There appears to be widespread obsession with storing everything possible on a phone's SD card. I've read Android (I have 8.1 Oreo) uses an SD card formatted "internal" not "portable" the same as the factory-built internal memory. What difference does it make if the non-removable factory-built "internal memory" fills up? Supposedly, it doesn't make any difference to Android.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Why the obsession with storing everything to SD card?
- Thread starter LSMFT
- Start date
svim
Extreme Android User
A microSD card as is, will have a FAT32 or exFAT file system, allowing it be used as a transfer media to other devices running different operating systems. You can always just leave it in your mobile device and just use it as added storage media, or you can add/remove it to transfer files back and forth to different devices.
But when you format a card as internal (a.k.a adoptable) the file system is changed from FAT to ext4, the same file system as what the internal storage of your phone is set up as. It's also encrypted, with the encryption key tying the card to your mobile device. At that point, that card is essentially a part of your phone, the internal storage and card storage are considered to be one by the Android OS running on your phone. You know longer interact with that card, you can't specifically copy just certain files to it, it's all now managed by your phone.
If you remove the card without going through the process of reformatting it back to external, your phone will be running in an unstable state as you've intentionally taken a part of its storage away. Also, because of that encryption, that card can't be used with any other device anyway. If you put it in a PC for instance, it cannot mount the card because the encryption prevents that. You can however go through the reformatting process back to external, that'll return it back to a FAT file system, and nullify the encryption so the card can be used as a compatible transfer media again.
But to answer your question, yes it does make a big difference.
But when you format a card as internal (a.k.a adoptable) the file system is changed from FAT to ext4, the same file system as what the internal storage of your phone is set up as. It's also encrypted, with the encryption key tying the card to your mobile device. At that point, that card is essentially a part of your phone, the internal storage and card storage are considered to be one by the Android OS running on your phone. You know longer interact with that card, you can't specifically copy just certain files to it, it's all now managed by your phone.
If you remove the card without going through the process of reformatting it back to external, your phone will be running in an unstable state as you've intentionally taken a part of its storage away. Also, because of that encryption, that card can't be used with any other device anyway. If you put it in a PC for instance, it cannot mount the card because the encryption prevents that. You can however go through the reformatting process back to external, that'll return it back to a FAT file system, and nullify the encryption so the card can be used as a compatible transfer media again.
But to answer your question, yes it does make a big difference.
svim,
Thank you for your very thorough answer. Formatting adoptable as you described it is exactly what I want, i.e., like Ronco's Showtime Rotisserie I just want to 'set it and forget it' because I have no interest or need to move files via removable storage. My concern is for possible problems that adoptable formatting might cause. For instance, I've heard that some apps and/or data cannot be installed or saved to an adoptable-formatted SD card, and that they somehow "know" the difference between adoptable storage and the phone's native internal storage even though Oreo supposedly treats both the same as one big block of internal storage. In that case, when the native internal memory is full some apps might not install or run if there's no room in the native internal storage. I don't know if that and other similar issues are true or not. I don't care where anything is stored, I just want the phone to work without problems because of arcane technical issues that non-techie consumers like me don't want to deal with. Even with my adoptable formatted SD card some installers prompt me where to install (internal or external) and some don't offer that choice. Maybe this technology is still so immature that uneven implementation of it is the norm rather than the exception.
Thank you for your very thorough answer. Formatting adoptable as you described it is exactly what I want, i.e., like Ronco's Showtime Rotisserie I just want to 'set it and forget it' because I have no interest or need to move files via removable storage. My concern is for possible problems that adoptable formatting might cause. For instance, I've heard that some apps and/or data cannot be installed or saved to an adoptable-formatted SD card, and that they somehow "know" the difference between adoptable storage and the phone's native internal storage even though Oreo supposedly treats both the same as one big block of internal storage. In that case, when the native internal memory is full some apps might not install or run if there's no room in the native internal storage. I don't know if that and other similar issues are true or not. I don't care where anything is stored, I just want the phone to work without problems because of arcane technical issues that non-techie consumers like me don't want to deal with. Even with my adoptable formatted SD card some installers prompt me where to install (internal or external) and some don't offer that choice. Maybe this technology is still so immature that uneven implementation of it is the norm rather than the exception.
aio developers
Android Enthusiast
AND also format as internal mount the SDcard and phone storage together like merging
but format as portable seprate it from the dev/block
but format as portable seprate it from the dev/block
<< much quality stuff snipped >>
Want to hear something funny? I don't think I ever knew that. If I did...I forgot.
As a Linux-only person, and with Android being a Linux, it never occurred to me that anything in an Android device would utilize something from the window$ world.
I guess I assumed that any storage media would be formatted with one of the then-current Linux file systems, such as ext3 or ext4.
Learn something new everyday!
Excellent post, @svim.
Thing is not all manufacturers include it in their devices. I know Samsung and Huawei don't. I've got a Galaxy S7 and a Mate 10, both with Oreo 8.1, and neither of which has this feature.
I didn't know that, and your comment pretty much answers my original question. My 8.1 Oreo is also branded as an "Android One" version of Android which is advertised as being Android as Google wrote it without anything added or deleted. It makes sense that if your SD card can be formatted only as "portable" it makes a big difference where you choose to store apps and data.
svim
Extreme Android User
Part of the problem you may be having is related to your belief that once a microSD card is formatted as internal, you no longer have ANY interaction with it. You can no longer choose to specifically install anything to either internal nor external because there will be only one option, internal. You can no longer transfer files back and forth between your card and your phone's internal storage nor with external devices because you no longer can manage any actions with it. It's not a matter of the technology being immature, you just need to re-adjust your thinking on it works from a fundamental basis.
Also, keep in mind that as @mikedt mentioned, adaptable storage is not supported by some manufacturers. It's not necessarily a matter of which version of Android you happen to be running, some manufacturers simply disable its functionality across their entire product line, while some include it only in some models so it really is just a matter of which particular phone model you own.
svim
Extreme Android User
Back in the 90's the USB-IF (USB Implementers Forum, the board with determines USB standards) wanted to standardize all USB media on a common file system, the concept being any USB device will have compatibility with as many operating systems as possible. Microsoft being a member of that board unquestionably had some influence on that decision to use its FAT file system. So even now, even if one is running a Linux, a Mac, or a Windows box, all their USB gadgetry with storage media -- GoPro cameras, SD cards, Garmin GPS, etc. -- can be used with a minimum of hassle (occasional driver issues and such).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Implementers_Forum
Of course FAT and all its variants are old and Microsoft stopped supporting them years ago. It's out of date, unreliable (back in its day it was only a marginally acceptable file system, even more so now), and has notably crappy support for modern-day file and folder metadata. Add its age and that its also proprietary, fixing it doesn't appear to be an option either. So its a blessing (widespread compatibility) but it's also a curse (stability and reliable issues).
As for Linux distros being able to include support for something like code for proprietary FAT, there's a lot of kluges involved, including restrictions to file name length and avoiding file attributes relative to specific FAT-based patents owned by Microsoft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_filesystem_and_Linux
If you recall back in late 90's MS was suing TomTom over this very issue. But TomTom eventually just settled, the monetary issues involved with fighting a corporation as big as MS were just too daunting.
https://arstechnica.com/information...omtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device/