I decided to start a new thread to experiment instead of posting inside the 1.3 thread.
Even with all this cache boosting, it seems the reported free memory is still above 60MB.
That's with no today plugins running.
Here are the settings I am testing:
Code:
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:4096)
"DataCacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:4096)
"DLL"="fatfsd.dll"
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"EnableCache4Way"=dword:00000001 (old: didn't exist)
"EnableCacheWarm"=dword:00000001
"FatCacheSize"= 0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:1024)
"Flags"=dword:00001006 (writethrough bla bla)
"MaxCachedFileSize"=dword:00020000 (don't cache >128Kb files)
"Paging"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:256)
"UpdateAcces"=dword:00000000 (do not update access times, should have a positive impact flash wearing)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\IMGFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:not sure)
"CacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:not sure)
"DataCacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:not sure)
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:256)
"UpdateAcces"=dword:00000000 (do not update access times, should have a positive impact flash wearing, not sur if it has any effect on IMGFS)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:00000400
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:not sure)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv\IMGFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:00000400 (at the cost of 256 Kb RAM)
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:128)
Therewas one single test which simply failed, I don't know why. I believe this failed test is the reason why the overall score is unavailable. But the machine is stable so far, I have no complaints.
The results are the following:
Code:
reference machines (from spb benchmark website database):
(1) Compaq iPAQ 3600 Series (2000, 206Mhz)
(2) Asus MyPal A620 (2003, 400MHz)
(3) Asus MyPal A716 (2003, 400MHz)
(4) Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 600 (2003, 400MHz)
(5) Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 610 (2003, 400MHz)
(6) Toshiba e750 (2003, 400MHz)
(7) Toshiba e755 (2002, 400Mhz)
(8) Dell Axim x51v (WM5, 400MHz, video hardware accel)
AND...
(9) Blue Angel WM5 Helmi 1.3 beta
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Comments
Spb Benchmark index 1000 1573 1622 939 1610 1225 1073 - unavailable probably because of the database error
CPU index 1000 1858 1796 1202 1813 1838 1234 1646 upper half, not that far from the others
File system index 1000 1092 1205 670 1175 1128 1270 - unavailable probably because of the database error
Graphics index 1000 4034 3954 1367 3943 688 651 1207 before tweaking it was around 850
ActiveSync index 1000 1458 2192 480 1775 1751 1479 3269 WINNER! And i am using USB 1.1!
Platform index 1000 1277 1510 796 1341 1085 850 - unavailable probably because of the database error
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Comments
Write 1 MB file (KB/sec) 794 1285 1284 589 1282 1221 1200 630 2160 Double the 2003 write results!
Read 1 MB file (MB/sec) 18.2 28.7 27.8 16.5 27.4 26.8 20.7 3.78 4.14 Better than the x51v
Copy 1 MB file (KB/sec) 790 1281 1279 581 1279 1252 1180 600 3526 Hmmm, sweet buffers...
Write 10 KB x 100 files (KB/sec) 560 654 928 422 936 859 768 245 314 different from above results, ROM technology might explain the difference...
Read 10 KB x 100 files (MB/sec) 6.35 8.64 10.4 6.34 10.7 9.62 7.6 1.88 1.43 here we lost against x51v
Copy 10 KB x 100 files (KB/sec) 476 500 820 376 830 757 626 247 290 below 2003, but still decent.
Directory list of 2000 files (thousands of files/sec) 123 23.6 22.2 14.1 20.4 20.5 153 1.33 8.19 trouncing x51v, but humble compared to 2003
Internal database read (records/sec) 421 1549 1539 1059 1518 1391 503 1950 error THIS is the mysterious ERROR...
Graphics test: DDB BitBlt (frames/sec) 26.9 316 309 185 305 68.4 42.3 277 109 HW graphics might give x51v the edge here...
Graphics test: DIB BitBlt (frames/sec) 13.5 27.2 27.3 14.7 27.3 22.9 29.9 22.2 31.1 but not here :)
Graphics test: GAPI BitBlt (frames/sec) 216 752 725 176 722 73.2 72.4 58.9 134 neither here :D
Pocket Word document open (KB/sec) 31 44.2 105 61.9 41.6 37.7 28.3 12.7 7.3 long loading times... UPX'ed apps might have an impact here?
