yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] O4web:
I am not sure since when I have this. Seems like since I installed either the game Steambirds or since I started changing the screen density (which is now back to 240), using Font Changer or the non-market app: LCD Density Changer.

I tried wiping, new ROM, new kernell, but it won't be fixed.

The problem:

Along a big vertical area, the touchscreen thinks I am at the edges of that area. EDIT: Turns out that sometimes it works again, but mostly when it does, something else happens. The screen starts to think I press on random places, making him press buttons and stuff. Sometimes the screen doesn't even work, only the physical home button!

I'll try to illustrate using the following explanation of the problem (values are not correct, it's just about the idea):

along the x axis, 0 to 260 pixels work fine. When the pixels from 260 to 340 are pressed on the touchscreen, the phone thinks I am pressing at 260 AND at 340 (as if I am using 2 fingers). From 340 to the end of the screen it works fine again.

What do I have to do to fix this? And I flashed my phone a couple of times, will samsung still fix it if I send my phone (I feel like my screen is broken)?
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] JJEgan:
Flash stock rom set custom rom counter to zero .

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1113928
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] O4web:
How do I reset the counter? And isn't it weird that I got this problem? Or am I not the first one to have this with VillianROMs? I can hardly imagine that it is because I am not on stock rom. I'll try a stock ROM out soon. (Or did you simply answer the question about samsungs warranty?)

Added following information in my post: "Turns out that sometimes it works again, but mostly when it does, something else happens. The screen starts to think I press on random places, making him press buttons and stuff. Sometimes the screen doesn't even work, only the physical home button!"
[Off-topic] the6thplague:
Hi,

I am sick of the official FB app and Friend Caster also has many problems. Any recommendations for another FB alternative?
[Off-topic] goupilapps:
an alternative is not recommend, because he can take all your information and do anything with
[Off-topic] Natalie_s:
I agree there are many problems with it actually. But I dont think there is something better this time.
[Off-topic] sajidmkhan:
is there any official FB application from Facebook team?
[Off-topic] leetl90:
The "Facebook" app you find in market is already the official one.
[Off-topic] doktornotor:
Use the darned browser. :p

P.S. Better yet, stop wasting time with FB.
[Off-topic] PharmCAT:
The only thing that comes close to the apps is Facebook's mobile site http://touch.Facebook.com that is designed to be friendly to touchscreen phones.
[Off-topic] Dirk:
Real life?
[Off-topic] Ibleedandroid:
Ha!
[Off-topic] iynfynity:
lulz
[Off-topic] twitch351:
I was gonna say a phone, but that works too. :);)

-Remember, Android hell is a real place and you will be sent there at the first sign of defiance-
[Off-topic] M_T_M:
Handnotepad? :rolleyes:
[Android Apps and Games] TheMathMan:
Hey guys, does anyone have the myspace apk thats currently listed in the Market?

It says incompatible with my Galaxy S2?????

Seriously?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] dadyal:
What is Best Lagfix for SGS Android 2.3.3/2.3.4
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jbdroid:
I dont think you need lagfix anymore on 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. It is already fast, smooth and stable. Though there are some bugs that are not related to lags :)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Shanakin:
Modern lagfixes are mostly just kernels supporting an ext-4 conversion - they all will do more or less the same job. Pick one you like the features of, install and convert.

However as has been mentioned lag has been reduced a lot without it so the improvement is a lot less noticeable than it used to be.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] chebon.:
since the GB roms there is no real need for "lagfix"

If you want you can still convert to ext4, just flash any kernel supporting it
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jbdroid:
Actually there is no noticeable difference between ext4 and rfs fs on gb roms in terms of UI smoothness and speed. And yeah I am using ext4 right now so that is just my personal observation.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] whaave:
I second this. Lately I've just been using RFS, and I feel it's just as fast as when I ran ext4.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Nicholas1994:
EXT 4 Voodoo lagfix
[Galaxy S I9000 General] osazone:
ext4 rules!

I think ext4 conversion still matters.

I use feedR to follow my google reader feeds. With rfs I can't open posts smoothly and fast as it is with ext4. Actually with rfs it's annoyingly laggy that I can't catch up with all the posts in the feeds.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] K0v4L:
I'm using feedr to follow 15 websites with rfs, and there is no problem with smoothness or feeds.

