Database Users

Universal 8gb sd card

does anyone know if the universal will take the new 8 gb sd cards that are coming out. cause i hear that the new 8 gb card will be a different format than the current 4 gig cards. im acheing to buy the 8 gig but dont know if it will accept it at all
"Pretec 8GB SD card is fully compliant with SD 2.0 (SDHC) specification with access speed up to 20MB/sec. The maximum capacity of SD card is 2GB under SD 1.1 of Secure Digital Alliance (SDA) specification; however, by using file format of FAT32, many SD 1.1 host devices can use 4GB SD card which Pretec pioneered since 2005. SD 1.0/1.1 uses traditional “Byte Addressing” scheme which limits the maximum capacity to 4GB while SD 2.0 adopts “Sector Addressing” scheme which is the same with the technique applied by Mu-Card Alliance in 2004 to reach the maximum capacity of 2TB (2048GB). Pretec is one of the major founders and main contribution member of Mu-Card Alliance, who joined force with MMCA in June 2005 (www.mmca.org/press/Mu_Card_Final.pdf). With capacities of 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB, Pretec 8GB SDHC is now available for key customer sampling at unit price $299. Mass production is scheduled by Q4/2006."

I would love to know the answer to this - as I am very highly tempted by an 8GB SD card I've spotted for sale somewhere, my 4GB card is nearly full...

sl9 said:
I would love to know the answer to this - as I am very highly tempted by an 8GB SD card I've spotted for sale somewhere, my 4GB card is nearly full...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read around a little throw the internet and was pointed to some Universal reviews and they all tell thet 4GB is possible and 8GB as far as it is available. So I think the chance to get it running is at 80%

Take a look here for info:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.php?action=expand,50985
and here too:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06090101pretec8gbsdhc.asp

SD-HC is a new standard, not compatible with the SD 1.1 standard that maxes out at 2Gb. SD 1.1 is what the Universal uses. The 4Gb cards you are seeing use a 'loophole' in the specifications.
In other words: 4Gb is the maximum you will see for the Universal. And no, this cannot be remedied by a driver update, as the SD controller is embedded into the ARM processor (AFAIK).
Hope this helps...

Micro SD Class 10 card test results

To All,
I did a bit of testing on Micro SD cards All claimed they were class 10 in other words they should (as claimed by the manufacturers) to read and write 10 mb per sec
The Reality is the only one that really hit that mark was the Wintec which also was cheap)
I used two of the sd card testers from the app store. One called sd card tester the other was ssd card tester (one was free one cost a buck)
I did the tests using various buffer size (2, 4 and 8 mb) did it 3 times and averaged. This is not scientific but it did show that there is alot of misrepresentation going on...........
The findings are as follows
Wintec averaged 9.3 write and 12.5 down
Patriot 7.8 write and 10 read
king max 7mb write and 8.2 read
Kingston 6 write and 8 read (what a dog)
None could really reach the 10 write threshold consistently. So, basically what I would recommend is read up and do your research and watch out for false review claims from the manufacturers.
I am now using the Wintec 16 gig and it does improve the response of the phone when writing or reading from the sd card. But this nothing compared to the awesome custom roms found in our dev forum. There is where the speed resides
It was fun doing this hope this helps some .........

That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.

mdkxtreme said:
That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
probably a file system difference. formatting in windows will make it ntfs, formatting on the phone will format it to...? rfs? fat32?

No I didn't format it in NTFS. I formatted to FAT32.

Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that was my point, that if you formatted it ntfs in windows it would perform better than the phone's formatting (which is probably fat32). but looking into it, i don't think android supports ntfs.

Like I said guys, I formatted in FAT32 and it outperformed the phone's formatting scheme. I didn't know I could format it in NTFS because I didn't know if it would work or not so I formatted in FAT32

yea NTFS wont work on android

Formatting on the phone is standard fat is all it recognizes it is possible if you are on 4ext instead of 2e (stock like my phone) then you could get better speeds. The problem as one of you stated is the low quality control, all these cards rarely get the stated speeds.

Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).

N8ter said:
Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well put that is one of the reasons why I like this phone so many things are well thought out and yes san disk is real junk I never use them on my nikon they write way slow......

N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.

