. Besides, I like to download apps, both free and paid. Why should I be limited? Personally, I never even came close to filling up my 500MB ext partition on my myTouch but could easily have 50-100MB of cache in just a few days. I think having a GB of internal would suffice. It would allow me to comfortably add as many apps as I please and at the same time, not think about cache and data on the daily basis. $575 and I'm still going to have to hack a2sd on to this. I hate that. I'd much rather use internal storage.
Personally, I'm all for it. If nothing else, it would be one hell of a proof of concept and would likely be useful especially to those who like to run their devices lean and fast. There are too many nice things to say about ZFS, so I'll just say this: it's only a matter of time and what better time than now?
But I don't think it would happen, for the same reason ZFS hasn't been ported to linux, incompatible licenses.
http://zfs-fuse.net/
Can we get the ball rolling on this?
dont worry boys
A king nexus build is coming VERY soon with OPTIONAL a2sd and kingnexus kernel #1
SOON!
kingklick said:
dont worry boys
A king nexus build is coming VERY soon with OPTIONAL a2sd and kingnexus kernel #1
SOON!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what's the Kingnexus kernel have?
cyanogen said:
So what's the Kingnexus kernel have?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 .... and how does it relate to ZFS (y on earth) and apps2sd?
~enom~
lmao you pissed of cyanogen ! xD
miketaylor00 said:
People who are running out of memory have way too many apps installed.
Anyway, I think you will find it very difficult to use the MTD block for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ever hear of games? Seriously, making a statement like this is just plain ridiculous. Homerun Battle 3D is over 30MB in and of itself. Yes, believe it or not, people actually use their nearly $600 3.7" screen for something other than reading email, of which I do plenty. So yes, I hacked apps2sd onto my Cyan ROM and it runs beautifully. I can't even tell the difference between this and internal it's so smooth. By the time Google releases a viable apps2sd the N1 will be yesterday's news. Internal storage and capacitive buttons = fail on the N1. Otherwise, kick ass device.
I never touched the kernal on alpha7 just added a s.d>placeholder in system int.d folder got apps2sd and the rest was set. Did not know kernal was part.
Hope the kernal is good.
So, everybody(somebody)((nobody)), explain to me the advantages of ext4 w/o journaling. I understand that write speeds for sd cards(?) is supposed to be better. My question is, where do we see the advantages? I ran an antutu benchmark on my phone and the write speeds were not the insane 150mb/s-ish write speed scores that Neutrino did when he posted that photo on his thread a while back, something more like a class 10 score IIRC. Anybody that can shed some light on this will receive my thanks!
Running Neutrino v2.0 EE
Nick
Take a look at this post http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1010807.
He explains well about boosting sd cards speed. You can do that by using Rom Toolbox which you can download in the Market. If you want to try it with Rom Toolbox, it's under Performance -> SD Boost and you'd like to change the default value, normally 128, to 1024 or 2048.
nickvisel said:
So, everybody(somebody)((nobody)), explain to me the advantages of ext4 w/o journaling. I understand that write speeds for sd cards(?) is supposed to be better. My question is, where do we see the advantages? I ran an antutu benchmark on my phone and the write speeds were not the insane 150mb/s-ish write speed scores that Neutrino did when he posted that photo on his thread a while back, something more like a class 10 score IIRC. Anybody that can shed some light on this will receive my thanks!
Running Neutrino v2.0 EE
Nick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything just runs faster and smoother. You may not notice it, but if you revert back to a stock ROM, you will feel frustrated as it'll feel much slower/choppier.
And those insane write speeds were due to GT-S mod, not because of Ext4.
Ahh that was my blunder. Thanks for clarifying.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
I’ve flashed DooMKernel and installed IncrediControl app.
There are 4 I/O schedulers: noop, deadline, bfq, cfq.
Which one is the best for performance & long battery life？
bfq for heavy IO load, deadline for normal usage.
Sent from my LT26i using XDA
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=22134559&postcount=4
Q. "Best I/O Scheduler?"
A.There is nothing called "best" i/o scheduler. Depending on your usage environment and tasks/apps been run, use different schedulers. That's the best i can suggest.
