Related
I just installed the JM2 firmware, and was surprised to see a new Samsung widget task manager (which is actually really good! =O).
However, once I opened the task manager and went to the 'Summary' tab, the RAM information lists it out of 326mb. For example, at the moment it's showing 258mb out of 326mb used...
Is there some separate ram locked away? As I thought the Galaxy S had 512mb...
So anyone know what the deal is with the 326mb listed instead of 512mb?
Need Froyo to address 512mb.
Next time, please use the search button. It's startin to be a pain to write this over and over again (and not just me.)
The device was taken apart to bits countless times, it does contain 512MB RAM.
Why can't you see it all? the software doesn't show it. YET. Remember that the original JF3 firmware only showd 256.
Pika007 said:
Next time, please use the search button. It's startin to be a pain to write this over and over again (and not just me.)
The device was taken apart to bits countless times, it does contain 512MB RAM.
Why can't you see it all? the software doesn't show it. YET. Remember that the original JF3 firmware only showd 256.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, apologies.
So does that mean currently the Galaxy S isn't actually using all its RAM due to the firmware not allowing it? Kind of strange, didn't know there was anything preventing the use of it at all since the Desire and Nexus One were happy enough with 512mb on Eclair.
Two queries though in relation to Pikas post -
I believe that this issue was uncovered over on GSM Arena. I think Samsung at the time assured everybody that the odd RAM results was just a firmware bug that would be resolved on release products.
So we have a release product where there are still problems with the memory and GPS.
Secondly, I thought it was the kernel that limits the memory to 256 through a Himem flag? Why is then that people are now seeing 326 and not 256? Is it a half way fix? Has the kernel changed?
Your question is not dumb at all.
No phone depends on Froyo to use more than 256mb of RAM.
Even if our phone have 512MB of Ram, we probably won't have so much available.
Many phone always have some ram used by the radio hardware.
I don't know if Samsung will be able to reduce radio (GSM, 3G etc) memory usage.
326MB is maybe the maximum we will get.
I bet we'll see 386-400~ after froyo.
The system is more memory efficient.
If it says 512 it should display 512.
The problem is that when you open the task manager it displays 258/386. I thought it was using the remaining RAM for VIDEO. If its not, then we should see a 512 no matter how much the OS consume. It can even be 500/512 but it should say 512.
I hope Samsung fixes this soon as they sold me a phone with no working LEDs and less RAM??!!
darcjrt said:
I hope Samsung fixes this soon as they sold me a phone with no working LEDs and less RAM??!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My sgs has working LEDs. The screen and the menu/back buttons. If yours are not working, the phone is broken.
Sent with my Personal Dis-organizer GT-I9000
What's wrong with 326mb ram my hero at most shows around 110 and I'm on froyo not to forget
MacaronyMax said:
What's wrong with 326mb ram my hero at most shows around 110 and I'm on froyo not to forget
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not the prob. In Samsung's task manager it's showing the entire phone has a MAXIMUM of 326mb RAM, and obviously much less free.
On Advanced Task Killer I usually have between 70-140mb free, not that much different from my old Hero.
As has been pointed out this may be due to the Galaxy S's use of 2 different types of RAM, with 128mb OneRAM. I can only assume this is dedicated to video.
This would then make sense for the 326mb RAM listed in most applications, with the extra 60mb or so locked away for Android (326mb + 128mb + Android reserved = 512mb).
Still kind of weird how Samsung has made the phone...I was trying my friend's new desire and it listed in Advanced Task Killer as usually having about 240mb free while mine had 100mb free.
I posted originally at [Q] Amount of RAM? under Galaxy S I9000 Q&A , but I guess its relevant to this post as well.
There is new information to indicate that perhaps Galaxy S doesn't have 512MB of RAM after all. Click on the above link .
Samsung Open-Source may hold the key..
Samsung have released the kernel source code for the GT-I9000, and it helps a little bit with trying to decipher what's going on.
From what I can tell, based on specs and previous posts, the SGS has 384MB of -normal- RAM, and 128MB of "OneDRAM".
