XO-1(.75)

[James Cameron]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:03:17PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>
> > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: OLPC Devel <devel at lists.laptop.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >> 
> >>  > From: James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>
> >>  > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> >>  > Cc: OLPC Devel <devel at lists.laptop.org>
> >>  > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
> >>  > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >>  > 
> >>  > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  >>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a 
> > sense of
> >>  >>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) 
> > XO-1
> >>  >>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
> >>  >>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
> >>  > 
> >>  > Since some general performance work was done between those software
> >>  > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
> >>  > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
> >>  > depending on what you are looking to prove.
> >> 
> >>  This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear
> >>  that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
> > 
> > Yes, it does seem that way.  I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and
> > felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my
> > XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me.
> > 
> >>  What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the
> >>  inconsistency.
> > 
> > I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was
> > unmatched to begin with.  Variables you changed included overclocking,
> > the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel,
> > the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC
> > utilities, and Sugar.  All I can draw from the results is that you
> > changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different.
> 
> But this is exactly the point!
> When a _lot_ of things are changing and you have two groups of
> activities one going one way and the other  the opposite, you look
> for the "least common denominator" that will hopefully point to the
> problem (this is is a very common approach in multi-variable
> problems).

Oh good, now I understand.

> 
> > 
> >>  They might point to specific stacks in the
> >>  architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally
> >>  thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or
> >>  proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I
> >>  know ;).
> >>  Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or
> >>  anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.
> > 
> > We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance
> > problems on the old hardware.  It requires quite a depth of knowledge
> > and a lot of time.  It isn't something that we can justify a huge
> > investment in.
> > 
> 
> I would think that the performance of newer hardware may be the one
> that needs attention but certainly can not prioritize it (unless if
> XO-1.75 classifies under "older" by now). 

XO-1.75 and XO-4 are current, but XO-1.5 and XO-1 are old.

We are certainly interested in any ways to make clear performance
improvements on XO-1.75 and XO-4.

We are also interested in the same for XO-1.5 and XO-1, but my guess
is that the number of people who will immediately benefit may be much
lower.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/