Hey OP, thanks for the test though. Because of this I am returning my Kingston for the Wintec since it's 50 dollars cheaper. Not countering or complaining about this thread, it's just I think most people get different results when it comes to SD cards. I actually thought about it and don't even need that high of a speed for external microsd because my nand is fast enough. Thus the reason why I want the lower pricing. Thanks again for the results.

t1n0m3n said:
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's almost a 2 year old article, and it's hardly scientific.
It fails to mention a bunch of factors that affect the performance of NTFS, and doesn't really optimize the other filesystems for the media.
FAT32 is a simple file system with no security, encryption, and recoverability. FAT scaled up for larger volume sizes, basically. (using Fat32 is the reason why Android cannot encrypt SD cards).
NTFS performace scales up (i.e. gets better) the larger the volume gets. FAT32 performance scales down (i.e. gets worse) the larger the volume gets. Typically above 8GB it's better to use NTFS, if you can. The largest size in that article is 8GB and the disks weren't used in a way to really show how the filesystems perform in common scenarios (i.e. searching for files on a disk with lots of files that's 75% full, where NTFS would best FAT easily).
Testing NTFS vs. FAT32 on a bunch of 4GB and 8GB memory sticks proves nothing.
It's not January 2009 anymore. Lots of people have 32 GB+ memory cards/thumb drives and FAT32 performance simply does not scale up at all to those volume levels (not to mention it doesn't support volumes over 32GB without a modified version) compared to NTFS, which gain in performance as the volume size grows larger.
In addition to that, formatting as FAT32 wastes lots of space compared to NTFS. It has HUGE cluster sizes on large volumes (i.e. 16-32GB microSD cards).
exFAT is a pretty good middle road between the two, but NTFS will probably outperform it on large volumes. Its performance is more consistent than FAT32, though.
SD and Thumb drive filesystems corrupt more when formatted as FAT, compared to NTFS, as well.
That article you linked is useless.

N8ter said:
That article you linked is useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A link to a test performed would do nicely.

I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.

mrxela said:
I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would be very interested in seeing these results, I have yet to see a card faster than a SanDisk Class 6 8GB. However, I would like to start seeing some Class 10 16GB cards that step up to compete with the SanDisk in terms of raw speed.

t1n0m3n said:
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone with any knowledge about filesystems knows that FAT32 performance degrades when the size of the volume increases. That is why FAT32 has a maximum volume size of 32GB (without workarounds) and even a low maximum file threshold on the volume. It can also hold a low maximum number of files on the volume, because a FAT32 volume with as much files as NTFS supports would probably crash and burn.
When you a volume with a lot of files on it, NTFS will outperform FAT.
If that wasn't the case, Microsoft would have simply added the security and fault tolerate features (among other things) on top of FAT instead of developing NTFS for Windows NT.
FAT lived long because:
1. It's simple to implement, which makes it a great system for inter-OS compatibility.
2. Consumer disk sizes did not grow at a rate proportional to server storage sizes during the reign of pre-NT consumer Winodws OS.
3. Reliability and Security on consumer OSes (including Macs and PCs) simply wasn't taken all that seriously back in the day.
4. Hardly anyone with a PC had a volumes with a ridiculous amount of files on them.
Performance is more than just raw speed. NTFS is faster at searching for files on large volumes than FAT32 - why do you think Media scanner takes forever when you have tons of files on the SD card? It stores small files in the MFT if they can fit there, which makes accessing them monumentally faster than FAT, etc.
The robustness of a filesystem is a component of its performance.
Look at any HD2 thread and one thing you always see is "make sure to format your SD card before installing Android to it, to avoid constant FC's."
The only three advantages over NTFS that FAT32 has is that it is very fast on small volumes (and by volume I mean Capacity as well as the amount of data on the disk), it's relatively cross platform, and it doesn't fragment as much, due to larger cluster sizes (but fragmentation is not much of an issue on flash disks, unless they have very bad random I/O performance).