OneDRAM is a dual-port memory, which means that multiple chips can be connected to it, and using it at the same time. For example, the phone main CPU and a graphics co-processor could both be sharing this memory and using it to communicate with each other. For more details on what OneDRAM is, I recommend trying google.
From what I can tell, the OneDRAM is used for a few things such as video memory, shared communication buffers with the phone hardware etc.
There are a few places that hint at where this memory may be going, the first of which is the kernel configuration:
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM = 16384
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_GPU1=8192
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_ADSP=1800
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC0=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC1=1024
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC2=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC0=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC1=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_TEXSTREAM=10240
=> These parameters describe approx 128MB of space that is being reserved at boot time for the GPU, DSP, Camera(s), and communicating with the phone hardware.
I'm not sure yet whether all of that memory comes out of OneDRAM or not (I haven't spent too long looking into it, and I'm not really much of a kernel guy).. however, it seems that linux-2.6.29/arch/arm/plat-s5pc11x/bootmem.c might offer a few more hints as to where it goes, if anybody's keen to look.
I seem to have gotten a little bit off-track, but basically, it seems that yes, the phone does have 512MB of RAM. It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it. This is probably because the coprocessor(s?) require blocks of contiguous physical memory, and achieving that would not be able to be guaranteed if standard memory allocation techniques were used. Maybe someone with more of a clue than I can help fill in some more of the blanks with the above...
Regardless, I don't think that the apparent discrepancy is anything to worry about. The SGS is an awesome phone, and that will remain the case whatever the amount of RAM it tells you is "free" (well, within reason I guess). Go and and enjoy it for what it is
Intratech said:
Need Froyo to address 512mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False.
With Froyo you'll be getting a total RAM of 304Mb.
You do know that basing a statement from what you see in pre-alpha/alpha firmwares is a really bad idea, right?
gundyman said:
Samsung have released the kernel source code for the GT-I9000, and it helps a little bit with trying to decipher what's going on.
From what I can tell, based on specs and previous posts, the SGS has 384MB of -normal- RAM, and 128MB of "OneDRAM".
OneDRAM is a dual-port memory, which means that multiple chips can be connected to it, and using it at the same time. For example, the phone main CPU and a graphics co-processor could both be sharing this memory and using it to communicate with each other. For more details on what OneDRAM is, I recommend trying google.
From what I can tell, the OneDRAM is used for a few things such as video memory, shared communication buffers with the phone hardware etc.
There are a few places that hint at where this memory may be going, the first of which is the kernel configuration:
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM = 16384
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_GPU1=8192
CONFIG_ANDROID_PMEM_MEMSIZE_PMEM_ADSP=1800
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC0=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC1=1024
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_FIMC2=12288
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC0=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_MFC1=32768
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAMSUNG_MEMSIZE_TEXSTREAM=10240
=> These parameters describe approx 128MB of space that is being reserved at boot time for the GPU, DSP, Camera(s), and communicating with the phone hardware.
I'm not sure yet whether all of that memory comes out of OneDRAM or not (I haven't spent too long looking into it, and I'm not really much of a kernel guy).. however, it seems that linux-2.6.29/arch/arm/plat-s5pc11x/bootmem.c might offer a few more hints as to where it goes, if anybody's keen to look.
I seem to have gotten a little bit off-track, but basically, it seems that yes, the phone does have 512MB of RAM. It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it. This is probably because the coprocessor(s?) require blocks of contiguous physical memory, and achieving that would not be able to be guaranteed if standard memory allocation techniques were used. Maybe someone with more of a clue than I can help fill in some more of the blanks with the above...
Regardless, I don't think that the apparent discrepancy is anything to worry about. The SGS is an awesome phone, and that will remain the case whatever the amount of RAM it tells you is "free" (well, within reason I guess). Go and and enjoy it for what it is
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, has anyone ACTUALLY confirmed we don't have 512MB of physical ram.. I've seen lots of guessing, but I haven't actually seen any proof yet. So has someone confirmed it by actually checking the hardware..
andrewluecke said:
But, has anyone ACTUALLY confirmed we don't have 512MB of physical ram.. I've seen lots of guessing, but I haven't actually seen any proof yet. So has someone confirmed it by actually checking the hardware..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone actually confirmed that we DO have 512MB ?? I am yet to see any firmware reaching over 384MB, and all the evidence out there suggest otherwise . Samsung says it has 512MB RAM, but they never said all of that memory is available for Applications. So it could very well be 384MB regular RAM (available for Apps and system) while rest is reserved for specialized hardware. Technically that is still 512MB *RAM*, given that manufacturers have a tendency to overstate numbers and specs, I'm not going to take Samsung's word for it...
