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..
Related
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.
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...
Running Continuum v5.2 do i need to format to ext4 partition? By default it is not formatted? will that help improve performance? how does that affect how the phone runs?
diabolik711 said:
Running Continuum v5.2 do i need to format to ext4 partition? By default it is not formatted? will that help improve performance? how does that affect how the phone runs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ext4 is only available through Talon kernel atm. It will change your system and convert it to ext4 (also known as lagfix). It makes your phone more responsive and also alot faster!
You will need the chainfire app to unable it once you got Talon.
I suggest you go take a look at Existz's Talon thread
Better performance
diabolik711 said:
Running Continuum v5.2 do i need to format to ext4 partition? By default it is not formatted? will that help improve performance? how does that affect how the phone runs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As BWolf56, said, it increases performance by cutting down on the I/O "lag". On the other hand, the increased performance does have a price - it will increase battery drain slightly. (More active filesystem = more electricity). Personally, I prefer to have ext4 enabled - battery drain (for me, at least) is worth the performance trade-off.
aryn.galadar said:
As BWolf56, said, it increases performance by cutting down on the I/O "lag". On the other hand, the increased performance does have a price - it will increase battery drain slightly. (More active filesystem = more electricity). Personally, I prefer to have ext4 enabled - battery drain (for me, at least) is worth the performance trade-off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to specify, the battery drain is so slight atm that it's not even worth mentionning. I'm getting same kind of battery life on Xcal and Talon (maybe 30min to a hr difference but I'm not that picky lol)
thanks for the info will convert
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.
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