However, considering the overall performance, battery, reliability and low latency, it is believed that
SIO > Noop => Deadline > VR > BFQ > CFQ, given all schedulers are tweaked and the storage used is a flash device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25387200&postcount=1
drigerott said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=22134559&postcount=4
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25387200&postcount=1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Deadline > noop for average android workload. Noop is good for slow(ish) memory
Sent from my LT26i using XDA
yes me too prefer Deadline over Noop
i asked DooM for SIO in next releas
The phone has flash memory, I don't think the I/O scheduler makes any difference at all.
Or does the scheduler collect reads/writes to leave the memory in sleep mode (if there is any) a longer time?
Pezo said:
The phone has flash memory, I don't think the I/O scheduler makes any difference at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes , at least you can get 10 ms less in latency or 1 fps (considering an OC xperia s at 1,89 GHz ) but normally i prefer use noop and seldom bfq
P.S. I you wanna try the best you can benchmark it or force cpu freq. to 192 mhz and try all the schedulers
for those interested i benched at lowest cpu speeds, pretty much no difference between noop & deadline, noop slightly faster read (64.4 / 61.4)
cfq only 40.3 read, same write
There can be a huge diference!..
ishamm said:
for those interested i benched at lowest cpu speeds, pretty much no difference between noop & deadline, noop slightly faster read (64.4 / 61.4)
cfq only 40.3 read, same write
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have tested just about all and they are noticeable under different types of workload no doubt using setcpu on my Galaxy S3.
Cfq- "completely fair quing" does just as is sounds.
Bfq- "bandwidth fair quing" similar to cfq but distributes work load fairly giving the exception to prioritize work or task requiring more bandwidth given the app or task has set a priority
, usually asked within a program app.
Row "read over write" gives priority to reading task such as video play back, play intense games and or graphics, overall screen smoothness and cripness , as long as data doesn't require heavy write type of task. Example of an issue I had is, I left I/o in row and had been using ttorent to download a large torrent, uploading was OK but downloading speed was sticking and malfunctioning ttorent up until I switched to cfq. Could not multi task since downloading is obviously a write style task and all priority was to read over write. I love row when I am playing games or want a smooth experience.
Noop- is the idea of first come first serve, get you cake and wait in line to get another peice so if a fat ass is just requiring the whole cake others get hungry but must wait there turn. Bfq can solve that issue especially with sudden heavy multitasking not sticking a task to feel sluggish.
On demand - ramps up processor speed fairly quick returning to idle quick using juice to regain accelerated state once requested again. Conservetive is similar but less quick to jump up and with that said I can get good battery life on performance at times of heavy use do to the stability rather than constant ramps.
---------- Post added at 03:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------
ishamm said:
for those interested i benched at lowest cpu speeds, pretty much no difference between noop & deadline, noop slightly faster read (64.4 / 61.4)
cfq only 40.3 read, same write
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have tested just about all and they are noticeable under different types of workload no doubt using setcpu on my Galaxy S3.
Cfq- "completely fair quing" does just as is sounds.
Bfq- "bandwidth fair quing" similar to cfq but distributes work load fairly giving the exception to prioritize work or task requiring more bandwidth given the app or task has set a priority
, usually asked within a program app.
Row "read over write" gives priority to reading task such as video play back, play intense games and or graphics, overall screen smoothness and cripness , as long as data doesn't require heavy write type of task. Example of an issue I had is, I left I/o in row and had been using ttorent to download a large torrent, uploading was OK but downloading speed was sticking and malfunctioning ttorent up until I switched to cfq. Could not multi task since downloading is obviously a write style task and all priority was to read over write. I love row when I am playing games or want a smooth experience.
Noop- is the idea of first come first serve, get you cake and wait in line to get another peice so if a fat ass is just requiring the whole cake others get hungry but must wait there turn. Bfq can solve that issue especially with sudden heavy multitasking not sticking a task to feel sluggish.
On demand - ramps up processor speed fairly quick returning to idle quick using juice to regain accelerated state once requested again. Conservetive is similar but less quick to jump up and with that said I can get good battery life on performance at times of heavy use do to the stability rather than constant ramps.
