XO-1.75 relative performance

Tony Anderson tony_anderson at usa.net
Mon Nov 7 09:36:53 EST 2011 

Hi,

I was referring, of course, to the need for a 1GB memory to support the 
3D drivers which appear to be required by the future Fedora releases. 
That sound scary!

Tony


On 11/07/2011 09:10 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Tony Anderson<tony_anderson at usa.net>  wrote:
>> It sounds like the XO-1.75 Sugar will not be operable on XO-1 (and possibly
>> XO-1.5). I assume there is a clear commitment to continue support of Sugar
>> for XO-1 and XO-1.5.
>
> Not sure why you say this. In any case, we (Sugar Labs) plan to
> continue support for XO-1 and XO-1.5 although we hope that over time
> that support is in the form of GTK-3-based systems. All my tests so
> far seem to suggest that things will run OK on the old hardware.
>
> -walter
>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> On 11/07/2011 03:26 AM, devel-request at lists.laptop.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Send Devel mailing list submissions to
>>>         devel at lists.laptop.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>         http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>         devel-request at lists.laptop.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>         devel-owner at lists.laptop.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Devel digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>     1. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Peter Robinson)
>>>     2. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Jon Nettleton)
>>>     3. Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
>>>        (Simon Schampijer)
>>>     4. Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1 (Peter Robinson)
>>>     5. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Peter Robinson)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 22:19:36 +0000
>>> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> To: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
>>>         <devel at lists.laptop.org>
>>> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>>   <CALeDE9PHfDegCJ=seyEecnw-MMrb=VzoLhK9ZiZOhwrfBgcfGw at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are doing some forwards-planing with regards to the XO-1.75. Would
>>>>> you be able to tell us what kind of performance we can expect from the
>>>>> graphics driver that you are working on? Would it support 3D hardware
>>>>> acceleration?
>>>>
>>>> Well yes and no. ?The graphics hardware does support 3d acceleration,
>>>> however currently that is only supported via a binary driver. ?We also
>>>> don't have all the documentation nor man power to write a 3d driver.
>>>> The nouveau team has had 3 to 4 people working full time on a driver
>>>> for almost 4 years and their driver is just getting to a stable usage
>>>> point for desktop compositing.
>>>
>>> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
>>> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>>>
>>>> For a general idea of performance our 3d graphics hardware will run
>>>> Quake3 at native 1200x900 resolution with medium quality graphics at
>>>> about 30fps on average.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are considering working to get GNOME 3 running, but for that to
>>>>> work well we'll need some good graphics capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>>>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>>>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>>>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>>>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>>>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>>>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>>>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>>>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>>>
>>> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
>>> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
>>> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
>>> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
>>> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
>>> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
>>> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>>>
>>>> The bigger concern I have with targeting a compositing window manager
>>>> is the amount of RAM that it needs. ?Every window also has a
>>>> duplicated texture in memory that is used to create the composited
>>>> display. ?Generally gnome-shell will use 100+MB's of RAM just to
>>>> display the desktop, and there is no way to tweak around this by using
>>>> 16-bit colors as everything is an ARGB texture. ?On a machine with 1GB
>>>> of RAM this isn't so bad, but that is a hefty chunk of memory for a
>>>> machine with 512MB's of memory. ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>>>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>>>> graphics engine.
>>>
>>> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
>>> different units?
>>>
>>>> To sum things up. ?Yes the hardware should have the capabilities to
>>>> run gnome-shell, again I say should as it is very untested. ?I would
>>>> not recommend targetting it's use in any future plans unless you have
>>>> GNOME and Xorg hackers lined up to spend a good chunk of time working
>>>> on it.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome_shell_software_rendering
>>> [2] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMTI
>>> [3] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAwNTg
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 17:11:50 -0800