Pocket Internet Explorer HTML load (KB/sec) 13.1 7.88 9.27 3.74 9.49 7.28 6.67 7.05 3.61 ditto
Pocket Internet Explorer JPEG load (KB/sec) 52.8 154 239 149 245 233 105 135 53.8
File Explorer large folder list (files/sec) 515 641 598 382 625 569 291 483 58.6
Compress 1 MB file using ZIP (KB/sec) 106 263 241 152 249 243 89.1 241 195 not beating x51v every time, but still \
Decompress 1024x768 JPEG file (KB/sec) 319 613 609 426 609 607 567 657 533 a good performer...
Arkaball frames per second (frames/sec) 108 250 242 102 245 61 55.7 52.6 96.3 seems x51v video drivers are teh suxx0rz
CPU test: Whetstones MFLOPS (Mop/sec) 0.046 0.076 0.076 0.061 0.077 0.075 0.076 0.117 0.074
CPU test: Whetstones MOPS (Mop/sec) 34.1 55.3 55.4 54.3 55.5 55.2 55.4 84.9 54.8
CPU test: Whetstones MWIPS (Mop/sec) 2.98 5.01 5.02 4.04 5.03 4.99 4.94 7.53 4.82
Memory test: copy 1 MB using memcpy (MB/sec) 70.4 103 98.4 61.2 99 106 90.6 116 102
ActiveSync: upload 1 MB file (KB/sec) 115 135 203 46.9 158 157 135 - 332
ActiveSync: download 1 MB file (KB/sec) 94 250 377 67.8 367 345 274 - 409
There is only one WM5 device besides teh BA, which I collected from this review:
http://www.mobiletechreview.com/Dell-Axim-X51v.htm
Helmi, can you make a hotfix cab called 'Brazilian_Joe_UNTESTED_performance_tweaks.cab' to apply these tweaks and add it to Helmi 1.3 beta front page, with a big red fat warning?
EDIT: The 'internal database benchmark error' happens even with the default 'Helmi 1.3 beta' registry values, so it's not a by product of my settings. Just to reinstate, even with this error the machine still runs without problems.
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the whole SBSH doing a party on my today screen under normal circumstances (PocketBreeze etc). My first benchmark (which I lost) still had all those on, andthe numbers were inequivocal.
It was not a 'whoa, look! 1KB/s write improvement!'...
when I said improved responsiveness, that's what it meant. switching tabs in today plugins, program loading, most tasks improved, the experience was more fluid.
Then I procceeded to have more barebone results to avoid having the programs distort the numbers.
That said, I completely agree with your consideration. My next steps are going to be:
1) reinstall everything
2) do another 'vanilla settings' test with everything running
3) put the tweaked settings back on
4) benchmark one more time...
So that we can verify the results.
Just working on my Settings also ..
seems I have forgotten somethin in the settings since I cant't achive the same results than earlier .. (reminds me on helmi not remembering this WiFi driver thing )
EDIT:
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Write 1 MB file 99.2 ms 10323 KB/sec 1300%
Read 1 MB file 58.1 ms 17.2 MB/sec 94%
Copy 1 MB file 39.4 ms 25990 KB/sec 3292%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 1718 ms 596 KB/sec 106%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 269 ms 3.72 MB/sec 59%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 1362 ms 752 KB/sec 158%
Directory list of 2000 files 238 ms 8.41 thousands of files/sec 7%
Some more testing required .. will set up the same Bench as BJ next time
EDIT2:
Okay .. here is what I am doing .. atm I am only switching values in the FATFS:
BufferSize:16 or 8 try around
CacheSize:0 (System reserves Memory) or 16384
DataCacheSize: 4096
will do more testing .. but smaller buffers seems to be much faster ...
Helmi 1.3 vanilla settings, no apps installed.