I wonder what's in 2022 now. I read that on netbooks with eMMC BFQ gives a significant boost and there were even benchmarks for normal operation (not just read/write)
I too have definitely wondered where the Android OS has gotten in terms of efficiency with much newer hardware and proficiency in schedulers.
Being the OP is approaching a decade old, and a Google search for "android schedulers and their use cases" tubs this ancient thread up in #2 position! Lol
lenigma1too said:
I too have definitely wondered where the Android OS has gotten in terms of efficiency with much newer hardware and proficiency in schedulers.
Being the OP is approaching a decade old, and a Google search for "android schedulers and their use cases" tubs this ancient thread up in #2 position! Lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So also finding firmware with other schedulers is another story. So is finding firmware with F2FS on the /system partition
FineSoFar said:
So also finding firmware with other schedulers is another story. So is finding firmware with F2FS on the /system partition
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
F2FS AFAIK is not a scheduler, but a type of file system for NAND flash, such as the type on nearly all cell phones.
You likely have seen ext4, or XFS, and perhaps in windows you have seen NTFS when initializing a new drive
These are all types of file systems.
F2FS, specifically 3.2 and above are extremely fast & efficient, and support much larger drives and file sizes in comparison to its geriatric older cousin ext4
As for efficient schedulers for F2FS, this is where I need more data, preferably explained to me the 1st time like I'm a very inquisitive 5 year old
I have found info, lots of highly technical info I don't have the collage degree to understand fully on GitHub, but it doesn't do a great job at explaining why A type scheduler is better than B type scheduler for doing this that and those things.
But I am slowly learning!
If any Dev in the know happens upon this post, I'll dance at your wedding if you could drop a list of pros and cons for say the 10 most common schedulers used in MODERN Android builds?
Say, Oreo and above maybe?
I completely understand if you want to exclude Android 12, as I understand it contains significant changes to how Android and apps both read and utilize data
I suspect that would make answering my question quickly and efficiently near impossible, yeah?
Cheers all!!
lenigma1too said:
F2FS AFAIK is not a scheduler, but a type of file system for NAND flash, such as the type on nearly all cell phones.
You likely have seen ext4, or XFS, and perhaps in windows you have seen NTFS when initializing a new drive
These are all types of file systems.
F2FS, specifically 3.2 and above are extremely fast & efficient, and support much larger drives and file sizes in comparison to its geriatric older cousin ext4
As for efficient schedulers for F2FS, this is where I need more data, preferably explained to me the 1st time like I'm a very inquisitive 5 year old
I have found info, lots of highly technical info I don't have the collage degree to understand fully on GitHub, but it doesn't do a great job at explaining why A type scheduler is better than B type scheduler for doing this that and those things.
But I am slowly learning!
If any Dev in the know happens upon this post, I'll dance at your wedding if you could drop a list of pros and cons for say the 10 most common schedulers used in MODERN Android builds?
Say, Oreo and above maybe?
I completely understand if you want to exclude Android 12, as I understand it contains significant changes to how Android and apps both read and utilize data
I suspect that would make answering my question quickly and efficiently near impossible, yeah?
Cheers all!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the difference and I don't confuse the two. It's all about memory optimisation, which is why I mentioned it.
You don't usually choose a scheduler for the FS, you usually choose a scheduler for the host. I checked this with my own computer and for WD Gold for example BFQ was always better, but for Toshiba BFQ was ambiguous, it increased some characteristics and worsened others. On Android, similar scheduler tests, one is better and one is worse. So there's a choice between which numbers you want.
But on desktop Linux it's easier. F2FS and mq-deadline for SSD and ext4 and BFQ for HDD. After a good experience on the desktop I would like F2FS on the phone as well. The speed is not necessarily higher, but at least there will not be double journaling as with ext4 (if it is still relevant on A12).
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
So with the hubbub about io schedulers and stuff, I created two zips. One just creates an init.d script to force SIO to be the io scheduler on boot. The other installs the SIO module (thanks to batoo here for the module!) and creates an init.d that initiates and forces SIO on boot.
All the files are attached below, and you just have to flash them. There is no need to use an app to change the scheduler; I'd recommend telling the app to remove it's boot defaults.
Prerequistes
An unlocked Prime with CWM or TWRP is all that is really needed.
For those with a ROM/kernel that already has SIO as a module (ie Motley's kernel): use the sio-script zip.