>>> From: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
>>> To: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
>>>         <devel at lists.laptop.org>
>>> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>>   <CALHpu37pCRRV5bRZOWw-a7ib+_OpaSDp-WyvtTx_=rCTAUGJ_A at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>
>>>>
>>>> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
>>>> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>>>
>>> What have you been using it for? Gnome-shell didn't exist back then.
>>> They have been incrementally adding features but it has taken time.  I
>>> have never used nouveau because there has been no power control
>>> features, not something we I can do without.  I am not trying to say
>>> something negative on the project, I just think it is a good barometer
>>> for people to realistically grasp how long it takes to mature modern
>>> graphics drivers without documentation.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>>>>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>>>>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>>>>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>>>>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>>>>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>>>>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>>>>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>>>>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
>>>> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
>>>> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
>>>> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
>>>> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
>>>> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
>>>> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>>>
>>> Is this argument for or against GNOME 3?  You point out a lot of
>>> libraries that require clutter, but none that are hard dependencies of
>>> GNOME.  I understand a lot of projects are dependant on clutter, but
>>> none are hard dependencies of the GNOME project.
>>>
>>> The use of software rendering via llvm is great, but unfortunately
>>> that is targeted at modern multi-core processors that have cycles to
>>> spare.  This does not target at the limited resources an XO has
>>> available.
>>>
>>>>> ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>>>>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>>>>> graphics engine.
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
>>>> different units?
>>>
>>> Not that I have heard but we will see.  Regardless I don't see any
>>> justification that would suggest we should target gnome-shell as a
>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> I understand the push to proliferate GNOME, however as Linus and many
>>> other GNOME expatriates have emphasized it is not the right fit for
>>> everyone.   I have been a gnome-shell contributor and propenent from
>>> early on, but I can' t suggest it is a good alternative for limited
>>> resource computers, when it continually fails me on my quad-core
>>> desktop with a top of the line video card, which I originally ran the
>>> nouveau drivers on but had to switch to the binary nvidia drivers
>>> because it ran the fan at 100% the entire time.
>>>
>>> -Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:38:23 +0100
>>> From: Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
>>> To: devel at lists.laptop.org
>>> Subject: Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
>>> Message-ID:<4EB78AEF.5010400 at schampijer.de>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> On 11/04/2011 09:45 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Martin,
>>>> In 11.3.0 a few activities didn't include translations because of
>>>> problems
>>>> with packaging of the activities.
>>>> Probably will be a good idea update these activities.
>>>> I can prepare a list of recommended activities if you want.
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> Are those really critical items?  I would only do the really really must
>>> do changes besides any 1.75 bug fixes. Because (a) this release should
>>> be only about bug fixes in my opinion and (b) preparing/testing/shipping
>>> this takes time away from our new dev cycle.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>      Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:36 +0000
>>> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> To: Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
>>> Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org
>>> Subject: Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>>   <CALeDE9O5thCj7WcfUnK+aAg8KhSUecwSrh9MYONXQQDjmfpxTg at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2011 09:45 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin,
>>>>> In 11.3.0 a few activities didn't include translations because of
>>>>> problems
>>>>> with packaging of the activities.
>>>>> Probably will be a good idea update these activities.
>>>>> I can prepare a list of recommended activities if you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>
>>>> Are those really critical items? ?I would only do the really really must
>>>> do
>>>> changes besides any 1.75 bug fixes. Because (a) this release should be
>>>> only
>>>> about bug fixes in my opinion and (b) preparing/testing/shipping this
>>>> takes
>>>> time away from our new dev cycle.
>>>
>>> I think translation updates should be OK but only in the form of
>>> translations in a dot release of the existing version of Activities we
>>> ship.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:27:24 +0000