No links to back you up... Most of what you are talking about doesn't apply in context of this thread. Were this a thread about a pc you would have some valid points.
I am done.
Eat at Joe's

I'm not talking about a PC. I'm talking about storage cards. Load up a 32 GB card with 20GB of music and Albulm Art/Meta Data, Documents, etc. and then compare the FS performance.
I'm sorry you have no idea what you're talking about, that you want me to scour the internet to "back up" something any decent developer/IT professional can agree with.
LOL @ Troll. Were you not the one who responded with a one liner of inconsequential info in an article from almost 2 years ago (Microsoft improved NTFS. NTFS in Win7 isn't the same as NTFS in Windows XP, 2000, or NT 3.1).
At least you got fed.
Like I said, that article you linked is not a "test" in any serious use of the word. I'm not going buy SD cards/thumbdrives to do any sort of test, and I'm certainly not Googling for you. If you want to verify, you can do that yourself. Ad hominems, do not help your point.
Ciao!

[Q] 32GB SDHC card

Can the 32GB SDHC card be left in the Elocity A7?
Or must it be removed after every use?

You can keep it in

esemelis said:
You can keep it in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. Do you know what the different classes mean?
Class 4; Class 6; etc.?
Grandson just wants to use for "normal stuff."

There are different speeds of SD card available. The official unit of measurement is the Speed Class Rating; an older unit of measurement is the × rating.
[edit] Speed Class Rating
The Speed Class Rating is the official unit of speed measurement for SD Cards, defined by the SD Association. The Class number represents a multiple of 8 Mb/s (1 MB/s), and meets the least sustained write speeds for a card in a fragmented state.[16] These are the ratings of some currently available cards:[16]
* Class 0 cards do not specify performance, which includes all legacy cards prior to class specifications.
* Class 2, 2 MB/s, slowest for SDHC cards.
* Class 4, 4 MB/s.
* Class 6, 6 MB/s.
* Class 10, 10 MB/s.
Even though the class ratings are defined by a governing body, like × speed ratings, class speed ratings are quoted by the manufacturers and not verified by any independent evaluation process. In applications that require sustained write throughput, such as video recording, the device may not perform satisfactorily if the SD card's class rating falls below a particular speed. For example, a camcorder that is designed to record to class 6 media may suffer dropouts or corrupted video on slower media. On slower class cards, digital cameras may experience a lag of several seconds between photo-taking, whilst the camera writes the picture to the card.
Important differences between the Speed Class and the traditional CD-ROM drive speed measurement ("×" speed ratings) are that speed class:[16]
1. may be queried by the host device;
2. defines the minimum transfer speed.
Since the class rating is readable by devices, they can issue a warning to the user if the inserted card's reported rating falls below the application's minimum requirement.[16]
On 21 May 2009, Panasonic announced new class 10 SDHC cards, claiming that this new class is "part of SD Card Specification Ver.3.0".[17] Toshiba also announced cards based on the new 3.0 spec.[1

ninetoes49 said:
There are different speeds of SD card available. The official unit of measurement is the Speed Class Rating; an older unit of measurement is the × rating.
[edit] Speed Class Rating
The Speed Class Rating is the official unit of speed measurement for SD Cards, defined by the SD Association. The Class number represents a multiple of 8 Mb/s (1 MB/s), and meets the least sustained write speeds for a card in a fragmented state.[16] These are the ratings of some currently available cards:[16]
* Class 0 cards do not specify performance, which includes all legacy cards prior to class specifications.
* Class 2, 2 MB/s, slowest for SDHC cards.
* Class 4, 4 MB/s.
* Class 6, 6 MB/s.
* Class 10, 10 MB/s.
Even though the class ratings are defined by a governing body, like × speed ratings, class speed ratings are quoted by the manufacturers and not verified by any independent evaluation process. In applications that require sustained write throughput, such as video recording, the device may not perform satisfactorily if the SD card's class rating falls below a particular speed. For example, a camcorder that is designed to record to class 6 media may suffer dropouts or corrupted video on slower media. On slower class cards, digital cameras may experience a lag of several seconds between photo-taking, whilst the camera writes the picture to the card.
Important differences between the Speed Class and the traditional CD-ROM drive speed measurement ("×" speed ratings) are that speed class:[16]
1. may be queried by the host device;
2. defines the minimum transfer speed.
Since the class rating is readable by devices, they can issue a warning to the user if the inserted card's reported rating falls below the application's minimum requirement.[16]
On 21 May 2009, Panasonic announced new class 10 SDHC cards, claiming that this new class is "part of SD Card Specification Ver.3.0".[17] Toshiba also announced cards based on the new 3.0 spec.[1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
#1- Since we are new to all of this, which one (best) should we pick for our Elocity A7? Would Class 2; Class 4 and Class 6 work with the Elocity A7? Class 2 being the slowest, etc.?
#2- I put a 4GB SD card into SD slot and when I looked in the Storage section, it said on 2GB free memory. The card is empty. Wonder why it did not say 4GB empty?