I hope at least some of that is being used by the OS.
PhoenixFx said:
Has anyone actually confirmed that we DO have 512MB ?? I am yet to see any firmware reaching over 384MB, and all the evidence out there suggest otherwise . Samsung says it has 512MB RAM, but they never said all of that memory is available for Applications. So it could very well be 384MB regular RAM (available for Apps and system) while rest is reserved for specialized hardware. Technically that is still 512MB *RAM*, given that manufacturers have a tendency to overstate numbers and specs, I'm not going to take Samsung's word for it...
I hope at least some of that is being used by the OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've never read where Samsung says they've used 512MB RAM, I've only read where people claim they've said (aka nothing official). So, we aren't even taking Samsung's word, we are taking a 3rd party's on the manufacturer's non-binding, private word is.
@
It's just that some of it appears to be "locked away" for special use before anything else can get at it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously, I'd prefer 512MB plus this 128 locked away separate, but this sounds like an elegant solution if correct. Also, it goes a long way to explain how the SGS can be pretty snappy in areas like gaming while maybe keeping other vital parts open and smooth like the 3G radio.
*EDIT* I'm reading now that new pressers have released more official information on newer Galaxy S models, still I've googled for them and even gone to Samsung site, still haven't viewed anything with my own eyes from Samsung.
Well, that's my point.. The problem I'm seeing is that I've seen quotes for OneNand and OneDRAM in many places, but it is based on random diagrams for other phones, or rumors... I'm simply interested in knowing the truth, but am growing increasingly concerned by the growing number of claims about this phone, which are being repeated, but after some research, many I've found seem to be based on information which isn't actually proof (and often, seems to be based on stuff such as "I heard the SGS has...".
As I said, SEMC was running around claiming it was OneNand (which isn't even RAM), using claims which I've never seen proven. OneDRAM seems more likely, and it would mean we basically have 512MB of RAM (oneDRAM seems as though it would be usable for normal RAM too), but I'd still like to know for sure..
alovell83 said:
I've never read where Samsung says they've used 512MB RAM, I've only read where people claim they've said (aka nothing official). So, we aren't even taking Samsung's word, we are taking a 3rd party's on the manufacturer's non-binding, private word is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung Captivate (scroll down to Memory section), is that enough proof for Samsung's claim ??
Ram for the G1 actually be? In the specifications of the G1 are all 192MB Ram
but in fact when testing with any program system information are reported as 92Mb, 100Mb other then gone?
Who can give me an explanation does not? Thank alot.
92 mb is for user usage (and honestly it's about 40 mb when you fully launch your phone).
100 mb is used by Android, GPU etc.
That is actually quite incorrect.
The "missing RAM" is allocated to various pieces of hardware.
For example, if you have a computer (including laptop) with an IGP graphics chip and you go into your bios settings, it usually has somewhere that you can configure the amount of MAIN MEMORY to allocate to the IGP. You would then notice that the total amount of memory available to the operating system is affected by changing this number.
16 MB is allocated to the GPU.
A *HUGE* chunk is allocated to the RADIO.
Some more is allocated to some other things.
A note about the "RADIO"... it isn't really just a RADIO. The MSM7201 chip in the phone actually has TWO ARM PROCESSORS in it. The "user" processor, and the "radio" processor. Each of these processors run different OPERATING SYSTEMS. The USER processor runs Android/Linux, the RADIO processor runs the proprietary radio operating system. These two systems are more-or-less INDEPENDENT with certain links to allow you to transfer data between them in order to communicate on the cell network.
