mavrothal at yahoo.com
Mon May 28 16:43:18 EDT 2012
--- 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>
> > 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
> 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.
> martin.langhoff at gmail.com
> martin at laptop.org
> -- Software Architect - OLPC
> - ask interesting questions
> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code
> - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
More information about the Devel