alicez said:
Thank you.
#1- Since we are new to all of this, which one (best) should we pick for our Elocity A7? Would Class 2; Class 4 and Class 6 work with the Elocity A7? Class 2 being the slowest, etc.?
#2- I put a 4GB SD card into SD slot and when I looked in the Storage section, it said on 2GB free memory. The card is empty. Wonder why it did not say 4GB empty?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.

sagggas said:
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you.
Would you have an answer to #1?

I chose a 16GB Class 10 SDHC card and moved all my Apps to the card thus preserving the internal memory of the A7. Search XDA for moving apps to SD if you choose that route.

sagggas said:
The elocity does not report memory properly. They were supposed to fix that in their last update, but didn't. Hopefully they will fix it soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Class 4 should be fine. Faster cards (6 -10) will cost you more and give you little to no benefit, as the internal is likely a class 4.

Thank you. My grandson just bought the following:
==========
Kingston 16GB Micro SDHC Flash Memory Card Kingston Part Number SDC4/16GB Brand New in Retail Package
Features/Benefits:
Compliant — with the SD Specification Version 2.00
Versatile — when combined with the adapter, can be used as a full-size SDHC card
Compatible — with microSDHC host devices; not compatible with standard microSD-enabled device/readers
File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard
Reliable — lifetime warranty
Specifications:
Capacity* — 16GB
Dimensions — 0.43 x 0.59 x 0.039 ( 11mm x 15mm x 1mm)
High-Speed Class Rating — Class 4: 4MB/sec. minimum data transfer rate
Operating temperatures — -13°F to 185°F (-25°C to 85°C)
Storage temperatures — -40°F to 185°F (-40°C to 85°C)
Weight — .05 oz (1.4g)
============
Would that be okay to use. He always does things quickly without checking with anybody. But I guess that is a part of being young. The only thing that perturbs me is the part about:
***File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard ***
Should that concern me (or him)?
Thanks again for all your valuable help and assistance.
Alice

The A7 ( most Anroid devices) do not recognize ntfs. The only way to break the 4gb barrier is to format the card as ext2 and manually mount it. That is not trivial.

dburckh said:
The A7 ( most Anroid devices) do not recognize ntfs. The only way to break the 4gb barrier is to format the card as ext2 and manually mount it. That is not trivial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can my grandson use this SD card with the Elocity A7?

Yes, the card will work for most applications. It sounds like if he is trying to put a file larger than 4GB on the card he may have problems

I'm a bit confused here. Can someone help?
I notice the SD card my grandson used to download the recent version update to the A7 is labeled = "SanDisk 2GB Micro SD." And it worked fine.
Isn't the A7 supposed to accept only Micro SDHC cards? Why then did our A7 accept the Micro SanDisk 2GB SD card?
Can anyone explain? Does the A7 accept both - SD and SDHC?
Please advise and thank you.
Alice

Yes, they are essentially the same and both will work

I have a 32gb card and it is very flakey. The only thing that seems to work well with it is Windows. I can't seem to install anything from it. Videos do play. I have not tried music.
I was trying to format it as ext2 with PartedMagic and it kept failing. I ended up formatting it as fat32 in windows. I may try another live cd.

