Wich Filesystem is better for Galaxy S? - Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

At now there are a lot of solutions for fix the lag issue on Galaxy S series... and some of these are based on ext4, jfs, ext2 and other. My question is: wich is the better filesystem for the hardware of the Galaxy S? I think than any solutions have pro and cons, so which is better for life battery? for speed? for CPU usage (that maybe is the same of battery usage)? for smoothness? And for other aspect that I have forgotten or omitted?

As a matter of fact, you won't notice any difference between filesystems' speedboost, especially, using Froyo. I tried several ones, but using RyanZA's OCLF 2.0: it delivers the easiest decent way to boost your GT-I9000 in my opinion.

No idea but some say ext4 is overkill and wastes cpu time. Ext2 would be way to go , I myself use jfs
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't recommended jfs. My experience with it has been far from great, it's unstable and has bugs.
I'd suggest ext4 but it appears to use more battery then rfs. As far as ext2 goes, it seems the most stable and less consuming but it's not the fastest imo.

Well battery life is the price to pay if you want something faster, EXT4 is the way to go.

And pinned topic that in detail describes differences is just invisible?

JFS has some bugs, Timezone and Locale changes every reboot
I think EXT4 is the best choice in terms of performance, but not for battery life.

yep
EXT4 is fast and best for galaxy s

You can't say that jfs has timezone bugs and so on, as there are users who don't experience this, like me. For me, jfs is the best fs, and I' ve tried them all.
But I guess you should try then all. It's a matter of opinion and taste, like opera/chrome/firefox
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

dupel said:
And pinned topic that in detail describes differences is just invisible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1, it's getting impossible to search around here. Last thing we need is more and more topics of the same thing.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

PaulForde said:
+1, it's getting impossible to search around here. Last thing we need is more and more topics of the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a discussion only about the better filesystem for the Galaxy S, not about the better LagFix. So I don't see the point of your contestation.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

JFS is the best in both battery and performance but it has a nasty timezone bug (locked to 00:00 and it resets on every reboot)
EXT4 is very fast and most stable and you shouldn't feel speed differences when using JPA or JPO.
EXT2 may cause data loss.

But EXT4 for what I have seen drain battery a bit faster than EXT2 or RFS...

Yup, me too but it's still the best compromise until somebody figures out the JFS bug...

ext4 is the best all-round. I'm on JFS at the moment and it seems unstable.

Why unstable? (besides the timezone issue)

Random stuff happening I didn't get with ext4 like hangs, phone resets, takes ages to wake up from lock etc.

FWIW, I've had little to no problems with EXT4 as a replacement for RFS.
Haven't compared with JFS in terms of battery, but I do get pretty good life overall, and very much similar to RFS.

IMO ext4 is the best at the moment. Smooth, fast, stable, reliable. But the minus thing is, it uses more battery.

dirk1978 said:
Random stuff happening I didn't get with ext4 like hangs, phone resets, takes ages to wake up from lock etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You must have done something wrong, I had none of those...

Related

JFS or EXT4

For a pure performance stand point, w/c file system is faster for our Galaxy S ?
Ext 2 is the fastest fs
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
jaju123 said:
Ext 2 is the fastest fs
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does that exactly answer my question ?
You can go for ext4 if you want a more "mature" file system.
Not saying that JFS is bad but most FS drivers/modules on galaxy s are something that compiles and mount, and that is all. Nothing about tuning/performance configuration wise.
*bump*
Anyone else have any feedback on the JFS vs EXT4 question?
Shammyh said:
*bump*
Anyone else have any feedback on the JFS vs EXT4 question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There probably has not been a ton of testing specifically for the sgs so you might have to rely on existing information.
Google ext4 vs jfs
jfs still have that weird local time back to gmt-0 bug and that you don't see the app cache being cleaned up ?
I don't have any proper feedback, but when you ask what's faster, what workload are you referring to? With journaling or without?
For instance, some fileystems may be insanely quick at creating directories, but may be insanely slow deleting files. Some filesystems may also perform better than others when using specific schedulers.The best thing to do is to test specific workloads yourself, and at the very least, ask yourself "fastest doing what?"
I'd be surprised though if there was a noticeable difference in speed for normal usage on the phone though and that whatever minute benefits are gained, will be wasted messsing around with kernels getting it working.
You may wish to consider checking standard benchmarks for the kernel you are using on normal HDD's honestly. Such benchmarks are plentiful, and whilst they are synthetic, maybe they can help you.
EarlZ said:
For a pure performance stand point, w/c file system is faster for our Galaxy S ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've run multiple tests on GalaxyS i9000 (froyo JPO) using....
1. SDcardBenchmarks
The read speeds of jfs are identical to ext4 : 95kBytes/sec approx
The write speeds of jfs (67.47kBytes/sec) however are 2x that of ext4 (39kBytes/sec)
2. Quadrant advanced v1.1.3
The "database writes" I/O test completes in....
12 secs using jfs
19 secs using ext4
I believe these figures are comclusive enough.
For GalaxyS I9000 froyo JFS is significantly faster than ext4
Hope that helps
Hmm, from what I've googled, jfs is better than ext4 in most aspects except maybe journaling reliability?
But from what I understand, the lagfixes with ext4 don't even use that option, so why do most devs recommend ext4 over jfs?
nwsk said:
Hmm, from what I've googled, jfs is better than ext4 in most aspects except maybe journaling reliability?
But from what I understand, the lagfixes with ext4 don't even use that option, so why do most devs recommend ext4 over jfs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my guess is because EXT4 is popular in the world of Linux.

