[ALL] [Q]System Tuner - SD Cache size

---

hey guys. was wondering what is the best cache size for the internal memory? I believe by default it is 2048. I get an option ranging up to 6144. should I go for the max? Is the improvement significant? and does it affect battery life? Thanks guys!

Originally Posted by azreen91

hey guys. was wondering what is the best cache size for the internal memory? I believe by default it is 2048. I get an option ranging up to 6144. should I go for the max? Is the improvement significant? and does it affect battery life? Thanks guys!

Why don't you test it yourself amd tell us?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...luscek.sdtools

You can go higher than specified on the stock setup of 2048, and you might get an increase in certain scenarios, but keep in mind that the read ahead is mostly effective in its nature of fetching that chunk of data for a purpose. Not just to get filled up with wasted data you aint gonna need anyway. It can be fine for speeding up eg. Browsing your pictures with Quickpic, but you probably waste a good chunk of cachespace that could be more usefull for data you actually need in a fast sequencial read scenario.. Most of what advices for the readahead Ive read from the old dogs on xda points at a 512kb set, as a balance between effectiveness and wasted cache, atleast on phones, but it could be a tad different on our tabs as they are already at 2048 probably for a reason. So digg in and let us know how you fare :)

Omnius

Sent from my A510 using xda app-developers app

I was wondering why people keep on asking to try it by myself, It doesn't hurt to ask before trying right?

and yes I have tried increasing it and I don't see any improvement with the read speed(since write speed is not going to be affected as been told in a forum topic)

I believe omnius001 was right, it could have been set to 2048 for a reason or two, so increasing won't do better, let's just stick to 2048 then thanks for replying anyway!

Originally Posted by azreen91

I was wondering why people keep on asking to try it by myself, It doesn't hurt to ask before trying right?

Well, as we say, no guts-no glory It really doesn't hurt anything.

The problem is that all stock Acer tabs suffer from a very poor IO, mostly when it comes to DB writes and other IO functions. Running a simple Quadrant benchmark at standard setting will affirm this. Just look at the IO results. The poorest of any device out there, and poorest by a lot!

Not sure whether this is because of the "noop" scheduler Acer insists on using. Generally, this is an ok scheduler, however BFQ handles things better in my opinion.

Tweaks to improve IO performance have been around for awhile. Generally, as in the Iconia Tab series, it involves some changes in ramdisk, and not the kernel itself. Unless Devs add the BFQ scheduler, which requires a kernel rebuild.

I have a modified kernel (701), unfortunately, never got a chance to test it, before the CWM recovery borked. If I compare to the 501, it should increase IO performance by 400%, more inline with other devices.

Why Acer in 2 years, hasn't improved IO performance when they easily can, well, it escapes logic.

MD