Sent from HAL-I9000 using Tapatalk
[Galaxy S I9000 General] syamsoul:
between rfs n ext4, in GB , yes they r not laggy.

but , how about battery consumption? rfs or ext4 that use alot of battery?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jbdroid:
I didnt notice any difference in battery consumption. RFS or EXT4, i usually get 2-3 days of mild usage, 1-2 days of heavy usage, on both.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] osazone:
Try opening post one after other immediately.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] trikkeuh:
i've been on ext4 ever since eclair, never complained. I keep it like this :)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] norbi2011:
Try voodoo lagfix,but on gingerbread i think you don't have to use any lagfix.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] borchgrevink:
Well, my JVH lags as hell...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Bavaria85:
I don't think you will notice any real difference with different lagfixes. I tried most types and didn't even notice real difference with rfs.

Most devs think ext4 is better so I do apply a lagfix, but not really sure why (better quadrant score? doesn't say anything but still)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] medvedic:
I used couple of ROMs from XDA (F1, F1 SGS2, Ficeto, MIUI..) without lagfix... I am using phone a lot (battery lasts max 15-20hrs)... So, There is small diferences between them... I used them without lagfixes... Now, I installed JVP 2.3.4 Stock, Galaxian Kernel, and Converted to EXT4...

Personal opinion:

1. STOCK 2.3.4 JPV - Not bad, Fast, Works fine

2. +Galaxian Kernel - Faster 20-25% at least (using CPU Master because of OC 1.4GHz)

3. EXT4 Convert -> This speeded up my system by 20-30% more...

Explanation.. RFS file system is better with small files (under 5KBytes), and EXT4 is faster and a lot better with larger files... So, when you work with pictures, videos, and applications that uses bigger files then text, EXT4 shows its best side...

Now, my device is focused on Bigger apps, Pictures and HD Videos, so EXT4 is much faster for me...

Use FS that is better for your use...

P.S. EXT4 has faster R/W rate, so when recording, copying and similar, you will see difference...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] gsw5700:
can't wait until someone gets ubifs file system working, by all accounts should be awesome

Sent using geek power
[Galaxy S I9000 General] sarvesh29:
Am on gb but i use ext4 lagfix because after number of apps increases, it lags!!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] DevJackey:
I've tried out 2.2 with lagfix and 2.3 without lagfix, but I find that now 2.3 is slower than 2.2 with lagfix. Not sure why this is true, but I noticed that starting apps was slower.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] rizzy123:
Currently on stock jvq and its the fastest I've had and with no lag fix. The stock browser is also blazing fast and smooth and with some cool animations from the SGS2
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jromz03:
This.

After putting jvq and restoring apps... Too laggy. I'm a voodoo fan, but since theres no jvq lagfix i chucked in jvp lagfix. Surprised it worked lol.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] AmdPhenomII:
Yeah I agree, you don't really need lagfix on JVQ!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] invernomuto1976:
Agree. With JVQ the sgs run very smooth. No need for lagfix imho. Bye

Inviato dal mio GT-I9000 usando Tapatalk
[Galaxy S I9000 General] AmdPhenomII:
Upgrade to JVQ then, you'll be a lot happier!

Battery is great too, with light to moderate use it can easily last 2 days, if you start using internet or gps it will be a bit less of course, But I have found I spent a lot less time charging the phone these days since JVQ.;)

As for lagfixes, you shouldn't really need any. RFS is much better now, than it was on Froyo 2.2

My phone is stock JVQ, not rooted this time.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] adamslast:
Speedmod is easy , fast and simple. Quadrant increase to 2250 from 1450 after lagfix.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] cobo2007:
Fully agree
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Proelio:
Lagfix on Gingerbread is useless.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] mathijs727:
Lagfix is useful on GB, even on JVQ.

I'm using speedmod+ext4 (system ext4 too).

And its really faster then rfs.

No lags and apps open instantly.

