quozl at laptop.org
Thu Jul 4 02:19:57 EDT 2013
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
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
More information about the Devel