Root Dalvik-Cache: Fatal design flaw or just boneheaded oversight?

[Tempusfugit]

Congratulations, you spent an entire day arguing on the internet. Don't you feel accomplished?

No, he won't be happy til he gets your skype number, he already said that. He's a REALLY bored troll. REALLY REALLY bored.

 

[FalconFour]

You don't understand suspended apps....

and re:linking your name in google.. Wow, you copied hiren, congrats. Guess what we use at work? Hirens, not falconfour.. lol

*shrug* your loss, I built F4UBCD to be a massive extension to HBCD... and actually a near-complete rewrite that's just *built on* the HBCD framework. You're free to use it, or you're free to baselessly mock it, either way it's there for the public. Haven't yet had a single user tell me HBCD is "better". No loss for me.

As for suspended apps, yes I do understand suspended apps. They lay dormant in RAM, are moved off to cache when they're not needed, they basically stay out of the way. Unless they're apps that perform some routine function. In which case they may constantly call themselves to the foreground. And without a task killer, there's no way to actually tell them to "please go away". I'm not talking scheduled killers either - those are evil. I'm talking about a button I can push to "regain control of my phone's memory, please". A giant X-button. That's what I use a task killer for, and every time I do use it, I see nothing but benefits: helps save some battery life from juggling all those "suspended" apps, improves immediate performance, and gives me peace of mind. Saves me from a reboot. Zero negative side-effects. Again, I ask: what's the DOWNside of a task killer? There are a million reasons task-killers AREN'T needed... but can anyone name a single thing task-killers HARM?

 

[inception]

*shrug* your loss, I built F4UBCD to be a massive extension to HBCD... and actually a near-complete rewrite that's just *built on* the HBCD framework. You're free to use it, or you're free to baselessly mock it, either way it's there for the public. Haven't yet had a single user tell me HBCD is "better". No loss for me.

As for suspended apps, yes I do understand suspended apps. They lay dormant in RAM, are moved off to cache when they're not needed, they basically stay out of the way. Unless they're apps that perform some routine function. In which case they may constantly call themselves to the foreground. And without a task killer, there's no way to actually tell them to "please go away". I'm not talking scheduled killers either - those are evil. I'm talking about a button I can push to "regain control of my phone's memory, please". A giant X-button. That's what I use a task killer for, and every time I do use it, I see nothing but benefits: helps save some battery life from juggling all those "suspended" apps, improves immediate performance, and gives me peace of mind. Saves me from a reboot. Zero negative side-effects. Again, I ask: what's the DOWNside of a task killer? There are a million reasons task-killers AREN'T needed... but can anyone name a single thing task-killers HARM?

Your battery life.

 

[Afteraffekt]

*shrug* your loss, I built F4UBCD to be a massive extension to HBCD... and actually a near-complete rewrite that's just *built on* the HBCD framework. You're free to use it, or you're free to baselessly mock it, either way it's there for the public. Haven't yet had a single user tell me HBCD is "better". No loss for me.

As for suspended apps, yes I do understand suspended apps. They lay dormant in RAM, are moved off to cache when they're not needed, they basically stay out of the way. Unless they're apps that perform some routine function. In which case they may constantly call themselves to the foreground. And without a task killer, there's no way to actually tell them to "please go away". I'm not talking scheduled killers either - those are evil. I'm talking about a button I can push to "regain control of my phone's memory, please". A giant X-button. That's what I use a task killer for, and every time I do use it, I see nothing but benefits: helps save some battery life from juggling all those "suspended" apps, improves immediate performance, and gives me peace of mind. Saves me from a reboot. Zero negative side-effects. Again, I ask: what's the DOWNside of a task killer? There are a million reasons task-killers AREN'T needed... but can anyone name a single thing task-killers HARM?

A Task killer closes an app, the task killer doesnt get all of the app, only the core, the branches stay, where as the app would delete all the branches. so those parts the task killer dont get are left behind. Its like pulling a Thumb Drive out of the USB port while writing data. Say hello to corruption and data loss

 

[FalconFour]

No, he won't be happy til he gets your skype number, he already said that. He's a REALLY bored troll. REALLY REALLY bored.