Free memory: 67.39 MB
CPU index 1386.85
Graphics index 1154.58
ActiveSync index 2502.05
Test - Time - Speed - % of iPAQ 3650 speed (reference machine)
Write 1 MB file 2471 ms 414 KB/sec 52%
Read 1 MB file 440 ms 2.27 MB/sec 12%
Copy 1 MB file 2014 ms 508 KB/sec 64%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 7968 ms 129 KB/sec 23%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 960 ms 1.04 MB/sec 16%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 7567 ms 135 KB/sec 28%
Directory list of 2000 files 2692 ms 0.743 thousands of files/sec 1%
Internal database read error
Graphics test: DDB BitBlt 9.71 ms 103 frames/sec 383%
Graphics test: DIB BitBlt 32.7 ms 30.6 frames/sec 226%
Graphics test: GAPI BitBlt 7.81 ms 128 frames/sec 59%
Pocket Word document open 43656 ms 5.97 KB/sec 19%
Pocket Internet Explorer HTML load 7958 ms 3.11 KB/sec 24%
Pocket Internet Explorer JPEG load 5221 ms 48.5 KB/sec 92%
File Explorer large folder list 35332 ms 56.6 files/sec 11%
Compress 1 MB file using ZIP 8807 ms 115 KB/sec 108%
Decompress 1024x768 JPEG file 496 ms 566 KB/sec 177%
Arkaball frames per second 10.6 ms 94.8 frames/sec 88%
CPU test: Whetstones MFLOPS 5369 ms 0.069 Mop/sec 150%
CPU test: Whetstones MOPS 1211 ms 52 Mop/sec 153%
CPU test: Whetstones MWIPS 10821 ms 4.62 Mop/sec 155%
Memory test: copy 1 MB using memcpy 10.2 ms 98.5 MB/sec 140%
ActiveSync: upload 1 MB file 4145 ms 247 KB/sec 215%
ActiveSync: download 1 MB file 3013 ms 340 KB/sec 362%
Storage card test results
Storage card "RAMdisk"
Speed index = 369.2
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Writing 1 MB file 109 ms 9377 KB/sec
Reading 1 MB file 77.7 ms 12.9 MB/sec
Copying 1 MB file to storage card 581 ms 1763 KB/sec
Copying 1 MB file from storage card 1524 ms 672 KB/sec
Writing 100 of 10 KB files 2275 ms 450 KB/sec
Reading 100 of 10 KB files 352 ms 2.84 MB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files to storage card 2330 ms 440 KB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files from storage card 7744 ms 132 KB/sec
Directory listing: 2000 files 247 ms 8.11 thousands of files/sec
Storage card "Storage Card"
Speed index = 344.21
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Writing 1 MB file 479 ms 2139 KB/sec
Reading 1 MB file 71.5 ms 14 MB/sec
Copying 1 MB file to storage card 865 ms 1184 KB/sec
Copying 1 MB file from storage card 1831 ms 559 KB/sec
Writing 100 of 10 KB files 2489 ms 411 KB/sec
Reading 100 of 10 KB files 449 ms 2.23 MB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files to storage card 3131 ms 327 KB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files from storage card 8187 ms 125 KB/sec
Directory listing: 2000 files 247 ms 8.11 thousands of files/sec
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It affects the real / overall / daily use performance. Try it out
Yeah, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. and benchmarks are statistics, right?
Benchmarks do not directly translate in real world performance, but if they are done properly, there is some meaning to them, and you can expect that the performance displayed at the benchmarks will be reflected in your daily usage.
And I started those benchmarks by going the other way round:
I found some settings, tweaked them, noticed a difference, and only then I started benchmarking to back up my subjective feeling with hard numbers.
let's see how the benchmarking saga unfolds...
Blame me stupid ... installed SPB Bench in RamDisk at first .. damn ...
Rebenching now, but can confirm that with the Settings fomr BJ an mine mixed to the way you use your device in daily usage this runs veeerrry smooth ... )
MasterMerlin said:
Just working on my Settings also ..
Okay .. here is what I am doing .. atm I am only switching values in the FATFS:
BufferSize:16 or 8 try around
CacheSize:0 (System reserves Memory) or 16384
DataCacheSize: 4096
will do more testing .. but smaller buffers seems to be much faster ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Code:
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=(decimal 16) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=(decimal 0) (old:4096)
"DataCacheSize"=(decimal 0) (old:4096)
"DLL"="fatfsd.dll"
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"EnableCache4Way"=dword:00000001 (old: didn't exist)
"EnableCacheWarm"=dword:00000001
"FatCacheSize"= (decimal 0) (old:1024)
results in
Write 1 MB file 2635 ms 389 KB/sec 49%
Read 1 MB file 301 ms 3.32 MB/sec 18%
Copy 1 MB file 1799 ms 569 KB/sec 72%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 7197 ms 142 KB/sec 25%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 641 ms 1.56 MB/sec 25%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 5892 ms 174 KB/sec 37%
Directory list of 2000 files 1844 ms 1.08 thousands of files/sec 1%
seems that the smaller buffer helps while reading
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
MasterMerlin said:
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, I only changed that and nothing else. I think the system was starved because of the small buffer size. I had PocketBreeze, iLauncher and PocketWeather on my today screen.