In my opinion, listing the memory allocated to the radio as part of the total RAM is quite dishonest. This is compounded by the fact that their proprietary firmware is SO TERRIBLY FLAWED that it eats up a whole half the RAM of the thing. I am fairly convinced that the firmware developers at HTC must write their firmware in visual basic or some other horribly inefficient trash rather than writing it properly in assembly. There is NO justification for the radio to eat up more than about 8 MB, and yet it eats up nearly 100.
Very helpful explanation of how the phones are working internally. Thank you very much lbcoder!
Sent from my Htcclay's Superfly G1 using XDA App
lbcoder said:
That is actually quite incorrect.
The "missing RAM" is allocated to various pieces of hardware.
For example, if you have a computer (including laptop) with an IGP graphics chip and you go into your bios settings, it usually has somewhere that you can configure the amount of MAIN MEMORY to allocate to the IGP. You would then notice that the total amount of memory available to the operating system is affected by changing this number.
16 MB is allocated to the GPU.
A *HUGE* chunk is allocated to the RADIO.
Some more is allocated to some other things.
A note about the "RADIO"... it isn't really just a RADIO. The MSM7201 chip in the phone actually has TWO ARM PROCESSORS in it. The "user" processor, and the "radio" processor. Each of these processors run different OPERATING SYSTEMS. The USER processor runs Android/Linux, the RADIO processor runs the proprietary radio operating system. These two systems are more-or-less INDEPENDENT with certain links to allow you to transfer data between them in order to communicate on the cell network.
In my opinion, listing the memory allocated to the radio as part of the total RAM is quite dishonest. This is compounded by the fact that their proprietary firmware is SO TERRIBLY FLAWED that it eats up a whole half the RAM of the thing. I am fairly convinced that the firmware developers at HTC must write their firmware in visual basic or some other horribly inefficient trash rather than writing it properly in assembly. There is NO justification for the radio to eat up more than about 8 MB, and yet it eats up nearly 100.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WOW! Thanks for this bit of really really useful and interesting info! I really didn't know how RAM is divided and just tried to write what I know/think.
SO! It's really interesting. There is not a way to rewrite this radio system? This one itself would free about 90 mb of RAM! It would be greater performance boost as all of this swaps, compcaches and other stuff. I thinks you know what I mean, my english is not so perfect.
raven_raven said:
WOW! Thanks for this bit of really really useful and interesting info! I really didn't know how RAM is divided and just tried to write what I know/think.
SO! It's really interesting. There is not a way to rewrite this radio system? This one itself would free about 90 mb of RAM! It would be greater performance boost as all of this swaps, compcaches and other stuff. I thinks you know what I mean, my english is not so perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be the million dollar question, and the problem is that the thing is totally undocumented. And due to its age, it wouldn't make economic sense to reverse engineer it.
The next best option would be to disable the radio altogether. We could certainly write a simple bit of code that does nothing except pass everything off to the main processor. With that, and a little bit of USB MASTER mode and a USB UMTS modem.... might not be as pretty, but it could potentially do the same work, and would free up all the memory lost to the radio.
This is quite fantastic. Too bad that I won't posses coding skills needed to do that in next 15 years .
No one tried to do that? It is really fantstic vision, to free up about 100 mb of RAM! Man, G1 would totally have a second life.
Something tells me that it is impossible or nearly impossible to do this, I mean ppl would sacrifice 3D graphics for 10 mb of RAM (and someone had to write kernel doing that), and yet, when there is 10 times better profit, no one took the challenge.
Very interesting topic. In my opinion programming skills are not really the limiting factor, but documentation and especially architectural documentation of the phone is.
Independently of skills and time, I would not even know where to get the required information. Additionally there is the need for equipment (JTAG, etc.) due to the bricking risks. Unfortunately at the moment I can see only a very few guys here in the forum having that knowledge and most likely they do not have the time to concern about this.
Sent from my Htcclay's Superfly G1 using XDA App
AndDiSa said:
Very interesting topic. In my opinion programming skills are not really the limiting factor, but documentation and especially architectural documentation of the phone is.
Independently of skills and time, I would not even know where to get the required information. Additionally there is the need for equipment (JTAG, etc.) due to the bricking risks. Unfortunately at the moment I can see only a very few guys here in the forum having that knowledge and most likely they do not have the time to concern about this.