Booting taked just seconds after the lagfix, while with rfs it took ages.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] dadyal:
the only reason i don't use gingerbread is that there is no ad hoc patch for them
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jfjm:
For those of you that thinks with GB you do not need lagfix, just install Pulse (or any RSS readers that supports offline reading), add about 20 feeds, and trigger a download of the feeds (update the feeds). Now try to use your phone while it is doing that in the background. The phone is almost unusable.

I have monitored using vmstat, I had an I/O wait of 70-90% for upwards of a minute or so.

So if you are a user that only uses apps that do not use much I/O, then stock GB should be good enough for you. But if you are not, then you should convert to ext4.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] gsw5700:
Please refer to an earlier post by myself, "RFS is faster than ext4 (or is it?)"

Using Androbench IO benchmark tool

------------------------------------------------

Androbench runs sequential reads, sequential writes, random reads and random writes and displays MB/s throughput for sequential I/O operations, and IOPS for random IO opertions.

Typical average I/O benchmark results using /data mounted as EXT4 (noop)

Sequential Reads: 19 MB/s

Sequential Writes: 9 MB/s

Random Reads: 1161 IOPS

Random writes: 45 IOPS

I then converted all file systems to rfs and re-ran Androbench @1Ghz

Typical average I/O benchmark results using /data mounted as RFS (noop)

Sequential Reads: 19 MB/s

Sequential Writes: 9 MB/s

Random Reads: 1150 IOPS

Random writes: 91 IOPS

The results are the same except random writes are at least twice as fast on RFS than they are on EXT4

Using RLBENCH Benchmark Tool

----------------------------------------

Used RL benchmark which uses SQLite database to perform :-

1000 inserts

25000 inserts within transaction

25000 inserts into indexed table in a transaction

100 selects with no index

1000 selects on string comparison

create index

5000 selecsts with index

1000 updates without index

drop table

RFS RESULTS (1Ghz CFQ I/O scheduler)

=============================

Run #1 42.171 secs

Run #2 55.54 secs

Run #3 53.417 secs

EXT4 RESULTS (1Ghz CFQ I/O scheduler)

===============================

1Ghz CFQ scheduler

Run #1 64.981

Run #2 74.136

Run #3 73.441

SO there you have it, RFS is faster....

By the way, Quadrant artifically shows higher scores for ext4 file systems as it doesn't play very well with RFS. If you convert to RFS (and prove the faster I/O). Quadrant will still show lower scores!!!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] HiKsFiles:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how an EXT-4 conversion will help get faster R/W speed when recording photos and videos as those are stored on either the internal SD or the external one ... both of which are using the FAT fs.

Unless I'm wrong again lagfixes are usefull for app execution ... not for files created or modified onto user accessible partitions.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] jfjm:
I have not dig too deep into these benchmark methods used to give a precise explaination as to why these numbers do not match with the real-world experience that I have faced (as I have pointed out, just get a RSS reader and trigger a download for offline usage), but here are some possibilities:

I assume these tests were done using single thread? It is possible that under multi-threaded I/O operation (can still occur within the 1 app) RFS perform worst than Ext4?

There were reports that with RFS, under usage, there will be errors that trigger the slow down. I assume with the tests above, the benchmarks were done after a clean system.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] bofh999:
Hmm still surprised why switch to ext4 for the lagfix

ext4 is slow on small files - and im not so surprised its slower now than rfs on small ones

the benchmark thing - yea i don't trust any statistics i do not fake myself

it simply depends on some factors

one reason might be that ext4 is an journaling filesystem which also need slight more memory and of course more time to write stuff

also question is on qhich cluster size the filesystem was formatet and which size the files had ....

btw: one thing was very interresting regarding lags

i got today my S2 - so my S1 went to a business partner

even after daily auto cache clean, autostartcleaner, lagfix and and and - it was still borderline most of the time

so i had to delete the accounts.db and let it make a new one

and since then hell ---- very very very fast

anyidea why this make a difference btw where in the accounts.db could be a issue to result into massive lags?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
to be honest i do not see a change in speed betwen rfs and ext4 from jvp or earlier

one the other hand i am not a benchmark maniac that will do anything to get +1 and that is my 'feeling of the phone on rfs' compared to one when i converted to ext4 ...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] madd0g:
They're both about the same now as in speed, the thing that sucks in the NAND chip the internal memory is on (data).
[Galaxy S I9000 General] elhennig:
As I wrote before somewhere else, if you take long term use into account. FAT based Filesystems like RFS will definetely fragment, hence ext4 has a big advantage in these terms and it's absolutely not useless. It might be not needed as long as you keep flashing new ROMs every few days, however.