I don't even understand how you get the "troll" perception here. Far as I can tell, there are plenty of trolls in this topic, but I have yet to post a single "just trying to get a rise out of people" statement. The only thing I did in OP was post about an issue in Android that has even been confirmed by the members in this very topic... just, somehow... without knowing that they're stating confirmation of what they're arguing against.

This topic has me very frustratingly confused, but certainly not just "a bored troll"... hell, if it were up to me I'd just close this tab and forget about the topic. This topic is like, Fukushima Daiichi-style, critical-mass nuclear accident material... all the best intentions, gone completely out of control. And I think I'm about ready to just bury it in sand and pray for few ill effects...

 

[inception]

I don't even understand how you get the "troll" perception here. Far as I can tell, there are plenty of trolls in this topic, but I have yet to post a single "just trying to get a rise out of people" statement. The only thing I did in OP was post about an issue in Android that has even been confirmed by the members in this very topic... just, somehow... without knowing that they're stating confirmation of what they're arguing against.

This topic has me very frustratingly confused, but certainly not just "a bored troll"... hell, if it were up to me I'd just close this tab and forget about the topic. This topic is like, Fukushima Daiichi-style, critical-mass nuclear accident material... all the best intentions, gone completely out of control. And I think I'm about ready to just bury it in sand and pray for few ill effects...

please read. goodbye.

 

[FalconFour]

Your battery life.

See, it's just stuff like this that has me keeping the tab open... I just can't resist replying to total bogus claims. Because somehow, the replies in this topic lead me to believe that the "general public" would actually believe them, as opposed to having a functional "BS-filter"... thus far I have seen a lot of malfunctioning BS-filters in this topic, usually aimed in my direction.

Ending all background tasks has absolutely zero possibility of decreasing battery life... I mean... just, how can a random assump--... oh, right, this topic. No, a task killer ends the tasks that keep partial-waking the phone to perform unwanted background tasks. It keeps the phone asleep when you want it to be asleep, resulting in improved battery life. There's zero way that tapping "end all background tasks" can reduce battery life. Moving on...

 

[Tempusfugit]

See, it's just stuff like this that has me keeping the tab open... I just can't resist replying to total bogus claims. Because somehow, the replies in this topic lead me to believe that the "general public" would actually believe them, as opposed to having a functional "BS-filter"... thus far I have seen a lot of malfunctioning BS-filters in this topic, usually aimed in my direction.

Ending all background tasks has absolutely zero possibility of decreasing battery life... I mean... just, how can a random assump--... oh, right, this topic. No, a task killer ends the tasks that keep partial-waking the phone to perform unwanted background tasks. It keeps the phone asleep when you want it to be asleep, resulting in improved battery life. There's zero way that tapping "end all background tasks" can reduce battery life. Moving on...

You don't understand suspended apps.....


The battery drain comes when Android restarts the app, just to suspend it, the way it should have been... lol



edit: and you're a troll because multiple people have spelled out what you are completely wrong about with dalvik cache, and you completely ignore it, and continue to spout nonsense. You cite one phone(a dinosaur btw), and claim that's the way every phone works. Dalvik-cache was an amazing innovation, and android probably wouldn't be here without it.

 

[FalconFour]

You don't understand suspended apps.....

The battery drain comes when Android restarts the app, just to suspend it, the way it should have been... lol

So you're saying that the 1-2 seconds that it might, theoretically, take to retrieve the suspended app and terminate it, could be considered "battery drain"? I'm talking like, "end background tasks"... maybe 1-2 seconds of battery drain ... check tasks list, bam, no more suspended apps (they are all now only residing as cached compiled apps in the D-C folder, no longer in memory)... that's "battery drain"? Or could you explain how I'm wrong here? I might be missing your point... from what I see, I "end background tasks", and bam, only the apps I want open are left in the background, the rest are purged from active and cached (standby) memory. Am I not interpreting that right?

 

[Tempusfugit]

So you're saying that the 1-2 seconds that it might, theoretically, take to retrieve the suspended app and terminate it, could be considered "battery drain"? I'm talking like, "end background tasks"... maybe 1-2 seconds of battery drain ... check tasks list, bam, no more suspended apps (they are all now only residing as cached compiled apps in the D-C folder, no longer in memory)... that's "battery drain"? Or could you explain how I'm wrong here? I might be missing your point... from what I see, I "end background tasks", and bam, only the apps I want open are left in the background, the rest are purged from active and cached (standby) memory. Am I not interpreting that right?