EXT4 worth it?

Hi, so after cm rooting i noticed there is also an ext4 upgrade...is this worth it and will I have data lose during the change? Im on 2.3.3 and am wondering if it is really worth it! Ed
are you kidding me?
besides that this post should not even be in this forum (try Q & A) there are hundreds of other posts and threads discussing this topic if you only use your -(0-0)- !
Yes and no
It may have some advantages but as for what I'm not sure but as for nay major advantages I would say no. I'm still using EXT2 and my benchmarkes are still 1900+. I've tried almost all the other lagfixes and found no real advantage. The only thing I hate about custom kernels with lagfix is the secondary samsung splash screens and custom splash screen. They kill the post time.
I would say it isn't as worth it as what people say. First thing most people do after converting their filesystem is run quadrant. It's possible that improved quadrant scores don't translate to real world performance though.
Even worse, running quadrant actually engages the placebo effect so you walk in with a more positive impression. Meanwhile, I don't recall ever seeing anyone from the EXT4/EXT2 i9000 community running blind tests, and neither development community has actually shown any evidence formal testing has been performed. All the arguments seem to be based around quadrant and PC testing. If methods like this were applied to clinical testing, every drug would pass
Honestly, give both a try, but do it blindly.
Why Quadrant may be wrong
This is just a bit of background why Quadrant's scores may not reflect real life performance. Until we check the actual ratio's of Quadrant, and compare with actual usage ratio's though, we can't identify how "real" it's scores are.
Consider a benchmark which produces 1 final score. It may be calculated by:
[MAX TIME - Time to read 1000mb] + [Max time - time to write 1000MB]. In this case, both scores contribute to 50% of the final score, which can be worth 2x MAX Time.
Scenario 1: Time to read/write is both the same
Scenario 2: Read time is 1% shorter than Scenario 1, but write time is 1% longer. Both will have the same score in Quadrant..
Scenario 3: Read time is 5% longer than Scenario 1, but write time is 50% shorter. Scenario 3 will get the best score
Which one is ACTUALLY faster though. The benchmark-toting individuals will claim Scenario 3 is faster, because of the score. HOWEVER, that may be incorrect. Consider the following:
If a user reads 100x more data than they write:
1) Clearly, faster read scores are more important.
2) The BEST filesystem will be Scenario 2, despite being equal last.
3) Scenario 1 will be mid place
4) The scenario with the best score, will actually have the WORST performance.
5) A drop in 1% read performance would need a HUGE increase in write performance to actually be faster.
Until we have an idea of how accurate Quadrant REALLY is, run your own tests, and do so without knowing which filesystem is running. High quadrant scores may boost your e-penis size, but as you can see, it is theoretically possible for the scores which are produced to score slower performing filesystems more highly than faster ones. Disappointingly though, a decreasing number of users/developers at XDA these days are actually interested in the truth, and simply in not being wrong.
Even worse, the community for some reason seems VERY anti-RFS, and wont give it a chance regardless. It might be a LOT better than it used to be. Either way, it seems to be good enough for me.
Ignore the theatrics and run a blind test. That's the only way to determine what is ACTUALLY faster.
monkeytennis said:
Hi, so after cm rooting i noticed there is also an ext4 upgrade...is this worth it and will I have data lose during the change? Im on 2.3.3 and am wondering if it is really worth it! Ed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess you mean CF root right? Will just answer the data loose question. No you shouldnt. But do a backup before. Its fast and easy (if you are on CF root that is)
If its worth depends on you? You experience any lag on rfs? Phone slow?
ramrod54 said:
It may have some advantages but as for what I'm not sure but as for nay major advantages I would say no. I'm still using EXT2 and my benchmarkes are still 1900+. I've tried almost all the other lagfixes and found no real advantage. The only thing I hate about custom kernels with lagfix is the secondary samsung splash screens and custom splash screen. They kill the post time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@ramrod54 , where did you get ext2 support on JVK? And what the?
What samsung splash screens and custom splash? What rom and kernel are you on? And what lagfixes? And we both know quadrant score doesnt matter does it ?
Yes, it's worth it. Some things (Android Market, Gmail) works really MUCH faster then on rfs.
Unrealwolf said:
Yes, it's worth it. Some things (Android Market, Gmail) works really MUCH faster then on rfs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hrm, I've never noticed a difference. Market is slow on any room, hell market.android.com is slow too. Gmail always worked fast for me, on any rom.
Personally, I don't see or feel the point in using anything but rfs, but I suppose if someone has half a bazillion apps installed, then maybe an alternative filesystem might be better.
I say try it. If you notice a difference, good for you. If you don't, then stick with rfs.
What about battery performance ? from what I have read, battery performance is also better with RFS.
I always use ex4, its not as needed now on gingerbread but I just prefer the file system...it is better than RFS...but RFS has improved a great deal so you may not noticed that much difference, the rom may become a little smoother..You wont get data lose because of ex4, maybe the way the kernel is built...dont forget that 2.3.3 gingerbread is still beta and without the source code for the kernel you cant expect great things yet, although chainfire has done some amazing work and now we can change the file system using his app....works really well.
Also regarding battery, the difference in performance is such a small margin that its not even an issue.
What alot of people aren't aware of is that the Nexus S for example uses ex4 file system as default straight out of the box
Its not just a lagfix for the galaxy s, its a very good file system too...
Just a side note on Quadrant, ex4, ex2 will trick the app...if you buy the pro version, you will see how much the file system stretches on the bar...Quadrant is more for fun....or HTC
Think it´s worth cause rfs slow down your system after a while