alicez said:
Thank you. My grandson just bought the following:
==========
Kingston 16GB Micro SDHC Flash Memory Card Kingston Part Number SDC4/16GB Brand New in Retail Package
Features/Benefits:
Compliant — with the SD Specification Version 2.00
Versatile — when combined with the adapter, can be used as a full-size SDHC card
Compatible — with microSDHC host devices; not compatible with standard microSD-enabled device/readers
File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard
Reliable — lifetime warranty
Specifications:
Capacity* — 16GB
Dimensions — 0.43 x 0.59 x 0.039 ( 11mm x 15mm x 1mm)
High-Speed Class Rating — Class 4: 4MB/sec. minimum data transfer rate
Operating temperatures — -13°F to 185°F (-25°C to 85°C)
Storage temperatures — -40°F to 185°F (-40°C to 85°C)
Weight — .05 oz (1.4g)
============
Would that be okay to use. He always does things quickly without checking with anybody. But I guess that is a part of being young. The only thing that perturbs me is the part about:
***File Format — SDHC File Format - FAT32; to work with single file size that is over 4GB in size, please remember to format your memory to NTFS standard ***
Should that concern me (or him)?
Thanks again for all your valuable help and assistance.
Alice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm kind of unclear about what you're concerned about?
That 4gb limitation for file size is a Fat32 limitation, I.e., if the card is formatted Fat32, the largest size for any single file on it will be limited to 4gb. That's for any single file, not for the whole card. For example, for that 16gb, you can put 3 4gb file plus as many <4gb files to fill up the 16gb.
NTFS formatting would allow larger single files, but not sure if the A7 supports NTFS.
Jim

jimcpl said:
I'm kind of unclear about what you're concerned about?
That 4gb limitation for file size is a Fat32 limitation, I.e., if the card is formatted Fat32, the largest size for any single file on it will be limited to 4gb. That's for any single file, not for the whole card. For example, for that 16gb, you can put 3 4gb file plus as many <4gb files to fill up the 16gb.
NTFS formatting would allow larger single files, but not sure if the A7 supports NTFS.
Jim
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The a7 does NOT support NTFS format. I have tried several different types of formatting on SDHC cards in order to help "alicez", who has posted this same issue on various forums, in multiple threads. Not sure what the continuing confusion is about.

mskitty76 said:
The a7 does NOT support NTFS format. I have tried several different types of formatting on SDHC cards in order to help "alicez", who has posted this same issue on various forums, in multiple threads. Not sure what the continuing confusion is about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The confusion comes from many different answers to my original question. I just wanted to know if I could/should use FAT, FAT32 or NTFS formatted SD cards with our A7. That is all. But several responses gave different answers. I was confused as I am sure any novice would be.
Why should it be a problem if I posted the question on other forums? Forums are for questions and in order to get a definitive answer I sometimes have to post in a few places. Sorry if I upset anyone.
Thanks to everyone who tried to help.
Alice (and grandsons)

Xperia z3c max sdxc size

I was having a conversation with a friend who claims that most phones made in the last 2 years can take a sdxc card up to 2tb and the 128gb limit mentioned is null. I saw some new phones listed as 200gb max instead of the 128, but would they take up to 2tb I wonder. What do you guys think about this

i think it can be capable of having 128gbs without problems, no more, but lets wait until someone confirms it having a sony running more than 128gigs

AlfredS said:
i think it can be capable of having 128gbs without problems, no more, but lets wait until someone confirms it having a sony running more than 128gigs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am currently running a 128gb sdxc card, and will be upgrading to a 200 soon. I will report back on how much space I can use.

Sees my 200gb Sandisk card without issue.

OrBy said:
Sees my 200gb Sandisk card without issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Z3C can handle up to 200GB even though it is only advertised as 128GB, I personally use a 64GB card for I/O Scheduler Reasons

Revontheus said:
Z3C can handle up to 200GB even though it is only advertised as 128GB, I personally use a 64GB card for I/O Scheduler Reasons
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which i/o scheduler do you use? Just wondering why there is a limit.

poobucket said:
Which i/o scheduler do you use? Just wondering why there is a limit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you use SD Cards above 64Gb, Zen/vr/tripndroid are the best choices since they work well with High-Speed Cards. Also At 64 GB if you are using a UHS-3 Card you can set the Read Ahead Cache to around 4096Kb but if not 2048Kb is fine as well... I don't really recommend 200GB Cards since they strain the system, theres probably a reason why the Z3C is only advertised to handle 128GB Cards

Revontheus said:
If you use SD Cards above 64Gb, Zen/vr/tripndroid are the best choices since they work well with High-Speed Cards. Also At 64 GB if you are using a UHS-3 Card you can set the Read Ahead Cache to around 4096Kb but if not 2048Kb is fine as well... I don't really recommend 200GB Cards since they strain the system, theres probably a reason why the Z3C is only advertised to handle 128GB Cards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah thanks, I did not know this. I set my i/o to tripndroid as I use a 128gb card.