Sent from my Htcclay's Superfly G1 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No... it really is just programming skills. The part of the radio that we would be messing with is the code run on the ARM4 (I think its a 4... might be a 5), and just long enough to hand off to the ARM6. THAT part is very well documented. What isn't documented is the actual radio circuit and how to interface with that from the ARM4.
We're talking literally about just a few lines of assembly and throwing redboot at the ARM6 instead of the SPL.
I saw a lot of complaints about lags, when the memory is filled, etc.
As we know, ssd performance degrades as it gets filled, that's true, however, project butter is based on a lot of caching.
I would suggest to keep your storage at least 15% free, and more importantly, check the cache size of your favorite apps, especially after a big write operation, like downloaded a hd movie or installed a large game. These kind of operations tend to take space aggressively, leading to cache performance suffering. Just clear the cache if the cache is big.
I've been using chrome intensively for the past week (the first week with my n7), chrome had built >200mb cache already. I cleared it, now my n7 is like butter flying again.
i dont get where you get off saying that performance decreases when the SSD is filled up. I had my nexus 7 filled up almost to the max (16gb) and it didn't lag one bit. It's probably just the babies around here that like to complain everything that are experiencing the lag. what about the other two hundred and forty million people out there not complaining?
It has been proven that the lag exist and if you haven't experienced then good for u. Half of the people will never experience because not all of users will fill up space fully. Other half doesn't know about existence of this forum and lag thread etc.
Sent from desire s
Foka002 said:
It has been proven that the lag exist and if you haven't experienced then good for u. Half of the people will never experience because not all of users will fill up space fully. Other half doesn't know about existence of this forum and lag thread etc.
Sent from desire s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sure the lag exists... but he's saying it's due to storage issues. I personally don't think so; SSD do not lag, they might take .5 milli second to read through, but so what? we've become a generation of no patience. There must be some other issue regarding the lag that people are experiencing. I can almost 100% guarantee its not the SSD
Some apps collect memory when they run for long periods of time and start to hog the system down.
However, the main culprit in Android lag is the way it treats UI rendering. It has nothing to do with how much an ssd is filled.
Beards said:
Some apps collect memory when they run for long periods of time and start to hog the system down.
However, the main culprit in Android lag is the way it treats UI rendering. It has nothing to do with how much an ssd is filled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Project butter has triple caching for cpu, gpu, display. Ui rendering is gpu and display related, it needs caching too. Do you now where it's the cache from? It's part of ssd.
MRsf27 said:
i dont get where you get off saying that performance decreases when the SSD is filled up. I had my nexus 7 filled up almost to the max (16gb) and it didn't lag one bit. It's probably just the babies around here that like to complain everything that are experiencing the lag. what about the other two hundred and forty million people out there not complaining?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have the problem, which doesn't mean other people don't either.
Here is the lag thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=31647380
MRsf27 said:
sure the lag exists... but he's saying it's due to storage issues. I personally don't think so; SSD do not lag, they might take .5 milli second to read through, but so what? we've become a generation of no patience. There must be some other issue regarding the lag that people are experiencing. I can almost 100% guarantee its not the SSD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ssd cannot get that magic latency number all the time. It needs memory banks to increase throughput. It has to have enough space for memory banks, if there is not enough space left, the throughput and latency will suffer. This can explain some larger ssds are faster than smaller ones, with the same everything else.
angellsl said:
Ssd cannot get that magic latency number all the time. It needs memory banks to increase throughput. It has to have enough space for memory banks, if there is not enough space left, the throughput and latency will suffer. This can explain some larger ssds are faster than smaller ones, with the same everything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you're saying, however, the speed at which a SSD will read is gonna be faster, regardless of these memory banks; I'm sure thats why when they release a 16gb version of a device and you only get 13gb, it has to be accounted for something. they do not have 3gb worth of worthless OS apps. i'm sure that's saved up storage for extra memory.
MRsf27 said:
I understand what you're saying, however, the speed at which a SSD will read is gonna be faster, regardless of these memory banks; I'm sure thats why when they release a 16gb version of a device and you only get 13gb, it has to be accounted for something. they do not have 3gb worth of worthless OS apps. i'm sure that's saved up storage for extra memory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Storage capacities mentioned by retails usually follow 1000MB = 1GB, whereas the true value is 1024MB = 1GB. This is one cause for lower then reported size available.
