Menu

Main Menu
Talk Get Daily Search

Member's Online

    User Name
    Password

    eMMC & micro SD flash card

    Reply
    Page 3 of 3 | Prev |   1     2   3 |
    mmurfin87 | # 21 | 2010-10-13, 03:26 | Report

    Originally Posted by maxximuscool View Post
    Correct. FAT!!!! the bastard MS format. Why on earth would people use MS format and make standardise?

    ext3 and ext4 is much much better and faster. But it is only work only on Unix OS. lol..I guess everyone is brained washed by MS to make such terrible format standardised at the first place.
    ext has its problems. Its not perfect.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    maxximuscool | # 22 | 2010-10-13, 03:27 | Report

    Originally Posted by mmurfin87 View Post
    ext has its problems. Its not perfect.
    So which one is worst, FAT or EXT?

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    maxximuscool | # 23 | 2010-10-13, 03:41 | Report

    Hey all I've conducting a test with my eMMC benchmark.
    Got this screenshot for you all to look at.

    1. eMMC

    2. Adata Class 6 8G card

    I use this tool.
    Flash Memory Toolkit.

    Benchmark may be vary on different machine. This machine of mine is very slow. eMMC seems to be faster at smaller files but slower at larger file. But very consistant Write speed.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    Attached Images
      
    The Following User Says Thank You to maxximuscool For This Useful Post:
    Helmuth

     
    sjgadsby | # 24 | 2010-10-13, 15:31 | Report

    I have created this thread from twenty-three posts that were formerly a sub-thread within "Firmware 1.3 on its way????" Please continue discussion of flash defragmenting and defragmenters here, in this thread.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sjgadsby For This Useful Post:
    cfh11, Helmuth, j.s, Mentalist Traceur, pelago, slender, uvatbc, wmarone

     
    stlpaul | # 25 | 2010-10-13, 15:47 | Report

    Originally Posted by maxximuscool View Post
    Hey all I've conducting a test with my eMMC benchmark.
    Got this screenshot for you all to look at.

    1. eMMC

    2. Adata Class 6 8G card

    I use this tool.
    Flash Memory Toolkit.

    Benchmark may be vary on different machine. This machine of mine is very slow. eMMC seems to be faster at smaller files but slower at larger file. But very consistant Write speed.
    Don't know how the benchmark works, but generally, for writing whole files (say a big AVI file), your eMMC should be around 3 times faster than that (about 17MB/sec)

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    j.s | # 26 | 2010-10-13, 16:00 | Report

    Originally Posted by maxximuscool View Post
    So which one is worst, FAT or EXT?
    If anything currently in use is worse than FAT, I can't think of it.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    spanner | # 27 | 2010-10-13, 16:24 | Report

    Originally Posted by j.s View Post
    If anything currently in use is worse than FAT, I can't think of it.
    So being a Linux-only kind of chap, I went through the process of re-formatting my MicroSD as ext3 and having the N900 mount it automatically. I forget the thread but with a bit of tweaking it's possible.

    Performance seemed better and it was nice being able to store symlinks & files larger than 4 GB.

    But I could not find a way of solving the UID/GID permissions problems. The N900 user has one UID, my desktop has a different one, files & directories do not always have universal read/write access and I don't want to permanently change my umask on either N900 or Desktop PC. I also don't want to manually change permissions of everything I copy back & forward.

    So until there is a filesystem flag to ignore ownership, I'm back to crap old FAT32 for my Linux-to-Linux transfers .

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks
    The Following User Says Thank You to spanner For This Useful Post:
    j.s

     
    egoshin | # 28 | 2010-10-13, 16:32 | Report

    Warning: any reformatting should use a default block size for this flash device. In this case you can get a top write performance. If you use something different then performance may fall down dramatically. The right block size during flash formatting has a biggest effect on performance in comparison with VFAT/EXT3 issue.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    maxximuscool | # 29 | 2010-10-13, 19:44 | Report

    Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
    Warning: any reformatting should use a default block size for this flash device. In this case you can get a top write performance. If you use something different then performance may fall down dramatically. The right block size during flash formatting has a biggest effect on performance in comparison with VFAT/EXT3 issue.
    Yeah I used default block size when I format. Just a default format windows one. Not sure if the performance may increased if a file larger than 700Mb being copy but it is depending on host machine as well. Beside that the device is pluged into a cable and is not directly from the card to the computer. I think this is why the performance dropped.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    j.s | # 30 | 2010-10-13, 20:16 | Report

    Originally Posted by spanner View Post
    So being a Linux-only kind of chap, I went through the process of re-formatting my MicroSD as ext3 and having the N900 mount it automatically. I forget the thread but with a bit of tweaking it's possible.
    Not that I have spent a lot of time on it, but I have never got mine to mount automatically on boot.

    Originally Posted by spanner View Post
    Performance seemed better and it was nice being able to store symlinks & files larger than 4 GB.
    I also got an additional 500MB free space on a "8GB" card when I dumped its contents, reformatted to ext2, and restored contents.

    Originally Posted by spanner View Post
    But I could not find a way of solving the UID/GID permissions problems. The N900 user has one UID, my desktop has a different one, files & directories do not always have universal read/write access and I don't want to permanently change my umask on either N900 or Desktop PC. I also don't want to manually change permissions of everything I copy back & forward.

    So until there is a filesystem flag to ignore ownership, I'm back to crap old FAT32 for my Linux-to-Linux transfers .
    I use scp to transfer, but sshfs should do what you want. I haven't messed with sshfs in a long while, and never used it much, so I don't remember all the details.

    Edit | Forward | Quote | Quick Reply | Thanks

     
    Page 3 of 3 | Prev |   1     2   3 |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Normal Logout