Journaling is of course another advantage for data integrity after sudden reboots for example.

I am still waiting for btrfs support, because it promisses the best perfomance....
[Galaxy S I9000 General] betoNL:
Ext4 is the file system used in many Linux based devices but WITHOUT Samsung's mess!

There is a difference between the native Ext4 present in many Linux devices out there,and the IMPROVISED, let's say virtual/converted ext4 "solutions" for the sgs.

Many things can go wrong during and /or after the fs CONVERSION, specially when less experienced users try to apply it, even when they are using the ready made solutions like Supercurio's or Chainfire's FS conversions...

It is just like the overclocking thing ....Users are eagger to report speed improvements after overclocking, but they just fail to report when something eventually goes wrong...

RFS got enough optimized...BUT if your phone somehow still laggs, try the fs conversion, otherwise in many cases, it doesnt worth the trouble ...

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 AM ----------

Flash devices getting fragmented? Since when?

Hard drives have to physically move heads to get to different parts of a fragmented file

which takes time.... but there is no physical movement within flash memory ..

Am I missing something?
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
i would love to see some outside xda talk about frs / ext4 fragmentation =)

or some proof :)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] elhennig:
Obviously yes:

http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts/

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/do-flash-drives-suffer-from-fragmentation-911624.htm

Unfortunately the rfs documentation seems to be missing on samsung's website. Hard to find information about that filesystem.

On lwn.net you'll find http://lwn.net/Articles/362020/ and other sources as well state that Samsung combined FAT file system with some extensions for "robustness" and data integrity. Still FAT based file systems fragment, that is a fact that is commonly known.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] betoNL:
Ok thanks..

Nevertheless, I tried fs conversion a couple of times....too many side-effects...

When I decide to move to Ext4 again, I will do it, the proper way: I will get a device with a native one ! ;)

In the meantime, my already pre-historical sgs is doing just fine with the optimized rfs ...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
ok but is there any test/comparison of those two (or more) filesystems

i just do like to read the tables with scores, or to conduct the tests by myself

as i said i have not felt the diff in speed over time with rfs or ext4 and as betonl said too much fuss over that overall with a questionable diff at the end
[Galaxy S I9000 General] kyiori:
tornado kernel + ext4 system + ext2 data,dbdata,cache.

no problem so far, no data loss. quadant score @ 4200+
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
and why you posted quadrant score, its useless
[Galaxy S I9000 General] kyiori:
hee, ok forget about quadant score. but it is really smooth than other kernel i have used.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Yousef-SYI:
I'm one of them flashing freaks, and I've flashed so many ROMs and kernels from JVQ to JVS (Currently on Revolution v2.0 JVS rom by coremaster and TalonDEV v0.5.1.1 OC 1200Hz JVS Kernel), and I must say, the best lagfix or performance enhancer for any android device is to convert the file system to EXT4, I get 2850+ score on quadrant from the first or second run easy, and 50-51 fps performance on NenaMark1. Yes the file system doesn't affect much graphics performances, but it does increase overall response speed, and I\O operations, such as games loading, file browsing etc.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
and what is the best way of testing those speeds?

i runed cfbench on both filesystems and had basicly same results here and there

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17241377&postcount=1435
[Galaxy S I9000 General] betoNL:
Trust only the benchmarks created by yourself :::

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
ehhhe i know this one, thats why i ask what is the best procedure to test it =)

and till then i belive cfbench most =)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] elhennig:
Could you post the values for "Native Disk Read" and "Native Disk Write"? Those values are the only ones that are affected directly by file system performance, the rest is CPU and memory.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
let me browse my histoy in search of upload of those anywhere
[Galaxy S I9000 General] skodaslx:
WOW. 6 pages about lagfix and no one wrote about the best ?? :eek:

The onenand mode from the tegrak kernel is the best i had so far:

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=920711
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
whateva - any test results and comparisment to anything?

or just random zombie spam
[Galaxy S I9000 General] skodaslx:
zombie ? Are you referring to me?