For those with a ROM/kernel that does NOT have SIO incorporated: use the sio-script+module zip.
Credit goes to batoo who compiled and provided the SIO module. All I did was made it easily flashable without meddling in the terminal.
For those who are wondering why use this instead of an app to set SIO, there are a few reasons:
a) You can flash this with a ROM when you are starting from scratch.
b) Some apps don't set it while android is booting and only after you reach boot. This makes things significantly faster when your tablet is fresh started. And those that do set it with init.d probably take a little longer.
c) I don't really like an app messing with low-level boot instructions. That's just me.
Thanks st33med for giving noob like me an easy way to do this.
Quick question, how would i go about uninstalling this, would it be a matter of just deleting a script from init.d or would i need to do something else, the reaon i ask is that im having random reboots on andrrowooks latest rom while playing video over wifi, and im pretty sure ive narrowed it down to the enabling of sio through system tuner app.
Dont know if the issue is with the system tuner app or if the sio scheduler is conflicting with something else in my system, if so, i'd need to be able to uninstall, if that were the case
Prime seems to be playing nicely with cfq scheduler
Yeah just remove the 97siosched script or whatever it is called. It's in /system/etc/init.d/. If anything, noop would also give better performance now than CFQ with the motley kernel.
st33med said:
Yeah just remove the 97siosched script or whatever it is called. It's in /system/etc/init.d/. If anything, noop would also give better performance now than CFQ with the motley kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man
Yeah ive been reading up on it, and been testing the shedulers while using cool tool, seems like noop likes to use the lower clock speeds more often when compared to cfq, i think in regard to battery, noop does a better job at using lower level clock speeds compared to others, seems to do a better job at keeping to a steady 102mhz while idle too
Am currently testing noop and and the conservative governer, but seems like there is minor performance hit, i dont think its a placebo, and im leaning towards it being mostly the governer, so ill leave it for a while, and set it back to interactive and see if i notice a performance boost
Theres quite a few governers and schedulers out there, wonder if we'll see any more of them head towards the primes way
Like banderos said, this is great, thanks for making this so easy to use!
st33med said:
Yeah just remove the 97siosched script or whatever it is called. It's in /system/etc/init.d/. If anything, noop would also give better performance now than CFQ with the motley kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To clarify, you're suggesting noop + your init.d script for all kernels, or just if you're using motley kernel?
Komodo Rogue said:
Like banderos said, this is great, thanks for making this so easy to use!
To clarify, you're suggesting noop + your init.d script for all kernels, or just if you're using motley kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noop is a separate IO scheduler that comes as the default in the stock kernel. My script would replace the default io scheduler with SIO.
banderos101 said:
Thanks man
Yeah ive been reading up on it, and been testing the shedulers while using cool tool, seems like noop likes to use the lower clock speeds more often when compared to cfq, i think in regard to battery, noop does a better job at using lower level clock speeds compared to others, seems to do a better job at keeping to a steady 102mhz while idle too
Am currently testing noop and and the conservative governer, but seems like there is minor performance hit, i dont think its a placebo, and im leaning towards it being mostly the governer, so ill leave it for a while, and set it back to interactive and see if i notice a performance boost
Theres quite a few governers and schedulers out there, wonder if we'll see any more of them head towards the primes way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes sense. SIO is doing a little bit of sorting of database access in the stack, so it takes some CPU time. CFQ is the same, probably even more intensive since it's doing Round Robin on everything. Noop sticks by it's name, no operations. It's just a FIFO stack with io access.
We probably won't see anymore. There is deadline (which came with the ATP app, doesn't work well for us), bfq, vr, and a few others. But to be honest, on our device, SIO gives the best IO performance of them all but noop uses the least cpu time. CFQ is good for the other kernels besides motley's 3.0.6 kernel because they have low io and every program needs access at once. CFQ schedules and predicts which requests would take the most time and preempts them to another time in the close future. This allowed the browser to be smooth but load times would suffer a bit.
st33med said:
Noop is a separate IO scheduler that comes as the default in the stock kernel. My script would replace the default io scheduler with SIO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*facepalm* I didn't realize SIO was an IO scheduler, I've never heard of that one before.