EDIT. trying the Chache = 0 settings and see how they perform, without messing with the buffer
EDIT2:
MasterMerlin, looks like there is some fluctuation in the file results. can you re-run the benchmark more than one time? I am not getting a result like your 'Read 1 MB file ~300 ms'. maybe the result in that specific run was better than average?
EDIT3: definitely, buffers=16 is not friendly at least to PocketBreeze. Other apps might gasp on it either. At the moment I installed PB, my machine froze. There goes another hard reset...
PocketBreeze and PocketWeather are on my Today Screen too. Will rerun the Bench now .. went to bed yesterday
EDIT:
You are right Brazilian Joe. The Benchmark seems to fluctuate much.
Retried with:
Write 1 MB file 2566
Read 1 MB file 433 ms
Copy 1 MB file 2042 ms
Write 10 KB x 100 files 6405 ms
Read 10 KB x 100 files 913 ms
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 6292 ms
Directory list of 2000 files 2593 ms
Will test around your Settings with other Buffers and some more reg-changes and rerun another Test...since this great ROM should stay stable and speedy ...
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its should make a difference... I've try it before I post the rom, but I dont test it much, but it seems our Brazilian Joe hv test it more then me.. so give it a try... I'll post a cab for it as requested.
ps: I dont think it safe to try this tweak on v1.2 or lower, but try it anyway...
If we use Brazilian Joe tweaks and later want to later go back to original configuration - how do we do that?
Manually?
or
Uninstall the cab?
hasanj4 said:
If we use Brazilian Joe tweaks and later want to later go back to original configuration - how do we do that?
Manually?
or
Uninstall the cab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm, I think if u use it in v1.3 its safe, but this is the revert back .CAB
btw I use Platformxxx.reg method (so its ready for further tweak update from Brazilian Joe and wont erase the reg entry if u uninstall it)
Just install this cab overwrite or uninstall the previous version, both way is ok. this .CAB will revert back registry value to its original value.
read my post i te main thread, these cache tweaks shouldnt be used on thier own, the speed is shortlived.
Midget_1990 said:
read my post i te main thread, these cache tweaks shouldnt be used on thier own, the speed is shortlived.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is that like the upgraded Axim/4700 filesys.exe performance issues? I didn't knew our machines were affected by it too.
Anyway, I'll keep the tweaks and see if the machine slows down over time.
Brazilian Joe said:
MasterMerlin said:
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, I only changed that and nothing else. I think the system was starved because of the small buffer size. I had PocketBreeze, iLauncher and PocketWeather on my today screen.
EDIT. trying the Chache = 0 settings and see how they perform, without messing with the buffer
EDIT2:
MasterMerlin, looks like there is some fluctuation in the file results. can you re-run the benchmark more than one time? I am not getting a result like your 'Read 1 MB file ~300 ms'. maybe the result in that specific run was better than average?
EDIT3: definitely, buffers=16 is not friendly at least to PocketBreeze. Other apps might gasp on it either. At the moment I installed PB, my machine froze. There goes another hard reset...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Joe,
The BA is a strange device, it seems, that it behaves itself in different ways So... It can be, that MasterMerlin is right. I tried the Cache=0 and Buffersize=16 on my BA, and It didn't freeze at all, and It became more speedier than with your settings. I use SPB pplus + diary + weather + time + backup on today (tabbed) + wireless + messaging + device lock on todayscreen.
The device freezes, if you try to raise Your posted setting's values.
I hope i could help a bit.. But I really don't understand why your BA freezes if you set cache to 0 and buffer to 16...
ThExSenatoR said:
Hey Joe,
The BA is a strange device, it seems, that it behaves itself in different ways So... It can be, that MasterMerlin is right. I tried the Cache=0 and Buffersize=16 on my BA, and It didn't freeze at all, and It became more speedier than with your settings. I use SPB pplus + diary + weather + time + backup on today (tabbed) + wireless + messaging + device lock on todayscreen.
The device freezes, if you try to raise Your posted setting's values.
I hope i could help a bit.. But I really don't understand why your BA freezes if you set cache to 0 and buffer to 16...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I told before, SBSH PocketBreeze dislikes this setting. Anyway, I will try setting the caches to 0, but keeping the buffer size and see if it improves. Then I will proceed on halving the buffer until it does not work anymore.