Tripndroid/vr are more performance oriented, Zen is for balanced, daily usage

Revontheus said:
200GB Cards strain the system
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? The Linux kernel has no problem handling exabyte block devices. SDXC can handle up to 2 TiB. What part of the system is being strained, and how so? I don't see any reason that any device supporting SDXC would struggle with anything up to 2 TiB.

soldier9599 said:
What? The Linux kernel has no problem handling exabyte block devices. SDXC can handle up to 2 TiB. What part of the system is being strained, and how so? I don't see any reason that any device supporting SDXC would struggle with anything up to 2 TiB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh? My apologies...I was just wondering why they won't advertise it as up to 2TB on the specifications sheet. And personally even if there was a 2tb sdxc it would be too expensive and I'd rather buy a portable hdd or something

My old Xperia Play officialy supports only 32GB, however 128GB SD card worked well in it. So I don't think, there is some real limit, but I didn't see larger SD card than 512 GB.

Revontheus said:
Oh? My apologies...I was just wondering why they won't advertise it as up to 2TB on the specifications sheet. And personally even if there was a 2tb sdxc it would be too expensive and I'd rather buy a portable hdd or something
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No worries, I just wasn't sure if you knew something I didn't. I wouldn't put too much faith in their marketing team. They probably just found the biggest card they thought existed and made sure it worked. Either that or they were afraid "2" would look smaller than a competitor's listing that says "128" to people who have no idea what "GB" or "TB" mean.
I would love to have a 2 TB sd card. That wouldn't come close to holding my entire movie collection, but at least I would be able to fit my entire music collection plus a bunch of movies. I can't even fit half my music on a 200 GB card. Having all my music on my phone would be amazing. I expect 2 TB cards will be around in about five years. It will become affordable just like 200 GB has.

good advices
thanks

soldier9599 said:
What? The Linux kernel has no problem handling exabyte block devices. SDXC can handle up to 2 TiB. What part of the system is being strained, and how so? I don't see any reason that any device supporting SDXC would struggle with anything up to 2 TiB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking the same. Even though it's obvious, it isn't obvious to everyone (actually, there is only a small minority of the android-users who even know that android uses a linux kernel, even fewer knows what it is).
The system COULD be put under strain though, if you format the micro SD-card in to NTFS. I have an i7 4710MQ laptop. If I write more than 1GB of data on a NTFS-formatted partition the fans run at full strength. Though, I don't see why anyone would use NTFS. Maybe it is formatted as exFAT and there is some strain because of that? FAT32/VFAT has a limit of 8TB, so I don't see why someone would prefer exFAT.

Verbato said:
I was thinking the same. Even though it's obvious, it isn't obvious to everyone (actually, there is only a small minority of the android-users who even know that android uses a linux kernel, even fewer knows what it is).
The system COULD be put under strain though, if you format the micro SD-card in to NTFS. I have an i7 4710MQ laptop. If I write more than 1GB of data on a NTFS-formatted partition the fans run at full strength. Though, I don't see why anyone would use NTFS. Maybe it is formatted as exFAT and there is some strain because of that? FAT32/VFAT has a limit of 8TB, so I don't see why someone would prefer exFAT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah NTFS and Linux don't work great together. The problem with FAT32 is the 4 GiB file size limit which can be a frustrating hindrance since > 4 GiB files are quite common these days. exFAT supports much larger files. Personally I use ext4 on all of my storage. I think it is the best choice if you are predominantly mounting it in Linux.

I use a 200Gb sandisk.

512GB microSD in Galaxy S8

Hi all,
I know Samsung states the max capacity card for the S8 is 256GB but with the prices falling I'm strongly considering a 512GB card.
My current one is a Samsung Evo Plus 256GB card (red and grey version).
The new 512GB Evo Plus (grey one) looks to be faster and has A2 support and under £40 now. Mymemory also suggests it is compatible but unsure if they have actually tested it themselves.
As the S8 supports SDXC and exfat and believed to be UHS-1 bus it looks like the new Samsung Evo Plus 512GB might be good?
I did consider a newer model but not a fan that newer phones don't tend to support storage expansion and it's all cloud now. I like the files on the phone as I back them up at home.
Just wanted to post that out to see whether the 512gb samsung evo may be a good idea?
Many thanks