I could not post own results at the moment, because i'm testing another kernel.

I found some results in the thread:

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14984651&postcount=1273

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14998937&postcount=1280

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14999271&postcount=1283

For me the phone was very fast with this kernel/lagfix.

Just my feeling.

I don't know if programms like quadrant or cf-bench could tell you how the phone "feels"

when you use it.

Just made cf-bench of my current kernel:

native: 3815

java: 1280

overall: 2294

quadrant:3795

I didn't get this with the tegrak kernel, but the phone "feels" faster in my daily use.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
good one mate
[Galaxy S I9000 General] madd0g:
Nice write up, but as I stated before it's not the type of the filesystem that's that important - it's the speed of the drive. moviNAND on which the app databases are is slower then system NAND. That's why the CM7 is that much snappier, it changes the size of system and places app data on there instead.

Maybe a certain FS performs better and faster I/O speeds, but main lag thing diff. on SGS is the slowness of moviNAND and there isn't much to be done here.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Glen450:
can anyone help me, Updated sgs i9000 from 2.2.1 to 2.3.3 gingerbread...and now i cant get a 3 signal and all my phone info has gone and is also missing network operator, urgent!...any idea's :(
[Galaxy S I9000 General] pikachu01:
True, but if the data is not committed before it gets written to the data partition, you lose data. And in android, a lot of data is stored in the RAM being uncommitted at a time before being committed.

A lot of people use UV/OC settings that are unsafe causing their device to reboot prematurely, hence this makes the point of having clean shutdowns moot as people will always find some ways to have their devices forced restart one way or another. Some kernels too causes bootloops - another point of data loss.

I'm not saying data corruption will happen, but users would need to know what they're getting at when they change something. Informing users of the risk is always the better choice than letting them experience something bad and then come complaining about it.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Lar3s:
Best lagfix - no lagfix. :)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] robogo1982:
Disagree. 10chars
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
thank you for your usefull input!
[Galaxy S I9000 General] elhennig:
ext3 is undoubtedly the worst of ext* filesystems regarding performance. If you take a look at the following benchmark on servers ext4 performs better on reads than ext2:

http://www.delltechcenter.com/page/A+Comparison+of+Ext2,+Ext3+and+Ext4+Performance

Of course this benchmark might not be too relevant as it was conducted on server systems. More interesting would be the performance on flash devices. The following pointer shows some benchmark results on cheap flash devices:

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/7208/1/

ext4's overall performance - especially with more than 20 files - is better than VFAT and all the other filesystems.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] robogo1982:
Anytime.

If I have to state that my phone works noticeably faster with ext4 than with RFS, which was mentioned at least 5 times...
[Galaxy S I9000 General] $omator:
what does 'noticable faster' means

can you provide some data r/w times anything?

or is it maybe cpy frequency or the tweaks that comes with kernel you might be using

i could say i just had sex with 3 swedish bikini models, would you belive me?

well thats why i fine posts like 'its blazing fast' and 'noticable faster' useless :)
[Galaxy S I9000 General] madd0g:
Exactly, a phone can run noticeable faster because you rebooted it.
[Galaxy S I9000 General] betoNL:
Sex with 3 swedish bikini models?

I think I saw a film with such a scene, many years ago....

What is your code name in the porn industry? :D :D :D

I am a believer !
[Galaxy S I9000 General] zroice:
http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1252619

working adhoc for gingerbread - boom!

..

And for "lagfix" of fast rom I suggest to load Simplicity Rom.

Its odexed, and even without OC you get like 2.9k quadrant score - plus it feels super smooth also. With 1.2ghz overclock you get like 3.1-3.2k quadrant.

Yeaaa boiii
[Galaxy S I9000 General] Madriss:
i like voodoo one suffice for gaming
[Galaxy S I9000 General] disclaimernotice:
I have tried ext4 on JVR and JVQ, and I don't see much of a noticeable difference in performance as compared to rfs. Also, I'm not too sure, but I read that ext4 is not as safe as rfs when it comes to storing data, in the sense that data loss occurs more easily on ext4.