Is english your first language? Restart and terminate are kind of opposites...

Your task killer is going against what Android wants.

Android will restart most apps the task killer ends.
Then the task killer kills it.
Android will restart most apps the task killer ends.
Then the task killer kills it.
Android will restart most apps the task killer ends.
Then the task killer kills it.
Android will restart most apps the task killer ends.
Then the task killer kills it.

Do we see battery drain yet?

 

[FalconFour]

edit: and you're a troll because multiple people have spelled out what you are completely wrong about with dalvik cache, and you completely ignore it, and continue to spout nonsense. You cite one phone(a dinosaur btw), and claim that's the way every phone works. Dalvik-cache was an amazing innovation, and android probably wouldn't be here without it.

It's less than a year old, hardly a "dinosaur", and this is the forum for aforementioned "dinosaur" as well, so that's hardly relevant. Also, nobody has spelled out a single thing I'm wrong about involving Dalvik-Cache, particularly in regards to its lack of limits... I've actually directly disproven the claim of "only grows when apps are installed" (I just took a photo proof too, shall I post it?)... pretty much every relevant point of my original post goes untouched. I'm not ignoring them... actually, I'm still begging someone to actually attack a single one of the points I made in OP - OTHER than the task killer crap, which has been beaten to death already - actually, screw it, I'm not going to reply to any further task killer-related statements. Just focus on Dalvik-Cache, and can someone please tell me a single thing I was incorrect about in OP?

edit: Ok, OK, one last thing. *holds forehead* No, most apps I terminate don't auto-start, they're accumulated apps I've launched over the course of the day/week. I've watched the list. I've studied its behavior. I've excluded apps that just get re-launched (dialer, email, etc). And I DO NOT USE a scheduled task-killer that would constantly re-load those apps. I'm using a manual task-killer. On demand. I'm not an idiot. And are you seriously asking me if English is my first language? Really? I just... no, OK, I'm done. Dalvik-cache. That's the topic here. Dalvik-cache.

 

[inception]

It's less than a year old, hardly a "dinosaur", and this is the forum for aforementioned "dinosaur" as well, so that's hardly relevant. Also, nobody has spelled out a single thing I'm wrong about involving Dalvik-Cache, particularly in regards to its lack of limits... I've actually directly disproven the claim of "only grows when apps are installed" (I just took a photo proof too, shall I post it?)... pretty much every relevant point of my original post goes untouched. I'm not ignoring them... actually, I'm still begging someone to actually attack a single one of the points I made in OP - OTHER than the task killer crap, which has been beaten to death already - actually, screw it, I'm not going to reply to any further task killer-related statements. Just focus on Dalvik-Cache, and can someone please tell me a single thing I was incorrect about in OP?

edit: Ok, OK, one last thing. *holds forehead* No, most apps I terminate don't auto-start, they're accumulated apps I've launched over the course of the day/week. I've watched the list. I've studied its behavior. I've excluded apps that just get re-launched (dialer, email, etc). And I DO NOT USE a scheduled task-killer that would constantly re-load those apps. I'm using a manual task-killer. On demand. I'm not an idiot. And are you seriously asking me if English is my first language? Really? I just... no, OK, I'm done. Dalvik-cache. That's the topic here. Dalvik-cache.

Okay. Well. Without Dalvik-cache, there would be no Android. It has no limits. It compiles it's own files. It huge. Deal with it. Want to know why? Because you really shouldn't care. It's a crucial part to the OS, and it's freaking genius. You need to learn to deal with it.

 

[Tempusfugit]

It's less than a year old, hardly a "dinosaur", and this is the forum for aforementioned "dinosaur" as well, so that's hardly relevant.

Oh, I've read the troubleshooting ally forum, its definitely relevant. Carrier software is usually what people are actually whining about when they have something bad to say about Android.

Also, nobody has spelled out a single thing I'm wrong about involving Dalvik-Cache, particularly in regards to its lack of limits... I've actually directly disproven the claim of "only grows when apps are installed" (I just took a photo proof too, shall I post it?)...