Not sure if that will work or not. I've read about people using larger than speced memory and it working on other phones.
I use the Sandisk Extreme .5 and 1tb V30 rated cards with my N10+'s. Zero issues. Get write speeds of [email protected] going from internal to card.
Consider upgrading to a N10+, these are fast, capable phones with one one the best displays out there. After this flagship Samsung starts losing it.

blackhawk said:
Not sure if that will work or not. I've read about people using larger than speced memory and it working on other phones.
I use the Sandisk Extreme .5 and 1tb V30 rated cards with my N10+'s. Zero issues. Get write speeds of [email protected] going from internal to card.
Consider upgrading to a N10+, these are fast, capable phones with one one the best displays out there. After this flagship Samsung starts losing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so). I know at some point I'll definitely need to move on when the OS becomes really obsolete, the battery isn't holding charge for long, I have to take power banks with me to get through a day!
I'll check out the N10+ as I think if I wanted a Galaxy with micro SD support the best I'd be looking at is an A53?

martyp78 said:
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume it depends on the default cluster size for exFAT:
7 MB-256 MB4 KB256 MB-32 GB32 KB32 GB-256 TB128 KB
https://support.microsoft.com/topic...nd-exfat-9772e6f1-e31a-00d7-e18f-73169155af95
I think for that reason Android formats sd cards up to 32GB in FAT32 while sd cards 64GB+ are formatted in exFAT. So - in theory - every Android should accept sd cards up to 256TB (cluster size 128KB) as long as min. 64GB is compatible according to the manufacturer.

Excellent thanks, I did wonder if there could be any limitations if it supports exfat and sdxc. I'll hold off from 1tb but might be intrigued if anyone does try that size.

sd card sizes are mostly just recomendations,
i run a 400gb sandisk ultra in my s3 wich oficially supports up to 64gb, only downside is that it takes 15mins to recognize the card, after that everything works as it should, get about 12mb/s out of the card
also run a 512gb samsung card in my a5(2017) wich is specified with up to 256gb supported with no problems

Great, thanks for confirming. Useful also as my other half has an A5(2017) and I also have an S3 and an S5.

martyp78 said:
Thanks blackhawk, I was thinking that their limitation on size was based on what was available for them to test with at the time so maybe couldn't test 512gb at the time of manufacture (2017 or so). I know at some point I'll definitely need to move on when the OS becomes really obsolete, the battery isn't holding charge for long, I have to take power banks with me to get through a day!
I'll check out the N10+ as I think if I wanted a Galaxy with micro SD support the best I'd be looking at is an A53?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could replace the battery, not that big a deal.
Not sure about which of the midrange Samsung's is top of the lot.
The N10+ trumps the new midrange Samsungs except no variable refresh rate display and no 5G (probably should avoid the 5G variant). New N10+'s N975U1 (Android 10) can still be had new from a reliable vendor for $700. PM me if you want his site link. Used used ones for half that price. You may need to replace the battery but it's not a big deal.
The Snapdragon variants (N975U, N975U1) have the best hardware but can't be rooted. They run the fastest and coolest.
Most used ones will be loaded with Android 11 or 12 with the scoped storage nonsense. I prefer Android 9. I have two N10+'s; one running on 9, the newest is running on 10. Android 10 runs ok and scoped storage isn't fully implemented. I bought the second one new in part to avoid Android 11/12.
If you buy used beware of scammers. Use known good vendors only. Test the display with ScreenTest as soon as you get recieve it. The display should be perfect. Then test the cams, spen, connectivity, card slot and so on.
Use a Sandisk Extreme V30 rated card; they're fast and are very reliable.
Use a Zizo Bolt case to protect it otherwise it will get damaged; these are heavy, corner hitting phones.

Excellent, thanks.

martyp78 said:
Excellent, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome. Check out the N10+ forum. There's lots of information there. Also Android 10 no rollback to 9, Android 11 no rollback to 10, however Android 12 probably can be rolled back to 11.
These work horses are just a joy to use. Once optimized they run very well stock, are extremely stable and long lived. The N10+ is exponentially faster than the N9 but the flagships that followed to N10+ don't see that leapfrog speed increase in most real time usage.