>>> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> To: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
>>>         <devel at lists.laptop.org>
>>> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>>   <CALeDE9Owu1ttnAaSwyGZFyk1aTc-edgECieOogG+C+WH32u8Aw at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
>>>>> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>>>>
>>>> What have you been using it for? Gnome-shell didn't exist back then.
>>>> They have been incrementally adding features but it has taken time. ?I
>>>> have never used nouveau because there has been no power control
>>>> features, not something we I can do without. ?I am not trying to say
>>>> something negative on the project, I just think it is a good barometer
>>>> for people to realistically grasp how long it takes to mature modern
>>>> graphics drivers without documentation.
>>>
>>> Actually it did! It was the first release that Fedora has it in there
>>> [1] , I packaged all the dependencies [2] as I packaged Moblin 2. It
>>> worked fine for the testing of Moblin although as you mention the
>>> power management was limited. My point still remains it was usable a
>>> lot earlier than the 3-4 years you mentioned. They've also had to
>>> reverse engineer it without any form of documentation.
>>>
>>> The gnome team are working for a minimal subset of implemented
>>> features for less capable cards so they run faster using SW rendering.
>>> See some of the links I provided previously.
>>>
>>>>>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>>>>>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>>>>>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>>>>>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>>>>>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>>>>>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>>>>>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>>>>>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>>>>>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
>>>>> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
>>>>> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
>>>>> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
>>>>> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
>>>>> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
>>>>> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>>>>
>>>> Is this argument for or against GNOME 3? ?You point out a lot of
>>>> libraries that require clutter, but none that are hard dependencies of
>>>> GNOME. ?I understand a lot of projects are dependant on clutter, but
>>>> none are hard dependencies of the GNOME project.
>>>
>>> No, its not an argument about gnome 3. Its to point out that
>>> gnome-shell isn't the only bit of gnome-shell that uses/requires
>>> 3D/OpenGL GPU functionality. totem is one of them that we use.
>>>
>>>> The use of software rendering via llvm is great, but unfortunately
>>>> that is targeted at modern multi-core processors that have cycles to
>>>> spare. ?This does not target at the limited resources an XO has
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> I don't disagree, my point is though that this is the way the gnome
>>> project is going and that its likely fallback mode will soon
>>> disappear.
>>>
>>>>>> ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>>>>>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>>>>>> graphics engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
>>>>> different units?
>>>>
>>>> Not that I have heard but we will see. ?Regardless I don't see any
>>>> justification that would suggest we should target gnome-shell as a
>>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> I'm staying we should target gnome-shell, my point is that if we want
>>> to keep using the gnome desktop in upcoming releases we might not have
>>> a choice. Read the previous links and you'll actually see the details
>>> of the point that I raised.
>>>
>>>> I understand the push to proliferate GNOME, however as Linus and many
>>>> other GNOME expatriates have emphasized it is not the right fit for
>>>> everyone. ? I have been a gnome-shell contributor and propenent from
>>>> early on, but I can' t suggest it is a good alternative for limited
>>>> resource computers, when it continually fails me on my quad-core
>>>> desktop with a top of the line video card, which I originally ran the
>>>> nouveau drivers on but had to switch to the binary nvidia drivers
>>>> because it ran the fan at 100% the entire time.
>>>
>>> I'm not and have never said its the right and only desktop. On the
>>> flip side I've not had many issues with gnome-shell in the F-15/16
>>> timeframe and regularly will suspend/resume my laptop for weeks on end
>>> without issues now. Moblin/Meego ran quite happily on my original atom
>>> netbook which is of similar vintage and speed as the XO 1.5 without
>>> massive issues. I have no doubt issues with some nouveau cards is
>>> largely due to they are reverse engineered. The ATI and Intel GPUs
>>> which have published docs don't seem to have nearly the amount of
>>> issues on the NV based one.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/12/Everything/source/SRPMS/gnome-shell-2.28.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
>>> [2]
>>> http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/12/Everything/source/SRPMS/mutter-2.28.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Devel mailing list
>>> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>>
>>> End of Devel Digest, Vol 69, Issue 11
>>> *************************************
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
>

More information about the Devel mailing list