Another reason is, possibly, the space just isn't accessible. For example, I have a 500GB HDD. Only 465GB is usable. Regardless if the 500GB reported is 1000MB=1GB or 1024MB=1GB, 465GB is still falls short. And this is with a complete drive wipe too. My 80GB HDD also does this (74GB usable), and I'm almost certain 99% of storage media does this too (I have yet to see any storage device listed that has the exact amount of storage usable as specified on the box).
To further what I mentioned above, the storage chip used isn't as static with usable storage space when manufactured. What I mean is, one 16GB SSD chip might have a few MB difference on usable space then another 16GB chip of the same make. To compensate for this, and to keep a uniform device specification, the partition is just locked at 13GB usable.
I have a feeling storage media is just marked to what "nice" number it rounds to, regardless if it has that much or not (16GB = 20GB, 91GB = 100GB, etc.).
espionage724 said:
Storage capacities mentioned by retails usually follow 1000MB = 1GB, whereas the true value is 1024MB = 1GB. This is one cause for lower then reported size available.
Another reason is, possibly, the space just isn't accessible. For example, I have a 500GB HDD. Only 465GB is usable. Regardless if the 500GB reported is 1000MB=1GB or 1024MB=1GB, 465GB is still falls short. And this is with a complete drive wipe too. My 80GB HDD also does this (74GB usable), and I'm almost certain 99% of storage media does this too (I have yet to see any storage device listed that has the exact amount of storage usable as specified on the box).
To further what I mentioned above, the storage chip used isn't as static with usable storage space when manufactured. What I mean is, one 16GB SSD chip might have a few MB difference on usable space then another 16GB chip of the same make. To compensate for this, and to keep a uniform device specification, the partition is just locked at 13GB usable.
I have a feeling storage media is just marked to what "nice" number it rounds to, regardless if it has that much or not (16GB = 20GB, 91GB = 100GB, etc.).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"usable" space. that unusable space must be used for something regardless if we can't access it.
MRsf27 said:
i dont get where you get off saying that performance decreases when the SSD is filled up. I had my nexus 7 filled up almost to the max (16gb) and it didn't lag one bit. It's probably just the babies around here that like to complain everything that are experiencing the lag. what about the other two hundred and forty million people out there not complaining?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complete and utter logic fail... Good job!
Sent from my GT-P7310 using Tapatalk 2
angellsl said:
I saw a lot of complaints about lags, when the memory is filled, etc.
As we know, ssd performance degrades as it gets filled, that's true, however, project butter is based on a lot of caching.
I would suggest to keep your storage at least 15% free, and more importantly, check the cache size of your favorite apps, especially after a big write operation, like downloaded a hd movie or installed a large game. These kind of operations tend to take space aggressively, leading to cache performance suffering. Just clear the cache if the cache is big.
I've been using chrome intensively for the past week (the first week with my n7), chrome had built >200mb cache already. I cleared it, now my n7 is like butter flying again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i will second the OP's cache fix and say it worked for me as well. my Chrome cache was up to 144MB and reboots would not fix the constant lag, so i cleared the cache, rebooted, and it was back to blazing fast for me.
MRsf27 said:
sure the lag exists... but he's saying it's due to storage issues. I personally don't think so; SSD do not lag, they might take .5 milli second to read through, but so what? we've become a generation of no patience. There must be some other issue regarding the lag that people are experiencing. I can almost 100% guarantee its not the SSD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You seem to be confusing the Nexus 7's emmc storage for a high speed ssd. It is only capable of ~15MBps read and write.
Depending on how cache is chunked (assuming it even is), it could easily cause the lag people are seeing.
---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 PM ----------
espionage724 said:
Storage capacities mentioned by retails usually follow 1000MB = 1GB, whereas the true value is 1024MB = 1GB. This is one cause for lower then reported size available.