EDIT:
Just to clarify, I use PocketBreeze with iLauncher, ContactBreeze and PocketWeather as tabs inside it.
Anyway, the buffers = 16 setting looked like it was working for me, but when I installed PocketBeeze it froze...
/EDIT
On the subject of benchmark fluctuation, I think the cause is the same thing which also causes video to skip, some system process might be taking up too much processing.
Since our hardware is not built for WM5, we might be suffering the same problems that the Axim/4700 users have. Do we have a filesys.exe throttler? If we don't, is there a way to do it? It would be so much easier to find the guilty process if we had a XP-style task manager, which displayed the amount of cpu time each process is taking... Anyone knows of any?
Could someone who owns a unit run a few benchmarks on it. GXMark, SPB Benchmark and so forth.
Thanks in advance!
SKTOOLS lite
316.98
(Highest of list!)
BTW,
it got a 14.4MB/S read speed off internal storage, and a 8mb/s on main storage ...
writing was very low (400kb/s) on internal, on main it was the same (8mb)
SKTOOLS Benchmark results:
=====================
Integer: 332.4050 Moves/25 usec
Floating point: 7.505 MWIPS
RAM access: 638 Speed index
Draw bitmaps: 780 Speed index
Main storage (write): 13653.34 KB/s
Main storage (read): 13269.25 KB/s
Internal Storage (write): 470 KB/s <------- This value is strange...
Internal Storage (read): 199448.56 KB/s
File List: 1921 Items/s
File List (Internal Storage): 4261 Items/s
SKTools loading: 3295 ms
HTC Diamond with bepe's ROM bElite v0.52
Dynamicsbenchmark
Average FPS; 2674
Min FPS; 22
Max FPS; 27
Where can i get that sktools? anyone a .cab file
I found it!!
Here are the results;
SKTOOLS Benchmark results:
=====================
Integer: 331.1766 Moves/25 usec
Floating point: 7.577 MWIPS
RAM access: 596 Speed index
Draw bitmaps: 164 Speed index
Main storage (write): 13623.06 KB/s
Main storage (read): 15673.47 KB/s
Internal Storage (write): 492.94 KB/s
Internal Storage (read): 2643.72 KB/s
With New Dutch ROM 1.37
humm...
doesn't look promising...
http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.jsp?orderby=dvsg_best&brand=HTC&submit=OK&benchmark=glpro
bronx said:
humm...
doesn't look promising...
http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.jsp?orderby=dvsg_best&brand=HTC&submit=OK&benchmark=glpro
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont think so, look at the low levle benchmarks, the hardware is more then capable. Seems driver still are ble... but at least now it can run gl benchmark
SKTOOLS Benchmark results:
=====================
Integer: 329.9098 Moves/25 usec
Floating point: 7.308 MWIPS (Very Slow)
RAM access: 630 Speed index
Draw bitmaps: 784 Speed index
Main storage (write): 12880.50 KB/s
Main storage (read): 14124.14 KB/s
Internal Storage (write): 456.70 KB/s
Internal Storage (read): 12487.80 KB/s
File List: 1536 Items/s (Very Slow)
File List (Internal Storage): 5010 Items/s
SKTools loading: 3409 ms
HTC HK edition w/ some turning on registry.
So i was using JACHero 2.63(the fastest of the Hero ROMs) and i still can't stand the lag. Before everyone suggests i format the card and make sure i have a linux-swap partition. I did that...and it is the fastest version i have found. But still to slow on certain things. There are times when i can't even see who is calling before the call is placed in voicemail.
But enough of that, i was wondering if anyone knows exactly why its so slow? I ran cat /proc/meminfo and free in terminal and if i remember correctly the same amount of ram was free on both JAC2.63 and JF1.51, there may have been a Mb difference but not something i thought would be a big deal. Now from what i have read i believe the HTC Hero has the same CPU but double the storage and memory. So i would think its a memory problem...but if both versions show the same amount of memory free wouldn't both be laggy as the other?
I maybe missing something but just wanted to try and see if i could get some answers.
Anyone?