I just wanted to report back that I have now replaced the 256GB Samsung Evo Plus in my Galaxy S8 with the 2021 newer 512GB Samsung Evo Plus which is V30.
The tests and details are attached. It seemed to have no problem at all and have recorded Ultra 4K video to it perfectly so pleased with my £32.99 purchase as I was going to pay £42 then the price suddenly dropped by £10 last week...

martyp78 said:
I just wanted to report back that I have now replaced the 256GB Samsung Evo Plus in my Galaxy S8 with the 2021 newer 512GB Samsung Evo Plus which is V30.
The tests and details are attached. It seemed to have no problem at all and have recorded Ultra 4K video to it perfectly so pleased with my £32.99 purchase as I was going to pay £42 then the price suddenly dropped by £10 last week...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.

WoKoschekk said:
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Must admit I'm not too sure, could be an oddity with the app there. It detected it and made it usable straight away although I formatted it in the phone anyway. Then the apps on my phone filled up 7GB of space without me doing anything.
I bought from a well known trusted supplier as I know are loads of fake cards on the market these days.
I'll do some checks and see if I can determine the size correctly.

WoKoschekk said:
Why is screenshot no 1 showing only 477,5GB for the micro SD but 64GB for internal? I've never seen that decimal and binary were mixed up. Aside from that 512GB = 476,84GiB and not 477,5GiB as shown there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
samsung makes it so the internal storage always shows up with the next "full" capacity so 32gb 64gb 128gb etc
size for external media is taken from usable size so after filesystem and all so that may explain the difference there

NigrumTredecim said:
samsung makes it so the internal storage always shows up with the next "full" capacity so 32gb 64gb 128gb etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every storage size on every mobile phone is a multiple of 2, e.g. 2^5 (32GB) or 2^9 (512GB). And a storage overview shows always total/free. Also non-Samsung devices.
NigrumTredecim said:
size for external media is taken from usable size so after filesystem and all so that may explain the difference there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A GUID partition table (gpt) has a header size of 32 blocks (block size = 512). The default start block of the first partition is 2048 (0x100000). This is 1MiB (2048*512=1048576 Byte) unallocated space. No existing file system takes 34,5GB for its partition table.

WoKoschekk said:
Every storage size on every mobile phone is a multiple of 2, e.g. 2^5 (32GB) or 2^9 (512GB). And a storage overview shows always total/free. Also non-Samsung devices.
A GUID partition table (gpt) has a header size of 32 blocks (block size = 512). The default start block of the first partition is 2048 (0x100000). This is 1MiB (2048*512=1048576 Byte) unallocated space. No existing file system takes 34,5GB for its partition table.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes the physical storage is 32GB but samsung shows 32GiB (at least on android 8)
moreso the stock data partition on my phone is only 24gib big
it will also show 512 gb while the /data partition is on an 400gb sd-card (will show 100+gb used even though that storage doesnt exist)
most other phones i had just showed the capacity of /data instead of the full flash memory (so 398gb on that 400gb sd card for example)
sd card in question https://www.amazon.de/SanDisk-Ultra-microSDXC-Speicherkarte-Adapter/dp/B074RNRM2B
conclusion: samsung appears to not read the full flash capacity but appears to just extrapolate the size of /data to the next full capacity instead just showing the missing amount as system storage.

It seems nearly every android has that stupid bug mixing up GB with GiB in storage calculation, that's not only Samsungs failure. the discrepancy is hidden in occupied space for System, as we recently discussed here.
Why is the OS (System) size different for different storage variants of the same device model?
I have seen that the space occupied by 'System' is different for different storage sizes of the same device. My Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra shows space occupied by system as over 50 GB. Mine is the 512 GB variant (Snapdragon). While I don't...
forum.xda-developers.com

NigrumTredecim said:
moreso the stock data partition on my phone is only 24gib big
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is correct since /data is one of many partitions on your storage chip. The size of /data in your internal storage is
32GB - (all other partitions except /data) = /data
The meta data on a sd card occupies not more than a few MB. So the system should always show 512GB of 512GB free storage.
It's quite unusual showing both, GB and GiB in one overview. Apart from that 477,5GiB ≠ 512GB. That's too much.

depends on the person that calculates it. in the two articles in other thread former one mentioned 494 GiB the latter one 476 GiB. 2023 at it's best