Here, have a good laugh at my expense Through the eyes of a technically oblivious tech enthusiast: Half the time I have no idea what the people around here are talking about, but I like flashable scripts, ESPECIALLY init.d scripts, because it seems like that's where all the action is. :highfive: I'll try using something in different combinations until I blindly stumble into a combination that I like. If it breaks, I fire up adb, and if it's faster than before and doesn't kill battery, then it's a keeper.
But I DO at least understand IO schedulers, cpu governors, and other basic things! And I agree with "c) I don't really like an app messing with low-level boot instructions. That's just me." I also prefer a flashable/delete-able script to some app that you have to keep installed.
st33med said:
We probably won't see anymore. There is deadline (which came with the ATP app, doesn't work well for us), bfq, vr, and a few others. But to be honest, on our device, SIO gives the best IO performance of them all but noop uses the least cpu time. CFQ is good for the other kernels besides motley's 3.0.6 kernel because they have low io and every program needs access at once. CFQ schedules and predicts which requests would take the most time and preempts them to another time in the close future. This allowed the browser to be smooth but load times would suffer a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does any of that change if you're using a good SD card for swap space? I'm getting one (for free!) this week, and wanted to try making a swap space partition.
Komodo Rogue said:
Does any of that change if you're using a good SD card for swap space? I'm getting one (for free!) this week, and wanted to try making a swap space partition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Android would like using the SD card as swap. It's slower than the eMMC inside the machine. I wouldn't worry about swap, we have a gig of DDR2 memory and motley includes swap to the MMC card already. I don't know about IO schedulers for external memory (I think there are controllers on the card itself that do the work so no need for IO schedulers for them), but the IO scheduler we set only applies for internal memory.
st33med said:
I don't think Android would like using the SD card as swap. It's slower than the eMMC inside the machine. I wouldn't worry about swap, we have a gig of DDR2 memory and motley includes swap to the MMC card already. I don't know about IO schedulers for external memory (I think there are controllers on the card itself that do the work so no need for IO schedulers for them), but the IO scheduler we set only applies for internal memory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am actually looking for improve the perf of the prime of my wife. Talking about the swap, Motley use Zram that create a swap on the RAM directly. From my experience on my HTC Sensation using swap on my SD provide a better experience for multitasking and permit to have a bigger swap that perfectly fit for heavy use. I am just wandering if it's possible to partition the internal memory without unlock the bootloader.
bASKOU said:
I am actually looking for improve the perf of the prime of my wife. Talking about the swap, Motley use Zram that create a swap on the RAM directly. From my experience on my HTC Sensation using swap on my SD provide a better experience for multitasking and permit to have a bigger swap that perfectly fit for heavy use. I am just wandering if it's possible to partition the internal memory without unlock the bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, you can't change the internal partition scheme without unlocking it.
I'm still running a sandisk 32 gig class 4 card. While getting ready for ICS I backed up everything, including copying the card to my PC. I noticed how much stuff is on it from apps and such, that it makes me question....
Does the microSD card speed have any impact on how the bolt performs? Will it be faster or have less lag with one of those newer Sandisk UHS cards?
The only benefit you will see is faster read write speeds to the SD card. You would probably have to increase the read ahead buffer to get the full benefits.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
The only benefit you will see is faster read write speeds to the SD card. You would probably have to increase the read ahead buffer to get the full benefits.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that is part of my question.
I guess my thought process is... With the newer card having faster read/write speeds, I would think that any access the phone does of data/apps stored on the car might be faster. And with all the .Android_secure, android and other files/folders the bolt stores on the card (as opposed to internal memory), that isn't pictures or ring tones, I was wondering if it could make a noticeable impact on the performance of the phone or installed apps.
Has any one tried? Is there a way to measure or verify any improvements? I guess I'm looking for reassurance it will make a worth while difference before I go an spend money on another card.
As for the read ahead buffer, is that something that is easy to modify? how would that be done?
It in theory would make viewing pictures and stuff on the sd card faster. As for apps I'm not real sure. You can download apps like Rom toolbox that let you change the read ahead buffer but I think the thunderbolt maxes out at 4096. Anything faster will just default to that speed. To test it use one of the benchmark apps like antutu.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2