More stuff is running in the background at all times in Hero ROMS than in JF ROMS. If you run a task manager you will see that there are alot more services running than in JF ROMS. Also Rosie runs in the background and uses alot of memory no matter how optimized because it searches for widgets. My only suggestion would be to like you said reformat sd card with the 3 partitions and also make sure you have a class 6 sd card. If it's still slow try cleaning up Rosie and modifying the build/removing all unnecessary widgets. There's a modified Rosie, 333kb compared to the ~600+ kb available at leakdroid.com Hope that helped.
Having more stuff in the background running will cause more RAM Usage. but i didn't see it. Can someone who is running JACHero 2.63 reboot the phone and once it is up and running, go to Terminal and run
Code:
cat /proc/meminfo
and post that info. Also in terminal run
Code:
free
JF1.51 meminfo:
Memtotal: 98668 kB
Memfree: 3892 kB
JF1.51 free:
Memtotal: 98668
Used: 97132
Free: 1536
damnitpud said:
Having more stuff in the background running will cause more RAM Usage. but i didn't see it. Can someone who is running JACHero 2.63 reboot the phone and once it is up and running, go to Terminal and run
Code:
cat /proc/meminfo
and post that info. Also in terminal run
Code:
free
JF1.51 meminfo:
Memtotal: 98668 kB
Memfree: 3892 kB
JF1.51 free:
Memtotal: 98668
Used: 97132
Free: 1536
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sure give me a second
EDIT:
JACHero2.63:
cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 98328 kB
MemFree: 2960 kB
Buffers: 140 kB
Cached: 23544 kB
SwapCached: 2060 kB
Active: 37880 kB
Inactive: 43604 kB
Active(anon): 29372 kB
Inactive(anon): 29524 kB
Active(file): 8508 kB
Inactive(file): 14080 kB
Unevictable: 948 kB
Mlocked: 0 kB
SwapTotal: 31440 kB
SwapFree: 26832 kB
Dirty: 0 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 57000 kB
Mapped: 14584 kB
Slab: 3976 kB
SReclaimable: 984 kB
SUnreclaim: 2992 kB
PageTables: 5048 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
WritebackTmp: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 80604 kB
Committed_AS: 1511656 kB
VmallocTotal: 155648 kB
VmallocUsed: 61248 kB
VmallocChunk: 33788 kB
JACHero2.63:
free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 98328 96544 1784 0 140
Swap: 31440 4608 26832
Total: 129768 101152 28616
Thanks, alritewhadeva i have some research to do. i'm not sure those tests are giving the right values. Your total is different then mine.
If they are correct i don't see why JF1.51 would be running much faster...the difference in memory doesn't seem like enough to cause lagginess...I could be wrong i guess...maybe those small amounts are huge in mobiles?
damnitpud said:
Thanks, alritewhadeva i have some research to do. i'm not sure those tests are giving the right values. Your total is different then mine.
If they are correct i don't see why JF1.51 would be running much faster...the difference in memory doesn't seem like enough to cause lagginess...I could be wrong i guess...maybe those small amounts are huge in mobiles?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linux will fill the memory as close to 100% used as it possibly can.. Things load faster from memory, so it keeps everything it possibly can in RAM. Free memory is wasted memory.
So as long as there isn't something grossly wrong with the memory management in a ROM, they should all be pretty similar when you look at "free."
The difference is, in a lighter ROM like JF or Cyanogen, more of the actual framework fits in RAM under normal use, so you can access it quickly. In Hero, the framework is larger so parts of it don't fit and get swapped out - causing lag.
Saiboogu said:
Linux will fill the memory as close to 100% used as it possibly can.. Things load faster from memory, so it keeps everything it possibly can in RAM. Free memory is wasted memory.
So as long as there isn't something grossly wrong with the memory management in a ROM, they should all be pretty similar when you look at "free."
The difference is, in a lighter ROM like JF or Cyanogen, more of the actual framework fits in RAM under normal use, so you can access it quickly. In Hero, the framework is larger so parts of it don't fit and get swapped out - causing lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what i was starting to think, thanks for the info Saiboogu.