You've disproven nothing. My dalvik cache has remained the exact same size for weeks when I don't install applications.

Go ahead and post your link, but then that's one phone with who knows what bad apps on it.

Just focus on Dalvik-Cache, and can someone please tell me a single thing I was incorrect about in OP?

Sure, it doesn't grow unchecked, the partition doesn't matter, user doesn't need to see it. Size is irrelevant - phone manufacturers knew how big it is/would get and should have made the phone capable of handling it. (this is where phone matters)

 

[FalconFour]

I'm talking about D-C growing unchecked, as in when apps are updated, installed, removed, etc. Unchecked as in the OS enforces no limits on it, so, despite being a "cache", it only writes new files to itself, it never cleans out old or unused cache files. It can re-generate them the moment they're needed, but it doesn't. Basically, the problem is, it keeps stale data lingering around the phone, unused, unwanted, and unable to delete without wiping the phone.

Also, as for size being irrelevant, why don't you go take a look at the size of your data/dalvik-cache folder, and size it next to your data/app folder? Can you explain why dalvik-cache is so much larger than the apps it's supposedly "caching"?

Things I agree with, and hence am not arguing:

• that dalvik-cache is useful
• that dalvik-cache can be cleaned up
• that dalvik-cache is essential
• that dalvik-cache is large
• that dalvik-cache caches every installed apk file
• that dalvik-cache does not grow without user interaction, i.e. installing & launching a new app

This is what I have seen people mention, and am trying to explain against:

• that dalvik-cache grows even with no third party (user) apps installed (it creates cache files for system components as well, and those files exist in user-space)
• that dalvik-cache does not maintain itself, and will continually grow with every new app installed, and grows with every first-time-launched system app launched as well.

These are the things that have yet to be addressed by any reply in this topic (quote it if I'm wrong):

• that dalvik-cache has no limits, so it can eat up as much user-space as it wants
• that dalvik-cache does not clean up idle entries that haven't been activated in a long time (which could easily be re-generated if the app is launched)
• that dalvik-cache is a conflict of user-mode data space, being an "invisible" and un-editable data space that cannot be pruned or cleaned-up using any non-root utility

Objections?

 

[Tempusfugit]

Also, as for size being irrelevant, why don't you go take a look at the size of your data/dalvik-cache folder, and size it next to your data/app folder? Can you explain why dalvik-cache is so much larger than the apps it's supposedly "caching"?

Considering I moved my dalvik-cache to /cache, which has been resized to 140 MB, and I have ~300 mb of apps installed, I don't think it is....


edit: Have you even checked more than one phone? Or is this whole diatribe based on your experiences with ONE phone?

 

[FalconFour]

Considering I moved my dalvik-cache to /cache, which has been resized to 140 MB, and I have ~300 mb of apps installed, I don't think it is....

I'm talking about standard functionality here. I have dalvik-cache on /cache as well (where it belongs, IMO), but this topic is addressing the flaw that caused you to move the folder in the first place. Why did you move it? I think I know why, but I just would like you to type it out, if you wouldn't mind...

Also, it's great that you have ~300mb of space to install apps in, but the fact that the Ally has about 150mb of total user-mode storage (/Data), and can't be resized even if I wanted to, in order to delete unwanted stuff from the system (that I know of?)... that's where this problem comes into play. No matter what your opinion is of a phone with only ~150mb of /data, the fact is, it wouldn't be a problem if Dalvik-Cache would maintain itself as a "cache" instead of as a "folder of compiled apps".

Still doesn't address any point in my tally so far...

edit re edit: I don't own any other Android phone... sadly, I'm not a rich phone-collector. I know 99% of the phones on the market have better specs than my Ally. So no, I don't know if this same behavior exists on any other phone. That's why this is posted in the Ally forum.

 

[KingOfGreen]

If you dont root your phone, the files associated with the application WILL be deleted when you uninsttall. Simple as that as stated in savoxis' first post!

And for the task killers, download better apps and learn how to manage them to be to your liking and leave the OS to do its thing. Rather then closing and reopening the apps youre killing with a task killer.

How often do you see people with stick phones freaking out because they delete apps and dont get space back?
Well im wastin my breath! Just wanted in on the action! Haha but if you didnt get it before, well then theres no hope for you. Im sorry! Wow this was crazy!