EXT4 vs RFS in view of battery life

Hi,
I would like to ask with which file system will the phone last the longest?
RFS, EXT4, JFS or maybe something else? And by the way, which kernel to use to convert (if any)?
94kram01 said:
Hi,
I would like to ask with which file system will the phone last the longest?
RFS, EXT4, JFS or maybe something else? And by the way, which kernel to use to convert (if any)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Me too interest...
Fugumod is good if u know what you are doing, ext4 seems slightly better than jfs imho in respect of battery life
Sent from gt i9000 insanity 8.5/fugumod
I beg to differ, RFS uses less battery and it has lower overheads. Ext4 is still a far superior fs though
alcurtis93 said:
I beg to differ, RFS uses less battery and it has lower overheads. Ext4 is still a far superior fs though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolute RFS uses less batt
Rfs uses less battery, but to be honest with the improvements that Samsung has made to the filesystem throughput there is a near as makes no difference in performance levels between it and ext4.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
ext 4 is best
ext4 is way better in terms of performance so i dont mind sacrificing battery(its negligible when compared to rfs).. hope this answers ur ques..
ext4 is safe journaling and fast this is usage less battery to because write and read on io exception isnt use any confirmation exception like RFS
ext2 better than ext4 but ext2 not stabil as ext4 and possible making corrup data
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
To be honest, none of us actually know what we are talking about.. However, I will say that in recent ROM's, I don't recall getting the occasional EXTREMELY LONG stalls. But that isn't necessarily due to the filesystem, that could be due to other changes. My advice is to stick to RFS simply for convenience. If you convert the filesystem, upgrading ROMS can be a bit more painful.
If there is strong evidence that the filesystem has a huge impact on battery life, evidence should be posted (with different configurations of EXT4). It is plausible though..

[Q] What lag does a lagfix fix?

This could be a noob question but I haven't found an answer yet. Exactly what performance increase will I notice when enabling a lagfix?
I have tried so many ROMs and tried to compare them in terms of battery and performance with lagfix on and off but I don't notice any difference.
Does the lagfix help with general snappyness or load times on apps?
Thanks.
rubenoso said:
This could be a noob question but I haven't found an answer yet. Exactly what performance increase will I notice when enabling a lagfix?
I have tried so many ROMs and tried to compare them in terms of battery and performance with lagfix on and off but I don't notice any difference.
Does the lagfix help with general snappyness or load times on apps?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lagfix refers to fixing the lag of the stock Samsung "rfs" filesystem by converting it to an "ext4" or voodoo filesystem. It overall speeds up the responsiveness of the phone when pulling something up or scanning partitions etc. It does in fact increase performance.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
This is true upto froyo roms. I feel as though in gingerbread, rfs is as good as, if not better than, ext4 (lagfix).
^ +1
I definately have noticed this as well and totally agree.

[Q] RFS smoother than EXT4 on i9000 jvp+ fw:s?

Recently Ive heard some people running 2.3.4 on i9000 reports that It feels smoother than ext4.. I think I can agree that it feels a little more smooth.
But im confused if it might be just placebo. Since when I tried RFS. I didnt have much apps insstalled.. So what do you think of this? Is it true that some experience smoother interface with RFS on the latest fws ? And if so.. Why ?
With RFS, your filesystem will get fragmented.
After some time (a few weeks), you will have to unfragment it. (Like FAT32 is a little faster than NTFS, but NTFS has less risk of fragmentation)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App

Categories

Resources