XO battery/performance

[Yioryos Asprobounitis]

--- On Mon, 5/28/12, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: XO battery/performance
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "OLPC Devel" <devel at lists.laptop.org>
> Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 2:18 PM
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:59 AM,
> Yioryos Asprobounitis
> <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > The test was done is Sugar and during the entire test
> the backlight was on and the "rolling" count output was
> displayed in the terminal activity. The XOs were associated
> with the same AP but no network or other activity was
> running.
> 
> That's a crazy test.

I do not think I claimed a sophisticated test.
Just used what I needed at the time.
The fact that is shows that the XO-1.75 is slower but more efficient than the XO-1.5  does not make it "crazy" nor wrong, if you are able to evaluate it for what it does.
Certainly not worthy of aphorisms 

> 
> If you want an idea of low-level performance, I can suggest
> running LMBench.

Thanks for the advice. If you can point to an lmbench rpm or how to compile it without bitkeeper, by now a commercial software, would be even better.

> 
> For battery performance, you want normal use under battery.

The XOs use 100% CPU, if you do anything with them other than looking at the screen.
I would think that a test that uses 100% cpu is as close to "normal" as it gets when we are talking XO use.

> If you
> want an aggressive, unrealistic, artificial "burn as much
> battery as
> fast as possible", try running "runin" scripts.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> m
> -- 
>  martin.langhoff at gmail.com
>  martin at laptop.org
> -- Software Architect - OLPC
>  - ask interesting questions
>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code
> first
>  - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
>