 

[Tempusfugit]

I'm talking about standard functionality here. I have dalvik-cache on /cache as well (where it belongs, IMO), but this topic is addressing the flaw that caused you to move the folder in the first place. Why did you move it? I think I know why, but I just would like you to type it out, if you wouldn't mind...

Also, it's great that you have ~300mb of space to install apps in, but the fact that the Ally has about 150mb of total user-mode storage (/Data), and can't be resized even if I wanted to, in order to delete unwanted stuff from the system (that I know of?)... that's where this problem comes into play. No matter what your opinion is of a phone with only ~150mb of /data, the fact is, it wouldn't be a problem if Dalvik-Cache would maintain itself as a "cache" instead of as a "folder of compiled apps".

Still doesn't address any point in my tally so far...

I did it because its fun to mess with my phone, and I like having 300 mb FREE on my internal memory, without A2SD.

It works that way on every phone. YOu are probably the only person with a phone where dalvik cache > user apps

 

[FalconFour]

I did it because its fun to mess with my phone, and I like having 300 mb FREE on my internal memory, without A2SD.

It works that way on every phone. YOu are probably the only person with a phone where dalvik cache > user apps

Exactly, because you want more free space on your internal memory... your memory. Not the system's memory... especially when an app you install says it's going to take "2MB", but it really takes 4MB because of its Dalvik-Cache entry.

Simply put, the flaw is, dalvik-cache eats up a fixed amount of user-memory for every app installed, without notifying the user, and without providing the user with any way to clean up this cache.

Take it or leave it, but this is my final comment in this thankfully-now-slightly-more-sane topic:
The dalvik-cache folder is a cache folder. It generates caches of applications (apk files) that are run on the device. Since these entries are generated on demand, the dalvik-cache should be maintained by the OS at a user- or OS-configured size limit, and prune unused (least-recently-accessed) entries to maintain that size limit. If that application is launched after the cache file is removed, it will simply re-generate the cache file - expected behavior for a rarely-used app. It should not store cache files for rarely-accessed applications in the same way that it stores frequently-used and system applications. And finally, this cache folder should be located outside of user-space, on the "cache" partition, so the user has full control over the data on his or her device. These issues all come to light on low-spec-but-otherwise-useful devices such as the LG Ally, which would not have such a serious storage limitation if not for dalvik-cache.

If anyone wants to argue a single one of the points in the above paragraph, I politely ask that you quote the relevant statement and stay on topic, as to avoid the complete clusterf**k that started off this thread.

And with that final statement, I'm adding a link to this post to OP, and closing this tab... might check back later, but I'm tired of arguing, and I think I covered every possible argument in the above statement, so that should put an end to this crazy debate (and related trolling by folks like xavierdarkness - yes, I see you, and no, you're not effective).

 

[ccsoccer03]

So what I've learned how to do in this thread is this:

1. How to gain attention by all the devs/moderators
2. How to make a complete idiot of myself
3. How not to approach something I dont understand by making huge mindless rants about something as small as Dalvik-Cache.( There are far more important things in life to get worked up over)
4. That some people will never be satisfied with the correct answer, no matter how you word it
5. And finally, that there will always be at least that one guy who just wants to argue with you, just so he can win.

 

[dautley]

Whats the point of arguing about how the Android OS operates when nothing anyone says or does in this thread is going to change a thing? FalconFour, you say your rooted so wipe or clean your dalvik cache 5,6,7,8,9 times a day if you want to. Want to use a task killer? make sure you have it set to load at boot and set it up to kill task on the most aggressive setting it has. Its your phone do with it what you will.
There we go, problem solved? No? I did say "Whats the point of arguing about how the Android OS operates when nothing anyone says or does in this thread is going to change a thing?" didn't I? there you go.....

With that out of the way I will say this thread is useless and should be locked. Any Mods want to take me up on it?

 

[AssertiveBard]

Agreed. He very well may have valid points on the issue that he has raised. He is adamant enough about it that he has provided more information in his posts than anyone else here to the contrary.

Why don't we debate something that can actually be acted upon? Like whether or not to use a TK?

 

[Slug]

I think all has been said that needs to be said, by everyone.