Another reason is, possibly, the space just isn't accessible. For example, I have a 500GB HDD. Only 465GB is usable. Regardless if the 500GB reported is 1000MB=1GB or 1024MB=1GB, 465GB is still falls short. And this is with a complete drive wipe too. My 80GB HDD also does this (74GB usable), and I'm almost certain 99% of storage media does this too (I have yet to see any storage device listed that has the exact amount of storage usable as specified on the box).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, the term Gibibyte (GiB) is now used for 1024 values in storage - although you're right about it being due to manufacturers.
A 500GB hard drive will always be 465GB, you're right that 1GB = 1000MB, but you also need to take into account that 1MB = 1000KB and 1KB = 1000B.
If you do the sums, you'll find the exact difference is always 7% (by dividing 1 by 1. 024 three times) . Which is why you'll find 465 is 93% of 500, and the same for 74 of 80.
MRsf27 said:
sure the lag exists... but he's saying it's due to storage issues. I personally don't think so; SSD do not lag, they might take .5 milli second to read through, but so what? we've become a generation of no patience. There must be some other issue regarding the lag that people are experiencing. I can almost 100% guarantee its not the SSD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's because of certain apps which are running. When mine starts to lag, I clear caches and stop apps. Mine wouldn't lag before I installed a few new apps in the past couple weeks. could be news360 or pulse or flipboard. Could also be nexus 7 media importer. Mine never lagged before I installed any of those.
My lag had gotten bad. Androbench showed SQL speed in 1 or less. But I've found a workaround which really 1000% improves it. Running Francos kernel with fsync off...
Makes a HUGE difference for me in all apps. Especially Facebook and TiVo.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 04:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ----------
BTW - Google now app loads instantly now. Took at least 10 seconds. Before. Same for Google chrome.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Don't even bother filling. Encrypt and watch the speed drop to 1/10 on a blank fresh install. :/ deal breaker for me, unfortunately. I have to be able to encrypt and won't put up with a tablet that feels two years older than it is.
These are after encryption and before. Clean machine with 4.1.1 and everything killed. In a day with 2 or three things installed, the encrypted result halves.
Lag existence even if when i play a game like pool....
Envoyé depuis mon Nexus 7 avec Tapatalk
Hey guys, I'm new to this forum so forgive me if I seem a bit nooby.
I've been hacking and modding my phone for about a year now and lately I've come across roms that are just massively laggy and I think it may be due to the fact that they install system data on the SD Card's ext4 partion, I've got a Class 4, 16 GB SD Card and I'm thinking due to it being class 4 it's causing the lag.
The partion is 1 GB and the rom's I've installed and noticed mass lag on are:
-The Myth 3
-M'Rage
-Wp7 Gamerz Edition.
Basically I'm wondering if anyone has an idea on how or why I might be lagging so much when I use this rom? Thanks!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2162273 install this with SD-Ext script no lags, fast, Its CM7
Scripts like INT2EXT4+ causes major lagg for low-end devices like the Ace (I consider Ace as a low-end device nowadays).
Try getting a class 10 memory card, that may solve your problem!
There is perfect solution-
Buy a new phone
Sent from my pet - Megatron™
(I was Chalak)
So while reading the Moto X review on Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7235/moto-x-review/9 ) I read about the F2F2 (which is developed at Samsung) and this fs seems really promising for performance. I was simply wondering whether any dev has seen this, and has decided whether to implement or not implement this fs and if they would like to maybe explain why they chose to do so...
Of course, I understand us to have the emmc brick bug which complicates things (but so does the GNex: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2090108 > the third post), while a dev does seem to be trying to implement this fs (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2576085).
Again, I am simply interested in the opinion of a dev about implementing this fs...
This are the disadvantages and advantages I could find:
Disadvantages:
Long mount times of the memory
Bricking of a lot of devices when users are trying to install the wrong combination of ext4 and f2fs
Our faulty emmc chips, which already have a possibilty for the brick bug (but again the GNex also seems to have this problem)
Advantages
A possible enormous increase in memory performance http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_f2fs_benchmarks&num=1, http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_f2fs_sdhc&num=1 and http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_f2fs_usb3&num=1
The implementation of f2fs on the S3: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1210.2/00005.html
Anything new on this?