I am using S-Blurry-1.04 on my G1. I live in arizona(usa) and i have full tmobile 3g. I have tried multiple times to create an account on every cloud, and i always get the error, the blur service has indicated it is busy. I also successfully created an account on the motorola website but when I try to log in on my G1, it tells me my account does not exist on the blur service. Please help me.
ebg10 said:
I am using S-Blurry-1.04 on my G1. I live in arizona(usa) and i have full tmobile 3g. I have tried multiple times to create an account on every cloud, and i always get the error, the blur service has indicated it is busy. I also successfully created an account on the motorola website but when I try to log in on my G1, it tells me my account does not exist on the blur service. Please help me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have the android sdk installed? If so can you pull up adb logcat and tell me exactly which server it is using? Unless you already know these from what you see on your screen. What we want to do is try to ping those servers and see if they are in fact up. Like someone else said they might be pegged since the phone was just released officially.
I got the log but it was too long to post. I am a java developer and picked out what I believe to be the most important lines:
10-24 19:58:39.411 1667 1692 I WSBase : doRequest(): url: https://ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com:4...counts/4/newaccount?k=android&f=pb&of=0&ssl=1
10-24 19:55:19.701 1750 1750 I NewsBroadcastReceiver: action: com.motorola.blur.service.blur.Actions.ACTION_PURGE_DATAdata: null
_inspectResponse(): found an error from a web service response: ServiceBusyError msg: SERVICE_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED req: accounts/4/newaccount
all of the others were just about power manager.
ebg10 said:
I got the log but it was too long to post. I am a java developer and picked out what I believe to be the most important lines:
10-24 19:58:39.411 1667 1692 I WSBase : doRequest(): url: https://ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com:4...counts/4/newaccount?k=android&f=pb&of=0&ssl=1
10-24 19:55:19.701 1750 1750 I NewsBroadcastReceiver: action: com.motorola.blur.service.blur.Actions.ACTION_PURGE_DATAdata: null
_inspectResponse(): found an error from a web service response: ServiceBusyError msg: SERVICE_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED req: accounts/4/newaccount
all of the others were just about power manager.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup it looks like their servers are pegged. I tried pinging it and got some horrific responses.
Code:
ping ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com
PING ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com (63.162.194.209) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=76.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=117 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=70.8 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=73.3 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=74.3 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=6 ttl=48 time=74.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=7 ttl=48 time=79.9 ms
^C64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=8 ttl=48 time=193 ms
--- ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 36088ms
vs pinging google
Code:
ping google.com
PING google.com (74.125.45.100) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=38.2 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=39.2 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=41.0 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=44.1 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=44.4 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=39.1 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=43.4 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=38.4 ms
^C
--- google.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7029ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.210/41.013/44.402/2.476 ms
Thank you for all your help!!!!!
I ran a traceroute on that server as well and it appears (like they should be doing) that they are using a load balancer but it doesn't appear to be working very well or it is just too overloaded.
I would recommend trying off and on from time to time and see if you can sneak in there and get registered.
loaded rom just fine on MT3G 32b. Having same problem as others. Tried for two hours to login on all cloud servers. Have created account already on Motos website and recieved confirmation email.
so is the only solution to just wait a few weeks for all the new Cliq users to register since it just launched?
**EDIT** got through this morning 12Nov09. working great!
shafty023 said:
yup it looks like their servers are pegged. I tried pinging it and got some horrific responses.
Code:
ping ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com
PING ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com (63.162.194.209) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=76.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=117 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=70.8 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=73.3 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=74.3 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=6 ttl=48 time=74.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=7 ttl=48 time=79.9 ms
^C64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=8 ttl=48 time=193 ms
--- ws-cloud2-qa3.blurdev.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 36088ms
vs pinging google
Code:
ping google.com
PING google.com (74.125.45.100) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=38.2 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=39.2 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=41.0 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=44.1 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=44.4 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=39.1 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=43.4 ms
64 bytes from yx-in-f100.1e100.net (74.125.45.100): icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=38.4 ms
^C
--- google.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7029ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.210/41.013/44.402/2.476 ms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i've tried to ping,
but what apperances is 64 bytes from 63.162.194.209: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=76.5 ms
and it seems that it will not stop.
i've seem the debug,it says that there are somethings wrong in setup.
Problem to login into the account
I got an old account and its not working its like having problem with the internet connection but also i've tried to register a new account and it wont let me do that so what can i do, about this problem i had the Motoblur 1.0 and had another option to setup that was "setup cloud" why dont you try to add this option because that was the way that i did setup the account to the phone.
By the way this option is located when you hit the menu key in the phone and appears emergency call, setup wifi, setup APN and the next one should be setup cloud but it doesnt have it.
Best Regards,
David Peniche
i try and it says "an error has accured try again" so im guessing everyone is having that problem?